House bill cuts Amtrak funding 40 percent
Source: The Hill
The House is proposing a 40 percent funding cut for Amtrak in a new passenger rail bill that was unveiled on Thursday by the chambers Transportation Committee.
Amtrak has received about $1 billion per year from the federal government since its inception in 1971. But Republican leaders on the panel said the long-overdue rail funding measure would force the company to streamline its operations and survive mostly on the money that is generated by ticket sales.
The bill is unlikely to be approved by lawmakers before this years elections.
...snip...
Amtraks subsidies have been a source of contention for years in Congress. Republicans have pushed in the past to privatize service on its heavily traveled Northeastern U.S. routes, which are the most profitable in the companys network.
Read more: http://thehill.com/policy/transportation/217411-house-rail-bill-cuts-amtrak-funding-40-percent
Not going to pass the Senate.
Iliyah
(25,111 posts)underpants
(182,877 posts)Damn they really hate Earth
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)This seems ok to me. I wish we had a list of everything we paid for. Not just major areas. Everyone must agree Amtrak getting federal funding is ridiculous.
brooklynite
(94,727 posts)yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)I know military is always hit, but more needs to be as well.
wolfie001
(2,265 posts).....save all your big bucks from Maryland taxes? You've moved to a state run by a heartless, corporate cyborg. Congratulations.
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)wolfie001
(2,265 posts)I'm a Marylander as well and I work in a Mont. Co. grocery and the visiting Floridians are always complaining about the .05 per bag fee....."Blah blah blah". I want to remind them of Gov. Voldemort but it's just not worth it. Cheers
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)and controllers ect.
Trucking has the interstate and state highway system
charliea
(260 posts)I consider assuring access to safe, efficient, and reliable transportation something that's in everyone's best interest, a function of good government for all, like spending money on roads and air traffic controllers. As I tell my Congressman every time it comes up for some kind of vote.
I'm sure you must have meant that: Everyone must agree that giving an unknown amount of money to the CIA, and its private contractors is ridiculous, as is paying government contractors after they've already failed to meet contractual goals and violated federal law.
You can look up a lot concerning the Budget and where the money goes. Here's a good place to get started:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/collection.action?collectionCode=BUDGET&browsePath=Fiscal+Year+2014&searchPath=Fiscal+Year+2014&leafLevelBrowse=false&isCollapsed=false&isOpen=true&packageid=BUDGET-2014-BUD&ycord=0
Note that 'black' budget items are intentionally hidden. Which is why when people tell me that we should treat the budget like a family would I ask what family throws uncounted buckets of money down a black hole and expects to know how to balance their checkbook?
ForgoTheConsequence
(4,869 posts)You think subsiding public transit is ridiculous?
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)If you begin debating an issue later, I may change you back. Your post is derogatory and has a huge lack of substance. No time at all for it.
ForgoTheConsequence
(4,869 posts)Sorry I called you out on right-wing talking points. I should have mentioned how public transit and infrastructure are important and how those are CORE beliefs that liberals and those who lean center-left share.
Kingofalldems
(38,475 posts)Republicans are the only ones that favor cutting public transportation.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)Kingofalldems
(38,475 posts)Kingofalldems
(38,475 posts)Seems like quite a bit to me.
Chan790
(20,176 posts)I'd gladly strip funding from the Federal Highway System to redirect more funding to mass-transit initiatives and Amtrak. There is little in the federal transportation budget that gets the bang for the buck of Amtrak.
glinda
(14,807 posts)And have the public pay for everything.
Historic NY
(37,453 posts)pinto
(106,886 posts)Yes, federal tax payer money. AMTRAK funding isn't ridiculous. What's your reasoning on that?
(on edit) There is a list of what gets funded by taxpayer funds. It's called the federal budget. A little unwieldy and cumbersome, but the details are there.
October
(3,363 posts)LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)" Everyone must agree Amtrak getting federal funding is ridiculous..."
No-- that is not in fact, the case.
However, what are the objective and precise reasons that lead you to believe that anyone who disagrees with your unsupported premise is holding a ridiculous position?
freshwest
(53,661 posts)We demand the return of America's railroad system to private ownership. We call for the privatization of the public roads and national highway system.
If you can pay a toll, fine, if you can't you'll be SOL. They're doing fine on this with media help, and with a win this year they'll finish their bucket list:
http://metamorphosis.democraticunderground.com/1014833821#post10
Gormy Cuss
(30,884 posts)Privatizing is exactly the wrong thing to do. From a public policy perspective, encouraging rail travel in high population corridors makes sense.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)upaloopa
(11,417 posts)privatized passenger service was a losing proposition after mail contracts went to the airlines.
KurtNYC
(14,549 posts)and one billion is nothing in a budget that is $4 trillion annually. 1/4000th of the budget.
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)Public transportation cannot survive on ticket sales and needs to be subsidized. As, for instance, the highways are hugely subsidized.
Too many cars, THAT'S the problem.
Last month I took Amtrak from Lamy, NM (it's the Santa Fe stop) to LA, and then the Coast Starlight to Portland. I booked sleeper cars on both trains and it was a wonderful trip. It's bad enough that our idiot governor doesn't think there's any point in helping maintain the tracks that the Southwest Chief runs on through NM and we may lose service, but for our Congress to be even more shortsighted is truly depressing.
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)What about the Rail Runner (commuter train Santa Fe-ABQ)?
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)Last edited Fri Sep 12, 2014, 02:05 PM - Edit history (1)
When I first moved to Santa Fe in 2008, I'd occasionally hear (usually professionals of some sort) complaining abut the coming RailRunner, how it was a total waste, no one would take it, and so on. I usually stop those people and say, "I first moved to Washington DC in the fall of 1968 (which was generally before these people had been born), just when they'd started tearing up Pennsylvania Avenue for the Metro. There were lots of editorials, lots of letters to the Washington Post complaining about how stupid this was, how no one would take the Metro. And I was back in DC in 2001, in downtown, at 16th and K to be precise, and on a Friday afternoon there was less traffic on the streets than there had been some forty years earlier."
People take public transportation. And yes, I've known people who have very virtuously said, "I'd NEVER take public transportion" and those people are total idiots. Okay, don't take public transportation if you personally don't want to, but trust me, many people take it. Many people depend on it.
Before I moved to NM, I seriously thought about returning to the DC area, in part because if I'd done so I'd have been able to give up owning a car and just take public transportation. But I decided to move here, and I'm quite happy with the choice. If I ever do relocate, it will absolutely be to a metro area that has a strong public transportation infrastructure.
Oh, and just earlier this week I took the RailRunner to ABQ to meet a friend. We spent several hours together, she dropped me back off at the station and I took the train back to Santa Fe. Too bad I couldn't take a public bus from the train station to my home.
(edited to fix a typo)
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)the way her buddies in Congress are planning to do with Amtrak.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)msongs
(67,440 posts)CreekDog
(46,192 posts)the most heavily used Amtrak corridor is in the blue state Northeast and really doesn't need a subsidy at all.
Wellstone ruled
(34,661 posts)the little known thing pertaining to rail accidents and derailments. If there is a Amtrak service on a line and there is a wreck,Amtrak pays the tab not the carrier of origin. Thank you Rethugs. Defund choke it till it dies. BTW,all the class one roads want to get rid of Amtrak and take their assets free.
RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)What a bunch of fools.
Why do they hate America so much?
global1
(25,270 posts)first the Post Office and now Rail Travel. What will they target next?
glinda
(14,807 posts)christx30
(6,241 posts)to Manchester, NH last year for family stuff. I checked out ride sharing, Amtrak, flight, and bus. Air was, by far, the winner. It was half as much as rail, took 1/5 of the time to get there. There wasn't much of a contest. I mean, check them out and you'll see.
I'm not saying to defund Amtrak at all. I'm just saying that it's not the greatest way to travel.
dhill926
(16,355 posts)The Pacific Surfliner. Clean, comfortable, free wifi, outlets at seats, but not always punctual. I fly a lot and this beats flying or driving. Repubs are a bunch of nihilistic assholes.
americannightmare
(322 posts)we're not even competing in the rail race...
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-16/china-raises-2012-rail-investment-9-to-70-billion-ndrc-says.html
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)I've been on high speed rail in all three countries.
I hope they save the funding for Amtrak because it is one of the last ways to get to the part of the state in Oregon where I grew up other than flying (which is expensive).
americannightmare
(322 posts)and grew up in Grants Pass, and of course you can't get there by train. It is great to be able to get to Eugene or Salem by train. Now if we could get Amtrak out to the coast...
JCMach1
(27,572 posts)valerief
(53,235 posts)BeyondGeography
(39,379 posts)So they must irrationally be against it.
YOHABLO
(7,358 posts)Anything that is government subsidize, other than the subsidies that corporations receive, must be drowned in the bath tub. High speed rail is the answer to cutting fuel costs. I don't know of one airplane that flies on electricity.
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)jillan
(39,451 posts)brooklynite
(94,727 posts)Simple matter of not liking "discretionary" Government spending.
jillan
(39,451 posts)Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)to move the people and cargo by roads. Rail is much more fuel efficient.
Sienna86
(2,149 posts)And I guess their passenger cars are getting in the way of oil tanker cars.
mnhtnbb
(31,402 posts)High speed rail should be highly subsidized by the government.
Oil is so dinosaur.
Cars are so 1%.
It's so far past time to develop reliable and efficient public transportation in this country.
Sen. Walter Sobchak
(8,692 posts)What the hell does that mean?
Historic NY
(37,453 posts)defund Amtrak and thats lost.
Sen. Walter Sobchak
(8,692 posts)Subsidizing cross-country trains in this day and age seems like the government subsidizing a hospital that performs amputations for only twice the price of a cast.
pinto
(106,886 posts)Is it just rail? Or air transport, auto transport? All the allied economic structures that support all of them them? Do you have a coherent approach to advocate?
Sen. Walter Sobchak
(8,692 posts)If something doesn't make sense anymore, let it go.
I flew from Long Beach to JFK in less than six hours for less than $500 a couple weeks ago. I think on this front the free market really has worked it's magic.
BlueEye
(449 posts)A transcontinental high-speed passenger railroad is pretty absurd. But on regional routes, the airlines are frequently not competitive. I frequently drive from Ohio to Chicago. It takes me six hours and is a boring drive that takes a tank of gas and lots of tolls. I could fly, but the fares are rarely lower than $200 round trip. If there was a train that could get me there in 4 hours for maybe $60 each way, I would routinely use it. The airports on both ends are a good distance from the city center, plus airports are a pain in the ass for a flight that's only 55 minutes.
So that's where America lacks trains. 200 to 500 mile sectors between large cites. Other than the northeast corridor, Amtrak does a pretty shitty job serving those markets, due mostly to funding problems (thanks GOP).
happyslug
(14,779 posts)For Example, in my Home State of Pennsylvania, we have the Pennsylvania Train run by Amtrak. It connects Philadelphia to Pittsburgh via the old Pennsylvania Railroad Main line (now run by Norfolk Southern). It is used mostly by people going from one of those cities to someplace in between. This it is more then regional for by connecting two regions its served both regions.
The Capitol Limited does the same between Washington and Chicago, providing service to Frederick Maryland, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Toledo and Chicago AND various small cities in between.
The Cardinal, runs from Washington to Chicago via Charleston and Huntington West Virginia, Cincinnati, Indianapolis and Chicago and various cities in between.
There is a demand for this service, given the price of oil it has increased in recent years.
No one is suggesting high speed rail east and west in the US, for what ever service that would provide Air travel can do it faster and at less cost. It is these "Regional" trains that can go 60-100 mph (if the tracks permit) that people want, so they can pick them up at their local small city and go to another small city on the route OR to a large city. That is the service has been providing since it was formed in the early 1970s.
Yes, people can go from New York City to Los Angles by train, but plane is much faster and you do not have to stop in Chicago for a lay over. On the other hand, most riders are traveling within their region or on a train that goes between two regions (Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, DC, Pittsburgh, Cleveland and Chicago for example).
Many of these routes would be more heavily used if Amtrak could put more then one train a day on these routes. Most people who have studied such routes say you really need at least four trains in one direction each day to have a viable route, but Amtrak has NEVER had the funding to provide such service except in the North East do to budget problems (Amtrak can run the trains, but they do NOT have the trains to run, for example the present Train to Pittsburgh is an old DC to New York City train that Amtrak replaced with its Acela on that route and thus had a "Train" to run to Pittsburgh).
I hate to say this, High Speed Rail is NOT the Answer, what is needed is more trains of the 60-100 mph types, that Amtrak is running today, Congress needs to break down and buy them (i.e. provide the money). These should be on the order of what use to be called "Hoddlebugs" diesel one to two car passenger trains. If you get more passenger then those can handle go to a larger train.
US Railcar (formerly Colorado Railcar) has been pushing for adoption of its cars by Amtrak for over ten years, and Amtrak has supported those efforts. The problem is Congress refuses to embrace the concept that such cars would provide the needed "regional" train service needed. Amtrak can justify improvements in the Northeast Corridor for it is profitable, but if Amtrak wants to improve service elsewhere it needs money to buy the trains needed.
Outside of the Northeast, Amtrak is in many ways in a "Chicken or egg" situation, it needs new trains to increase service so it can get more riders, but it need more riders to pay for the new trains those riders want to ride.
What Amtrak needs to more "Doodlebugs" to provide more frequent service. Here is a picture of a Colorado Railcar 100 passenger rail car:
Here is the single and bi level designs (the bi level can hold over 200 passengers)
More on the Philadelphia to Pittsburgh Corridor:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keystone_Corridor
The problem right now is a refusal to fund these "Doodlebugs" for use as passenger trains with one or two operators (a driver and a Conductor). These trains are design to connect back to back so you can double the passengers with the same crew.
The problem is no one will take the train today, for one train in each direction a day is just NOT usable by most people. Four trains a day would be usable by more people and once the service is established people will use it.
As I said above, it is a Chicken and Egg Situation, people will not take the train for the train service is rare, but the reason it is rare is because no one takes it. You have to provide the service before people will take the service, i.e. you have to have more trains per day and make that permanent (or at least commit to it for a year or two) and then people will slowly start to use it as they become aware of it.
This is what is needed, these smaller trains on "National lines" connecting regions and providing service to those regions. That is what Amtrak has been providing with its "Coast to Coast" trains since the 1970s. Amtrak needs to keep its present rolling stock, for some inter regional travel is best done in a Sleeper, but it should concentrate of the above Doodlebugs to provide more frequent service on most of its "National Lines".
safeinOhio
(32,715 posts)much we'd save if we cut funding to big farms and oil companies and how it would force them to streamline their operations.
Hugin
(33,198 posts)That didn't go away.
MADem
(135,425 posts)specific efficiencies.
AMTRAK does ZERO marketing that sticks.
They need to create cars consisting of old sleeper cars (with linoleum floors for easy cleaning) that are designated for PETS. There should be a luggage car between two "pet" cars so people can either keep their pets in carriers, or keep them in one of the sleeper roomettes.
I'd pay out the nose for that opportunity to bring my dog in a roomette on the train.
J_J_
(1,213 posts)sheesh, priorities people!
yurbud
(39,405 posts)and they cut one of the most energy efficient travel options.
wordpix
(18,652 posts)They may be the most profitable routes but that's only b/c they aren't maintained well or upgraded. I've traveled the NE on trains for decades and in all that time, have rarely seen work ongoing along the rail lines, and what work was taking place was in small bits and pieces and not for miles or for a system. Last month I was on Amtrak and not one project was ongoing between northern CT and southern PA, despite the obvious need.
Any business can be profitable for awhile if you have enough customers and keep milking the business and never upgrading or improving. At some point, though, the need for maintenance and upgrades arise, and money needs to be invested.
That's when corporate raiders like Rmoney step in and take over, fire people, sell off assets and the business, and make their personal million$.
Omaha Steve
(99,707 posts)I like trains and mass transit. I don't like YOU!