Hmmm?
motor
Probably, not much. Maybe just a somewhat smoother ride getting subsistence funding. Clinton actually had a plank in his platform the first time around proposing all kinds of high speed rail and corridor developement. What did we get? Glide slopes to decrepancy. So, even if the exec and legislative branches are 100% Dem in 2008, I still wouldn’t get my hopes up. Amtrak needs a visionary leader who can push an agenda. I don’t see one on the horizon.
Agree 100%
Given the past history of both parties and their record of supporting Amtrak, I don’t think you will see any good, lasting changes.
There will probably be changes, but there are so many things that go into play on the subject that one could probably go twenty pages of maybe’s and what if’s.
While there was and may continue be strong congressional by-partisan support for Amtrak, the views and actions of the makers and breakers in the White House and the DOT may have more to do with any outcome than Congress. I think a look at the more recent history of Federal transportation law would show that DOT provides the primary design and Congress just shoves it around some before enacting the final thing.
Best thing for now? Just stay tuned.
…Neither party has done too much with substance. Congress does write the checks though…and if W wouldn’t veto the money for it we might see a bit more willingness to provide a reasonable funding.
Our President is still in place and he is really the one that wants it to go away for the most part…
If our two governing bodies would just set down and have a decent and reasonable discussion of what the purpose, direction, funding, etc…might be, that might be of great help.
I’d be satisfied to see a frank civil discussion on the subject and see where it goes…{That is by people with open minds}.
Very little change. DC has much more important topics to deal with than Amtrk. One of the biggest cutbacks in history took place in 1979 when four long distance trains were abolished in early Oct that yr. I was in high school and remember it all quite well. This took place with a Democrat President working with a Democrat Congress. Carter proposed a 0% funding for fiscal 1980. This started a power struggle between the White House and Cap Hill. An agreement was reached which resulted in funding but not enough for the trains taken off that yr. Amtrk is not a Democrat or Republican issue. There are as many D’s who wish to kill it, a large share of R’s who support it. Lets just be thankful with what we have.
Amtrak is in mighty deep trouble, gang. As long as it is only useful in the northeast, Illiniois and California’s urban corridors, the rest of the country is going to look at Amtrak differently. But with so much equipment parked outside Bear DE and Beech Grove IN’s shops, never to be fixed, and trains on CSX and UP being treated like switch jobs, well…
I agree, there will be little change in Amtrak’s fortunes with the 110th Congress. However, I expect both houses of Congress will give Amtrak closer to what it wants, but I don’t look for either Congress or the DOT to do anything about the problem of some Amtrak trains running chronically late due to delays by the freight carriers.
It’s really scandalous that so much equipment paid for with our tax dollars is bad ordered. It’s hard to believe there isn’t a positive ROI for putting it back in service - somewhere. What a waste!
With the new leaning towards ‘green’ perhaps Amtrak will get a new hearing in the next congress. The Bush agenda has been clearly one of trying to eliminate it altogether. Contrary to this it has been shown that inter-city rail travel is a growing and vibrant market ala the NE corridor and Calif. initiatives. The real problem is not cross country or long distance trains, but inter-city trains that provide real transportation alternatives to shuttle flights and highway congestion.
The longer term solution will have to be dedicated passenger rail right of way so that the trains can again run on time. In Great Brittain, the day time hours are mostly dedicated to passenger rail service while ‘goods trains’ run mostly at night. This allows shared trackage and less congestion for passenger services.
The West Coast Starlight is woefully under funded and under utilized with only two active trainsets. Yet it provides a route that is both scenic and practical. With a little imagination, it could become a jewel in Amtrak’s crown and attract way more ridership.
Perhaps Amtrak could also get involved in some intermodal traffic (this would threaten the freight haulers) and generate real revenues. But we could get a lot more of the trucks off the highways if there were inter-city intermodal facilities beyond the supersites currently operated by the major RR companies. Australia has pioneered several small container approaches that can serve localities very efficiently, working for both the shipper and recipient.
The Dems have the opportunity to show some political will with a win-win outcome for both green issues and passenger service.
…I agree…the D’s now have an opportunity with their increased strength in Congress to address the subject. Will they…The unanswered question.
Seems like we have two major problems in the Amtrak operation.
Of course the aged old problem of funding. Don’t know if we have anyone who will tackle that problem or not…
Second…Finding open slots for Amtrak to run on the freight railroads ROW’s…Somehow the many RR’s found a way to run freight…{lots of it}, and passenger trains…{lots of them}, during WWII but even with modern technology of signaling, etc…it seems can’t be accomplished now…Or simply won’t…!
And I suppose we have a third problem too as mentioned in an above post…Damaged and or broken equipment sitting at several repair / rebuild facilities waiting {endlessly}, for attention that seems never comes…Equipment that certainly could be put to good use under the right circumstances.
I don’t know if we here in the government, railroad, and planning communities can accomplish anything with the above or not…It sure would be a project for some seasoned and newcomers to work on…
I think jeaton has it right. The Sec DOT has to drive the change, perhaps in league with Amtrak’s pres. We’ve never had an advocate in both positions at the same time. Makes me wonder how things might have gone had Thompson got DOT instead of H&HS.
I don’t think a “green” push will do much for Amtrak. The case for Amtrak being “green” is really pretty squishy. Passenger train specific energy consumption has been pretty flat for the past several decades while autos and airlines have gotten better. Besides, most of the focus of “green” is where the energy comes from not where it goes…at least in the US.
I know at least as far as NS goes, extra slots to run more passenger trains have to be paid for. There is a good description of NS’s position here http://www.garail.com/Pages/pdf/sehsrfinalreport.pdf (p 83, Appendix B)
For shared trackage, 90 mph is max and you have to provide NS with some loco cab signal equipment (assuming no approved alternative to cab signal for >79 mph). For 110 mph, you can share ROW, but you have to build your own track. The last paragraph is some interesting advise to planners - to the effect of steering passenger investment toward NS and not away from it.
Amtrak will be a crises to crises operation no matter who rules.
Try running a business with no long term goals, plans, nor capital strategy. Leaving equipment to rot rather than repair is a symptom of this greater illness. This has gone on for decades.
Hauling people never has and never will pay all the bills. For those too young to remember, look at the photos of nearly endless head end cars on all but a few passenger trains. Amtrak’s foray into the freight business set up a howl of protest from others in the business, including the freight railroads.
If this country wants people hauled by rail, a long term plan of operational and captial support needs to be drawn up and followed through. Hand to mouth costs more in the long run.
Fix it right, or ditch it. So far, no political party is willing to do the right thing.
Before the riot starts, let me say I know there are many excellent people who are, and who have worked for Amtrak, or in the Government, trying to “fix” Amtrak. Neither party has done a thing to push Amtrak much past 1971. As far as I´m concerned it ended before it started. Just a look at the pre Amtrak passenger rail map of April 1971 and the Amtrak map of May 1 says it all. I think we have all lived in an airline era where non-stop is the only two words that mean anything to anyone. That is a great concept for air but it really stinks for rail. Sure a few corridor non-stops might be in order but the bigger picture is that Amtrak is susposed to be a National system. Not a Washington, NY, Boston railroad. What I am driving at is no matter how good the Empire Builder is, what about the people in Butte?, Livingston? Miles City? etc. Now multiply that times the many routes we are all familiar with: Chicago-St. Louis is a good example. How many routes or rail lines connect these cities? How many towns are in the middle? Anyone in Chicago or St.Louis can go to the airport and fly away, but can the people of all those little towns? No! Only the ones on the single Amtrak route serving this “corridor”. Danville, Decatur and Clinton? forget it. The abandonment of the old Seaboard Air Line System in Virginia and Central Florida, and the trains that served it are part of the same saga. Sure one can get from Washington to Miami, but what about Ocala, Dade City or Gainesville? THESE are the towns that really need and depend on Amtrak. In fact Ocala spent millions on its old Union Station to make it into a showplace transportation center and what do they get for their effort? A single train each way at 2 am which has now been re-routed. Go to any major airport and look at the arrivals and departures. Not only are they fast but they move very often, many times a day, just pick your departure or arrival time. Not so on the railroad. We have marshalled everything onto a single route then for the most part cut
The way Amtrak gets treated by administration after administration is a shame! We are at a point (as I have said before) where it will be necessary, to once again, rationalize Amtrak and get more money from those states it benefits. BUT unfunded mandates are smashing many states’ finances (Medicaid) and considering the condition of the fleet they can operate, and the cars age, and the need to replace them, well as I have said before, it is time to say UNCLE! Enough already! The big 6 need to put some cash up, along with states that have some “wiggle room” left within their budgets to enable Amtrak to operate in their states. Right now, for me Amtrak is not a viable option. New York does not want Amtrak, except in the Northeast Corridor! The rest of the state is not viable as far as Metro New York’s political bosses see things and that’s the bottom line! Bye, bye Amtrak, Hello Metro North in Albany-Rensselaer- GCT/Penn service. Beyond A-R? Fuhgetabout it!
Sounds like socialism to me. The railroads owe no obligation to further fund Amtrak and they won’t do it. That burden was taken on by the Government in 1971. What we need is a voice of reality and compromise, which we may get now that Congress and the Presidency are held by different parties. Jim Oberstar (D-MI) is incoming House T&I Committee Chairman and has publicly said that Amtrak and High Speed Rail are among his priorities.
LC
In 1971, Penn Central was bankrupt in large measure thanks to passenger losses. Other bankrupt carriers needed some help as well. The other major elements of Conrail had minor passenger losses, like CNJ, EL, L&HR, LV and Reading which were already out of the passenger business, or had been bailed out by New Jersey. BUT The Rock Island opted out of Amtrak, (The “initiation fee” was too much for them.) as did D&RGW and Southern. Now the 1971 situation no longer exists, as the “big 6” are quite healthy and no longer in need of a government bailout. The “Socialism” is not needed, what with the likes of BNSF, CN, CP, NS and UP going like gangbusters, and the darlings of Wall Street in the transportation sector. CSX is in a class by itself, and that is a problem that Amtrak cannot solve for them. CSX needs to find a way out of the mess they got themselves into, before there are more mergers, and the service disruptions they cause.
Having government put down tax-payer money into public transportation IS NOT socialism. Of course the rxr companies don’t want to pay for it. They don’t care about the public good or energy indepence or the benefits of having people travel by rail as opposed to highway - they care about making MONEY. Not that there’s anything necessarily wrong with caring solely about that (though some may rightfully argue with this point).
I think we’d all agree that both the public and the government have a lot to gain by funding/subsidizing, giving tax breaks to rail transport.
The automobile industry would, of course, disagree, whine and lobby the hell out of washington, though.
I DO think that eventually the democrats will come around and realize that there’s a direct connection between funding amtrak AND being on the path towards this “energy independence” that they’re so commonly talking about. AT least I hope like hell they will.
Amtrak certainly has a MUCH BETTER chance with the democrats than with the republicans.
No argument with that last.
My comment about Socialism was directed to the portion of the post dealing with trying to confiscate funding from railroad companies. We still have this little thing called a Constitution last I checked and that and numerous statutes make confiscation of private property without just compensation illegal.
LC
The big question for the railroads or any other business that exists to make a profit: Who in their right mind would want a business for which there is just about a 100% probability that there will never be a profit?
And by the way, just because the frieght railroads are in the business of running freight trains down tracks, it does not follow that they have current employees that could just put on a different hat and start to manage and operate a passenger service.