Candidate Positions on Amtrak/HSR

hacking at strawmen has always been MR's chief electoral campaign strategy, and certainly he is not unique that way.

Tadman wrote:Not only that, once the "NO" party gets the presidency and the congress, Amtrak is going away. Once it goes away, you are not going to see it come back. Amtrak had a mandate to start because the freight roads were going broke running passenger trains yet lots of people still didn't fly or drive. That mandate is long gone, as the Class Is are prosperous and America takes SWA everywhere.

Though the profitability of at least some Class 1s could decline over the next few years as a substantial amount of coal-fired electric generation is replaced by natural gas fired units as is expected. Of course, fewer freight trains could improve Amtrak time keeping, so long as the routes continue to be properly maintained.

Discussion at another Forum regarding Mr. Brown's immediate point:

http://www.railroad.net/forums/viewtopi ... 77&t=90003

Any further discussion regarding such should move forth over at that topic.

Not surprisingly, Romney has stated again he'd cut the day before the Iowa Caucus.

http://transportationnation.org/2012/01 ... -with-ads/

In his final rally before caucus day, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney took time to say he’d cut Amtrak.

“Amtrak ought to stand on its own feet or its own wheels or whatever you’d say,” Romney told a raucous crowd of several hundred at the Competitive Edge warehouse in Clive, Iowa, on Monday night.

This final speech is part of what’s called a candidate’s “closing arguments” to voters.

“I’ve got to balance the budget. I gotta cut spending,” said Romney, sounding about as folksy and riled up as he’s ever been, as he heads to the caucuses in what looks like a no-lose situation: he either wins, or Rick Santorum or Ron Paul wins, which mean Romney wins, because neither Paul or Santorum is expected to do well beyond Iowa.

Amtrak has had its highest ridership ever, but at the same time, it’s been a favorite political punching bag for Republicans. (Though House Transportation and Infrastructure Chair John Mica recently had a change of heart, sort of.) The federal government’s annual subsidy is about $1.4 billion. The federal budget is about $3.5 trillion...

He will push whatever buttons are indicated, and of course you take all the easy shots early.

in 2008, he was itching to bomb and invade Iran, look for him to repeat that , if there is a receptive audience.

Eliphaz wrote:He will push whatever buttons are indicated, and of course you take all the easy shots early.

in 2008, he was itching to bomb and invade Iran, look for him to repeat that , if there is a receptive audience.

Are we suddenly looking to run the Tehran Express? If not, I'm not sure how this is at all applicable in this forum.

See page 11 of the current Trains magazine: "Obama hasn't matched language with action; 'High speed rail' was a slogan that never lived up to its billing, and may have harmed rail initiatives".

Quotes: "Unfortunately, Amtrak is right back where it was three years ago at the end of the George W. Bush administration, except that its equipment is older. A lot of hope and possibilities have been wasted [under Obama]."

Moderators Note:

Yeah I have to agree. Romney's position on Iran or other issues outside of Amtrak is not really relevant here.

SouthernRailway wrote:See page 11 of the current Trains magazine: "Obama hasn't matched language with action; 'High speed rail' was a slogan that never lived up to its billing, and may have harmed rail initiatives".

Quotes: "Unfortunately, Amtrak is right back where it was three years ago at the end of the George W. Bush administration, except that its equipment is older. A lot of hope and possibilities have been wasted [under Obama]."

how can they ignore the billions released for hsr corridors ?

David Benton wrote:

SouthernRailway wrote:See page 11 of the current Trains magazine: "Obama hasn't matched language with action; 'High speed rail' was a slogan that never lived up to its billing, and may have harmed rail initiatives".

Quotes: "Unfortunately, Amtrak is right back where it was three years ago at the end of the George W. Bush administration, except that its equipment is older. A lot of hope and possibilities have been wasted [under Obama]."

how can they ignore the billions released for hsr corridors ?

Don Philips doesn't. He points out most of that was not released to Amtrak, but directly to the states. And, much of it really was for "highER speed rail" not true HSR. About the only money released and really being used for HSR is the California money. The Florida money of course got turned down.

It may have been a bit better if they had sold it simply as higher speed rail, or rail improvements.

I think selling it as rail improvements would have been the way to go.

2011 will be marked as the year we started paying attention to how we spend money. Now there is nothing wrong with spending money, but it should be well spent. I can think of hundreds of projects that could really have impacted people and probably been completed in a few years.

I think a lot of people saw HSR as a money pit and unfortunately, California seems to be sort of living up to the stereotype.

What it boils down to IMHO, is that while there are supporters(read as lip service providers) on both sides of the aisle, at the same time, anti-railism seems to be a bipartisan phenomenon, although I think I'm echoing the sentiment expressed by many on this thread.

The example that I gave about Cape Cod in my earlier posting is but one of many instances where poth parties, if not in collusion to keep our passenger rail network from expanding at best, seem not to obstruct each other in their own policies of obstruction of passenger rail, LOL!

Don Philips doesn't. He points out most of that was not released to Amtrak, but directly to the states. And, much of it really was for "highER speed rail" not true HSR. About the only money released and really being used for HSR is the California money. The Florida money of course got turned down.

If HSR is a massive waste of money I applaud our elected leaders for being pragmatic and diverting the funds where they can get more bang for the buck. I for one think that Mid West 110mph service is just what the doctor ordered at a fraction of the cost of a California style boondoggle.

Outside the NEC, I can imagine future pols will 'turn over' Amtrak to the states, those who want to support it.

Admin note: retitled from "Romney (wants) to cut Amtrak funding if elected" on 1.5.2012

Here's a resource: http://www.infrastructurist.com/2012/01 ... peed-rail/

• On the day of the Iowa Caucuses, an article finds that while GOP presidential hopefuls are not big fans of government spending, candidates including Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul have voiced support in the past for a U.S. high-speed rail system. (NYT)

and here: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/03/us/po ... r=1&ref=us

Newt Gingrich, a former speaker of the House, has written books and given speeches about the importance of high-speed rail in the United States, and he supported a study for a high-speed line from Atlanta to Chattanooga, Tenn., sought by local boosters when he was in Congress. Gov. Rick Perry of Texas saw a role for high-speed rail in his failed $175 billion transportation plan to build what would have been called the Trans-Texas Corridor.

Even Representative Ron Paul of Texas, a small-government libertarian, signed a letter that several members of Texas’ Congressional delegation sent to federal officials in 2009 urging them to give the state money for rail studies to help it build “a truly ambitious and world-class high-speed rail network.”

Look, I am of the opinion that politicians often if not mostly take positions which are politcally expedient. Often, these positions are borne of their constituent needs at that time. Nevertheless, not all are cynical or dogmatic.