Why do politicians hate rail? (or not)

Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum

Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Status
Not open for further replies.

northnorthwest

Service Attendant
Joined
Feb 21, 2013
Messages
158
I've been thinking (always dangerous), and please forgive me if this is thoroughly covered on other threads, but I don't understand why more politicians aren't more behind passenger rail in the US. To me it seems like a perfect example for creating jobs, improving the environment, improving living conditions and all the rest of it. Why don't I hear about every politician fighting for better service in their district or state? And arguing for all the merits that come with it?

When I do hear about rail from politicians it's always in the form of an attack about how Amtrak needs to be dismembered, how it doesn't make a profit, etc.

Is it just a matter of lobbying, and Amtrak/passenger rail not having a seat at the table? Or are there more rail advocates I don't hear from? Or they just aren't covered in the press?

There are so many jobs that could be created and so much money that could be made on high speed rail projects (or even improvements), plus all the economic activity that comes with connecting cities and bringing individual cities into clusters of megalopolitan areas. To me it's a no-brainer.

I know rail doesn't have the fear factor of EBOLA or the latest scandal, but it just seems like such an obvious thing to pursue (thus Europe and China/Korea/Japan's networks).

I DON'T GET IT!
 
The people who say such things about Amtrak are conservatives who believe government should be small, or possibly not exist at all. Do not vote for these people.
 
It all depends on which politician you talk to. If you talk to a politician whose primary agenda in some other area requires them to align with a specific dogma opposed to rail, they do so. And then there are some who are genuinely anti-rail for whatever reason.

There are many politicians who are quite openly pro-rail too, much to the chagrin of the NIMBYs. Otherwise, how do you suppose rail projects get as much money as they do get, at least locally, and frankly even federally; though the amount is less than ideal and what some of us would like to see.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
As the lawyers like to say: " It depends!"

Each Politician has to be judged on their own record, not just what they say while running for office!

Speaker Tip O'Neil, D-Boston always used to say: " Think Globally and Act Locally! All Politics is Local"

Good advice no matter what your cause or interests are!!!
 
My dogma ate my mantra,,,,

so in the interim

i will use my experience in other venues to make an analogy

most politicians do honestly care about demonstrated service to their constituents,,,

hence in Ohio, there is some leverage on a Toledo congressperson

however where i live in Southern Ohio, we have to go to Cincy or WVA to get the train

hence there is little leverage,,,,,

there is no way they are bringing the train back to Athens

the college kids can already get to Columbus or Cincy for $10 on GoBus (w/free wifi)

what can occur is what is so common in marketing - bundling,,,

we could make X jobs in the district to provide a product or service for Amtrak

but that requires planning and vision,,,,,

something that is not freely made available
 
Last edited by a moderator:
. This is not a Liberal vs Conservative issue. Here is the way that it works. If a Congressman has an Amtrak train that services his/her district they support passenger rail. If there is no train in that district or state then the sentiment is against passenger rail.

When the plan to close some post offices was suggested, you'd be surprised at how many conservatives cried foul when a post office was suggested for closure in their district.

Politicians support or reject passenger rail depending on their self interest. When a new state rail route is proposed you can bet that politicians of both parties will come out to support it so that they can direct new multi-million dollar contracts to their friends.

The two parties were put there to make you feel as though you have a choice. You don't. You have no choice. BIG MONEY, the lobbiests, the banks and Wall Street control Washington DC. BTW, Joseph Boardman the CEO of Amtrak is a Bush appointee. If Boardman was an Obama appointee, it wouldn't make one bit of difference.
 
Some of it also depends upon how many of their constituents contact them in favor or against rail. A few dozen good letters to each state and federal representative supporting Amtrak or encouraging more rail spending and service could make a huge difference in political support of rail.
 
The people who say such things about Amtrak are conservatives who believe government should be small, or possibly not exist at all. Do not vote for these people.
Either that, or vote for a government fascist dictatorship that take all your rights away.
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/14/10/07/1612226/complain-about-comcast-get-fired-from-your-job

Comcast is a Democractic Party machine, FYI.
What exactly does any of this have to do with passenger rail?

That aside, name one government fascist dictator that wants to take all of your rights away on a ballot somewhere.

As far as Comcast being a "Democratic Party machine", their top 3 political contributions have gone to the National Republican Congressional Committee, John Boehner, and the National Republican Senate Committee.

So you're not only off-topic, but you're factually inaccurate.
 
Some of it also depends upon how many of their constituents contact them in favor or against rail. A few dozen good letters to each state and federal representative supporting Amtrak or encouraging more rail spending and service could make a huge difference in political support of rail.
I have to agree with this.

Even when constituents are silent on the subject of passenger rail and Amtrak, that speaks rather loudly to politicians on the relative importance of such to voters.
 
I've been thinking (always dangerous), and please forgive me if this is thoroughly covered on other threads, but I don't understand why more politicians aren't more behind passenger rail in the US. To me it seems like a perfect example for creating jobs, improving the environment, improving living conditions and all the rest of it. Why don't I hear about every politician fighting for better service in their district or state? And arguing for all the merits that come with it?

When I do hear about rail from politicians it's always in the form of an attack about how Amtrak needs to be dismembered, how it doesn't make a profit, etc.

Is it just a matter of lobbying, and Amtrak/passenger rail not having a seat at the table? Or are there more rail advocates I don't hear from? Or they just aren't covered in the press?

There are so many jobs that could be created and so much money that could be made on high speed rail projects (or even improvements), plus all the economic activity that comes with connecting cities and bringing individual cities into clusters of megalopolitan areas. To me it's a no-brainer.

I know rail doesn't have the fear factor of EBOLA or the latest scandal, but it just seems like such an obvious thing to pursue (thus Europe and China/Korea/Japan's networks).

I DON'T GET IT!
Any politician accepts the responsibility of using the publics resources, whether money or otherwise, responsibilly. Those who believe that supporting Amtrak tend to do so. Those that feel that Amtrak is a waste of money loudly rant and rave which in turn makes good press and even better 30 second sound bites. The basic truth is that if passenger rail was a money maker as a free enterprise the freight railroads would never have given it up. The question then becomes is it to the overall public benefit to tax ourselves to provide this service. In contrast the free roads movement of the 1910's succeeded in ingraining in the public acceptance tax supported highways and eliminating the private for profit toll roads that existed at the time. Similar with the airports and service structures that are publicly owned or operated that allow our "private" air lines to operate.

The "creating of jobs" is an economic red herring. The money to pay for these jobs has to come from somewhere, so at best one would be "robbing from Peter to give to Paul". To be a true economic benefit rail would have to actually reduce the number of jobs needed to transport people, then freeing that money for other uses in the economy. That includes all facets... fuel extraction, auto building and maintainance, locomotive and car building and maintainance, road or rail construction and maintaince, insurance overhead, medical costs to society from crashes and accidents, traffic law enforcement, THE WHOLE SYSTEM.

Does rail (generic) make sense... In my opinion yes, where there is enough "market" for enough use to cover the relative high costs of running a train and the relative low costs of filling it with passengers. NE corridor certainly. Local Billings MT to Cheyanne WY likely not. LD service that we have maybe. And maybe significant additional spending for strategic increases in routes would, by synergy and sharing overhead costs, improve the value recieved for tax dollar spent. And that is the responsibility of politicians, to spend tax money wisely. An very few will agree with EVERY decision. The priority of politicians though is to get re-elected.

Amtrak itself has systemic problems. It is a "private" corporation owned by the federal government and is dependent on annual infusions of tax money to keep running. How much is needed to run the service... it gets less than it needs but somehow struggles on. Some previous comments here have suggested Amtrak has some labor agreements that it cant change... they were included in the law that created Amtrak. How many gripes about the operation of Amtrak have been on this forum and the blaming of poor management* do we do? So when you here a loudmouth like Mica ask is that anti rail or anti Amtrak. I think in his case it is more the latter yet he is clueless as to a system that will work better.

* Note: I feel that Joe Boardman is doing a wonderful job at changing the culture of Amtrak for the better... it will just take time and will hopefully last well past his tenure.
 
There has been some thought elsewhere as to why this is. For many pols, it has to do with their lifestyles, I think. 1. The majority of them have never had any reason to ever set foot aboard a train, ever, and see no use or value to Amtrak.

2. Numerous political leaders across the nation get only one train per day in their districts, and sometimes that is in the middle of the night. So, they see no value or practicality to the train serving their district. They, and their most vocal constituents, drive. They drive everywhere. So, they see an immediate, direct benefit to spending on highways -- because they themselves use the roads. Combine this and # 1, above, and you can see how they might see no need to spend one dime on train service.

3. Some pols see Amtrak as an unreasonable interference in the transportation market, while the Constitution provides for "Post Roads." Therefore, by their thinking, highway spending is Constitutional, while spending to support trains isn't.

Note that some politicians fall into all three groups simultaneously.

Yonah Freemark has done analysis on this issue at Transport Politic: http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2011/03/18/deciphering-conservative-objections-to-the-obama-administrations-high-speed-rail-program/ ,

"Deciphering objections to the high Speed Rail Program,"

and also: http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2011/01/25/understanding-the-republican-partys-reluctance-to-invest-in-transit-infrastructure/

"Understanding the Republican Party's Reluctance To Invest In Transit Infrastructure."
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The people who say such things about Amtrak are conservatives who believe government should be small, or possibly not exist at all. Do not vote for these people.
To try to make Amtrak a "liberal versus conservative" issue is a serious error. Many politicians are essentially reading from a script. Turn off the sound and watch the action. Unfortunatley for most who feel the need to vote for a particular viewpoint Amtrak positive or negative is not the deciding issue. There are other things deemed more important.

If we could get Amtrak completely divorced from any appearance of being a part of any particular political viewpoint it would be far better.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I always thought that hating on Amtrak was a cheap way to get votes for a member of congress. I do not know how many billions of dollars it takes to support the railroad, toss that concept out in front of voters with a extremly negative approach and tell them Amtrak is the reason for their taxes being so high. They don't talk about the overall savings of taking the train from point A to B. No one wants to talk about infrastructure improvements or expansion of Amtrak.

Congress is more concerned about petty issues to make immediate headlines to bolster their status and popularity. Nickel and diming Amtrak, like the Dining Car food losses, wine tasting events, tableclothes, loss of more routes, like the loss of long distance trains and so on. Amtrak is a great punching bag. Instead of working constructively to improve and increase revenue, they go for the cheap shots, for the instant headline.

We are overwhelmed with cars and trucks on the interstates, airlines squeezing us into kid sized seats and they will be placing pay toilets soon on international flights. No one wants to get real about overland fast transit train travel. To me this is a major Republican issue due to the conservative nature of their party. George Bush wanted to dump Amtrak so bad he could taste the idea.

Save billons and give to the rich, more money for his reelection and the Republican Party.

I am not a scholar or well read person. Just a dude thats see the value of train travel and would like to see Amtrak expand to more locations. I have no interest in loosing money on useless routes, like the eastern portion of the Sunset Limited. Few used it and it could not sustain itself. I look at the success of Boston to DC and imagine success of the same concept elsewhere.

Oil won't last forever, Congress needs to stop being so partisen and think about the future. I realize they can hardly make it day to day.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Most politicians of a particular political persuasion carry water for the energy industry. They love the railroads, as long as it's coal or oil riding the rails.
 
I am ready to give up on this site. JIS's "flat earth society" comment was fairly well the last straw. Get a clue people. there is more to politics than pick a package and see everythnig through that perspective and no other
 
That's a pity because I actually happen to agree with George's sentiment regarding the passenger rail issue not being a liberal vs. conservative issue.

Oh well, I do apologize profusely for having possibly gone over the line and hurt George's feeling. I would hate to see him go away just due to a humorous quip.

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum
 
There's nothing political about the science behind climate change. If you want to ignore it because it doesn't align with your political beliefs, that's your prerogative, but the Flat Earth society fits.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ahem, well I agree with Ryan on that point. The politicization or rather the attempt to do so, is mostly indulged in by those who want to obfuscate. Hey I am entitled to state things as I see them just like anyone else. I thought the flat earth analogy fit rather well. But I certainly did not mean to hurt any feelings.

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum
 
The "creating of jobs" is an economic red herring. The money to pay for these jobs has to come from somewhere, so at best one would be "robbing from Peter to give to Paul".
BZZZT. This is completely false. I have to correct this. Read John Maynard Keynes -- the General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money.
In short, money is magically created from worthless paper by the printing presses at the Bureau of Engraving and Printing. If we print money and pay it to people, we do, in fact, create jobs, get stuff done, and improve the economy. It is a net positive.

Now, if everyone is already employed, this doesn't work. Last I checked, there were unemployed people, so it does work.

Of course, it is *much better* if we pay people to do something *useful*, but we could quite literally pay them to dig holes and fill them up again, and it would still improve things (the formerly-unemployed people would spend that money on food, and clothing, and shelter, and that would lead to improvements). This is why military spending has some benefits to the economy -- on the whole, military spending destroys wealth, but all those soldiers need to eat, so money -> farmers, crops get planted, etc.

Whenever there is unemployment, we CAN print money and create jobs. We are not taking the money from anywhere; it does not have to come from anywhere. It is created out of thin air.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The "creating of jobs" is an economic red herring. The money to pay for these jobs has to come from somewhere, so at best one would be "robbing from Peter to give to Paul".
BZZZT. This is completely false. I have to correct this. Read John Maynard Keynes -- the General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money.
In short, money is magically created from worthless paper by the printing presses at the Bureau of Engraving and Printing. If we print money and pay it to people, we do, in fact, create jobs, get stuff done, and improve the economy. It is a net positive.

Now, if everyone is already employed, this doesn't work. Last I checked, there were unemployed people, so it does work.

Of course, it is *much better* if we pay people to do something *useful*, but we could quite literally pay them to dig holes and fill them up again, and it would still improve things (the formerly-unemployed people would spend that money on food, and clothing, and shelter, and that would lead to improvements). This is why military spending has some benefits to the economy -- on the whole, military spending destroys wealth, but all those soldiers need to eat, so money -> farmers, crops get planted, etc.

Whenever there is unemployment, we CAN print money and create jobs. We are not taking the money from anywhere; it does not have to come from anywhere. It is created out of thin air.
Firstly, Keynes is often misquoted and cherry-picked. People like to quote the bits from Keynes they like and ignore the bits they don't. Keynes is actually quite complex, and attempts to simplify him often lead to a falsification of what he means. Libertraians like to bang on at Keynes by deliberately quoting things out of context. If people who agree with him do the same, you're just falling to their level. Just saying.

Digging holes and filling them back in may create jobs and enable people to have income and spending power and so inject money into the broader economy.

But the problem is that as soon as you stop printing money, the digging of holes also stops and those people revert to being unemployed.

Furthermore, it begs the question, seeing those holes are of no value, why not just pay the same people to do nothing. Wouldn't the overall economical benefit be the same?

It make much more sense to do something with your money that has lasting value.

Especially if you consider that there is a limit to how much money a government can create out of nothing. At some point the printing press caused hyperinflation with all the negative consequences thereof. So the margin of printing ability you have should be used wisely rather than thrown at the first available spending idea.

For example, if instead of digging holes, you build a commuter railroad or a high speed line that is actually used and makes it easier for people to do business, that infrastructure continues to create wealth even after you've finished building it. So jobs can create more jobs and you get a positive spiral of self-sustaining activity. The initial investment is thus a seed and at some point you can ramp down government-side support without the entire tree that has grown out of the seed vanishing as a result.
 
First of all, I don't necessarily disagree with Climate Change - only that it's man made. What ended the last ice age? We've been warming far longer than man could have had any impact.

Second, let's not call the politicians haters and lovers of Amtrak. Some believe that it is in the best stewardship of the country to not dump a billion dollars per year on a system that a mere 30 million people utilize. Others don't.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top