Trump and Amtrak/Budget cutting funding

[JoeBas]

Point

====

Head

 

[A Voice]

If the flyover/rural states want their trains so much, why don't their state DOT's pay for them instead of the rest of us paying for them? I'm more worried about Ohio, Texas, and Florida losing Amtrak service than North Dakota.

Not a practical suggestion, for one. Long-distance trains pass through multiple states, and you could never consistently get all of them to agree on payments, level of service, routes, schedule, or pretty much anything regarding interstate passenger rail, which is properly a federal responsibility. Individual states look out primarily for their own interests, but long-distance travel is a national interest.

 

[AmtrakBlue]

If the flyover/rural states want their trains so much, why don't their state DOT's pay for them instead of the rest of us paying for them? I'm more worried about Ohio, Texas, and Florida losing Amtrak service than North Dakota.

Do you live in Ohio, Texas or Florida? If not, why do you care if they have Amtrak service?

 

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

If the flyover/rural states want their trains so much, why don't their state DOT's pay for them instead of the rest of us paying for them? I'm more worried about Ohio, Texas, and Florida losing Amtrak service than North Dakota.

Do you live in Ohio, Texas or Florida? If not, why do you care if they have Amtrak service?

Well I've been to Florida and I'd love to go back. I have family in Texas so I would want to visit there as well. Plus millions of people live in those states and denying them trains would be a bad thing IMO.

 

[dlagrua]

Lets back up to the original topic. The Trump budget means little but an idea that is always subject to radical change.. Congress controls the federal budget and has always had the "power of the purse" . If you want to talk about the transportation budget only a few percent of it goes to passenger rail. Rail Passengers pay a fare that equates to 94% of the Amtrak operating cost. Drivers on the highway contribute little to maintain the billions that it costs to maintain them by paying only a 18 cent per gallon federal gasoline tax . You fill up once a week at say 20 gallons, and you are paying $3.60 to use interstate highways anytime that you wish. .

 

[CSXfoamer1997]

If Trump cuts all of Amtrak's long distance trains, or even any of them, I'm going to vomit!

 

[Ziv]

I think the vast majority of us would be irritated if he did zero out Amtrak long distance train funding, or an equivalent amount from the amount Amtrak normally gets, but he can't do anything without the house and the senate voting for it. Passing a budget is hard enough without making the 535 irritated with you. But again, this is probably a negotiation ploy. Whether he really wants to defund the LD trains or not is hard to say. My money is on not really. But I have been wrong often enough that I try to never say never. He also zeroed out NEA, NPR, NEH, the ADF, the Climate Change Research Board (I think) and a slew of other associations. The thing to remember is that this is a process, not a demand. He plays this card and the rest of the crowd plays theirs over the next couple months. Then he plays another card, repeat as needed.

He won't get all he wants, and we won't ever know what he really wanted most, because he will say whatever result he gets is what he really wanted and is the most important point.

The guy is a jerk, but he is one of the first politicians I know who negotiates like a businessman, not a Capital Hill sausage maker.

If Trump cuts all of Amtrak's long distance trains, or even any of them, I'm going to vomit!

 

[Lonestar648]

I am totally disappointed that he doesn't consider passenger rail part of this country's infrastructure. I guess this country's love of everyone having their own personal car rather than more efficient public transportation. It costs more per person who drives to maintain and properly grow the road and bridge infrastructure, Problem I can see for Trump and Congress is that previous Congress sessions never appropriated the money needed for Amtrak so now they faced with needing to replace almost the entire fleet let alone grow the fleet with the growth of passengers riding and additional routes proposed. So I guess with most Republicans advocating the elimination of passenger rail, like McCain, It is a logical decision for Trump to cut the Amtrak. He can't afford to fund Amtrak properly to move forward, so why not cut the funds which also makes the majority of Congress happy. I personally think it will be a major mistake, one that will be totally regretted years from now.

 

[Amtrakfflyer]

It's all politics unfortunately. Trump and the Republicans preyed on the elderly, poor, uneducated to get their votes. Now that the election is over the charade for the most part has come to an end. No trillion dollar infustructure program is on the horizon. The gutting of America has just begun, look at the budget proposed. As much as I hate to say it, the time to take your long distance train rides is now. Amtrak's now in a budget fight with the USCG, TSA, not to mention endless social programs such as Meals on Wheels etc.

It's very possible Amtrak will have luck in the Senate. The problem lays in the House where many members are very anti middle class anything. Point in case more then a few House members won't go along with Paul Ryan's healthcare bill not because of the cuts, but because the cuts are not punitive enough. Amtrak's chances are iffy at best in this toxic environment. I realize most Amtrak cuts happend during times of Democratic leadership but it's a new Republican Party post Tea Party.

Call your reps, write your newspaper editorial section. We have to at least put a fight up and try. Our great nation has more then enough money to fund passenger rail and even expand it. Poll after poll have shown that's also what Americans want. Amtrak is a rounding error on the budget.

 

[Lonestar648]

I have already written my Senators and US Representatives. I have also written my governor and state reps about the state loosing passenger rail. Everyone needs to write and have family and friends write. Each letter received equates to a number of votes feeling the same way.

 

[A Voice]

Contact to Senators and Representatives is premature at this point. Over the coming months the respective committees will begin to craft a budget, and only then will we have a (real) idea of just how much money they intend to appropriate to Amtrak. The likely outcome is that it will be barely - and just barely - enough to keep everything (including long-distance) running for one more year, but far less than the company really needs. That will be the time to write letters and make phone calls; Our viewpoints will have far more of an impact while Amtrak's budget is actually under consideration than it will now, only to be forgotten by the time anything important happens.

Passenger rail supporters would do well to remember history, particularly the line (paraphrased) about those who do not learn from history being doomed to repeat it. We've been down this road too many times before; A Presidential budget proposal which omits major Amtrak funding is almost 'business as usual'. All these "the sky is falling" posts would be amusing if it weren't for the fact some people will actually fall for it. This actually does a disservice to the advocacy of passenger rail. We need to keep the hyperbole in check.

 

[john small berries]

"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard." HL Mencken first wrote this in 1915.

For me, I just don't care enough to do any calling. Living in California, we have state funded rail service that is usable for daily needs and the long distance trains are more of an alternative mode of transit than anything I use on a regular enough basis to care any more.

That the moron we elected would propose something like this, along with all the other petty and cruel elements in the proposed budget, should come as no surprise to anyone who can fog a mirror - assuming they were at any time paying any attention to the man himself or the people who were advising him. Killing Amtrak has been a hobby for a certain group pf people in DC who neither care about alternate transportation nor about the idea that there is a "common good" as defined and hashed out by the founders both during the original confederation of states and as part of forming the republic during the writing of and the adoption of the Constitution.

As we as a nation chose, through action, inaction, or spite, to elect Trump we are now going to have to face the consequences of that election. If Amtrak funding works itself out during the process, so be it. However, beware. In the past, when Amtrak has been zeroed out, we were led by people who were actively interested in governance and the result of the compromises that led to funding remaining for Amtrak in the final budget were acceptable.

With this bunch of nihilists and a president who is more concerned with personal aggrandizement, both financial and emotional, than actual governance we just might get that Heritage wet dream of killing long distance train travel. And as a nation it's our own damned fault.

Too bad, so sad. No Trumpaloopa who voted for him should ever again complain about losing their ride on the train of their choice if this happens.

 

[JoeBas]

I am totally disappointed that he doesn't consider passenger rail part of this country's infrastructure.

He doesn't consider anything. This is straight from the Heritage Foundation.

 

[acelafan]

I think it's easier to fight an extreme budget position of "cut all LD service" than one that proposes to cut the LD train funding by some percentage or some XX dollar amount. The latter will get ugly and nasty very fast.

I don't think it's ever too early to contact Congress and express support for Amtrak services.

 

[Amtrakfflyer]

I think it's easier to fight an extreme budget position of "cut all LD service" than one that proposes to cut the LD train funding by some percentage or some XX dollar amount. The latter will get ugly and nasty very fast.

I don't think it's ever too early to contact Congress and express support for Amtrak services.

Agreed!

 

[BCL]

I am totally disappointed that he doesn't consider passenger rail part of this country's infrastructure. I guess this country's love of everyone having their own personal car rather than more efficient public transportation. It costs more per person who drives to maintain and properly grow the road and bridge infrastructure, Problem I can see for Trump and Congress is that previous Congress sessions never appropriated the money needed for Amtrak so now they faced with needing to replace almost the entire fleet let alone grow the fleet with the growth of passengers riding and additional routes proposed. So I guess with most Republicans advocating the elimination of passenger rail, like McCain, It is a logical decision for Trump to cut the Amtrak. He can't afford to fund Amtrak properly to move forward, so why not cut the funds which also makes the majority of Congress happy. I personally think it will be a major mistake, one that will be totally regretted years from now.

I think you're giving Trump too much credit. For the most part he isn't really all that beholden to the people who actually voted for him. They served his ends, and with a few exceptions they don't really matter to him any more. Second, I don't think Trump is all that personally involved in any of this. He's got people writing the proposed budget whose philosophical stand is that air travel and personal vehicle travel are king. They're not personally invested in helping out his voting base.

 

[crescent-zephyr]

For what it's worth... The budget also wants to cut subsidized air travel to small towns, and privatize the FAA traffic control. Both of those moves would end up raising airline tickets quite a bit I think.

 

[seat38a]

I love trains as much as the next guy, but I just don't see the purpose of using them for long distance travel in the US. NYC to LAX on the train takes three days and is $291 for a seat in coach. A direct flight on United costs $219. I don't understand why we need to use tax payers money to fund unprofitable routes when there are plenty of alternative methods of transportation.

a) 9/12/01

b) Some people are afraid to fly

c) Some people are medically unable to fly

d) Some people hold personal or religious beliefs that don't permit them to fly.

e) The government was not created to make a profit. True story.

I get that, but there are other methods of getting places besides federally subsidized train service. Just cause you don't like flying doesn't mean I should help buy you a ticket.

I love trains as much as the next guy, but I just don't see the purpose of using them for long distance travel in the US. NYC to LAX on the train takes three days and is $291 for a seat in coach. A direct flight on United costs $219. I don't understand why we need to use tax payers money to fund unprofitable routes when there are plenty of alternative methods of transportation.

Guess you're not aware that other modes of transportation also use taxpayers money, including flying.

Wether it covers 100% of the cost or not, those other transportations collect taxes from the user. Airfare has PFC and other taxes collect from the user. Roads are taxed through the Federal and Local Fuel tax, Vehicle registration blah blah blah, tolls from the user. I'm a pro train person but, the fact of the matter is, Amtrak's money comes right out of general taxation via income tax and borrowing it from the Social Security trust fund vs other transportation methods that at least tries to collect a user fee. When I go on a cruise, I have to pay a port fee and a bunch of other crap to pay for the port facilities. Wether you like it or not, the fact is Amtrak does not collect a user fee/taxes like the other transportation methods do. In many cases either directly or indirectly, rail is subsidized by higher gas taxes just as New Jersey recently did or higher sales tax which gets collect on gas as well out here in California.

This week, I booked a flight on United to New Orleans. Here is just the taxes that I paid:

• U.S. Transportation Tax:66.06
  
• U.S. Flight Segment Tax:16.40
  
• September 11th Security Fee:11.20
  
• U.S. Passenger Facility Charge:18.00
  

As the tax itemized above shows, I'm paying for everything via tax from the Airport Terminal, TSA Security, FAA and ATC to the runways.

 

[Ryan]

Nope.

Those taxes don't cover all the expenses of operating the civil aviation system.

Just like the complete cost of roads don't come from fuel taxes.

Literally every mode of transportation in existence gets subsidized by people that never have the opportunity to use it.

Once you get your facts in order, the rest of your opinion falls down around you.

 

[Lonestar648]

Every mode of transportation is subsidized out of the general fund of the Fed and State tax revenues which in some cases is supplemented by additional taxes and/or fees.

 

[Karl1459]

Nope.

Those taxes don't cover all the expenses of operating the civil aviation system.

Just like the complete cost of roads don't come from fuel taxes.

Literally every mode of transportation in existence gets subsidized by people that never have the opportunity to use it.

Once you get your facts in order, the rest of your opinion falls down around you.

Yep.

Ryan is correct. Though the interconnected and interdependent subsidies that exist are too complex (for me) to unravel.

Two points... First favoring rail is that the horrific costs of highway deaths, catastrophic injuries, and incident response are rarely funded from road user taxes or insurance. The costs following a high energy automobile crash, the helicopter ride to the level 1 trauma center, the day or two in the trauma center, and if surviving that long the week to month in intensive care, the month to year in rehab, and the lifetime of supportive care can easily run well over a million dollars per person. In 2016 possibly 40,000 people were killed in road crashes http://fortune.com/2017/02/15/traffic-deadliest-year/with costs of injuries well over 400 billion.

Second, maybe not favoring rail, is much of the air travel infrastructure is also shared by our various Air Forces (or will be in the hopefully not happening all out war). How to allocate that?

Ultimately Amtrak's funding is from Congress, and individual congresscritters tend to see the local support for passenger rail where it exists and realize that their constituents feel that the subsidy is warranted.

 

[seat38a]

Nope.

Those taxes don't cover all the expenses of operating the civil aviation system.

Just like the complete cost of roads don't come from fuel taxes.

Literally every mode of transportation in existence gets subsidized by people that never have the opportunity to use it.

Once you get your facts in order, the rest of your opinion falls down around you.

I never said it covered 100% of the cost. I said those transportations collect money from the users via taxes or user fee vs Amtrak which has no such fee's or taxes and get all of what comes short of the fare box from the Federal Government or indirectly by collecting taxes from the other transportations that do collect a user fee/tax. How the government blows the money it collects or overspends I don't have control over. BUT, as far as I'm concerned, I have paid the fees to cover my use of the terminal, TSA, etc as its itemized in my ticket and I paid for what they told me to pay.

On my international trip coming up in May, I even have to pay for customs and immigration as a line item tax. Wether politicians have the balls to actually raise taxes and fees on gas and air carrier taxes to the level its needs to be to cover the real cost without a tragedy forcing their hands is another story.

 

[Don Newcomb]

Every mode of transportation is subsidized out of the general fund of the Fed and State tax revenues which in some cases is supplemented by additional taxes and/or fees.

I believe that part of the budget proposal is also to defund and privatize the air traffic control system.

 

[seat38a]

Nope.

Those taxes don't cover all the expenses of operating the civil aviation system.

Just like the complete cost of roads don't come from fuel taxes.

Literally every mode of transportation in existence gets subsidized by people that never have the opportunity to use it.

Once you get your facts in order, the rest of your opinion falls down around you.

Yep.

Ryan is correct. Though the interconnected and interdependent subsidies that exist are too complex (for me) to unravel.

Two points... First favoring rail is that the horrific costs of highway deaths, catastrophic injuries, and incident response are rarely funded from road user taxes or insurance. The costs following a high energy automobile crash, the helicopter ride to the level 1 trauma center, the day or two in the trauma center, and if surviving that long the week to month in intensive care, the month to year in rehab, and the lifetime of supportive care can easily run well over a million dollars per person. In 2016 possibly 40,000 people were killed in road crashes http://fortune.com/2017/02/15/traffic-deadliest-year/with costs of injuries well over 400 billion.

Second, maybe not favoring rail, is much of the air travel infrastructure is also shared by our various Air Forces (or will be in the hopefully not happening all out war). How to allocate that?

Ultimately Amtrak's funding is from Congress, and individual congresscritters tend to see the local support for passenger rail where it exists and realize that their constituents feel that the subsidy is warranted.

Each region has their own taxation for first responder funding, but where I live and where my parents live, we specifically have a line item on our property tax under "voted indebtedness" to the county and city for which the voters agreed to pay a higher property tax for first responders. I remember that TV ad about how if the voters passed the measure, it would ensure the availability of all that you described above.

 

[Lonestar648]

How will the private operation of the FAA ATC generate enough revenue to be reasonably profitable? Is the Fed going to guarantee a minimum revenue to attract bidders? If so where is that money coming from.