Cong. John Mica lost House, considered for transportation secretary

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.
Thing to look out for is what happens in the '18 appropriations. Remainder of '17 or at least first 3 Q of '17 will most likely be under the CR that will be adopted by the lame duck session of Congress.
 
I honestly think all bets are off. Trump has been tweeting one thing one day and the opposite the other. Neither facts, knowledge nor his own previous statements seem to matter much to him. Economywise his proposals for tax cuts and spending doesn't add up at all. He likes big shiny things better than mundane people stuff like health care, but whether it's going to be roads or rails, there's no clue (he might be a New Yorker, but I doubt he has been in a train for many, many years, if ever). So which are going to become reality?

But I agree Congress will matter more, and here two things will determine the outcome: How long and forcefully Obamahate will linger. If we see an all out "erase everything" rampage, anything transit might get killed, as Obama tried to push it, even if unsuccessful, at least since 2010. The other is how the powerstruggle within the Republican caucus will play out. There's definately an "any government spending, especially near any large cities is bad"-wing, and they probably smell blood. We might see a congress which is every bit as paralyzed as the current one, where internal Republican infighting has been as much the cause as lack of bipartisanship. Public transport might end up collateral damage in that fight.

Or maybe not. But there is at least as much cause for pessimism as for optimism. There's a potential upside not seen since the stimulus in 2008-10, but in contrary to that period there's also a real danger of total slash and burn. Most likely scenario: Amtrak will fly under the radar and continue slogging along without any of the fundamental problems getting solved.

Great Post! I agree.
 
Pretty sure Amtrak is now more moribund than ever with the current sweep of government. Like, as in total shut down is more likely than ever. Freight companies are salivating.
 
I just want to remind everyone that Amtrak has had similar circumstances before and survived, such as the budget crisis of 2002. Amtrak may be different but it should keep going.
 
Not sure why people are speculating on the future of Amtrak. We have a (nominally) Republican president-elect and the House and Senate have Republican majorities.

The GOP told us what they want for Amtrak in their 2016 platform (p. 5). Here is their vision of passenger rail in the US:

"Amtrak is an extremely expensive railroad for the American taxpayers, who must subsidize every ticket. The federal government should allow private ventures to provide passenger service in the northeast corridor. The same holds true with regard to high-speed and intercity rail across the country. We reaffirm our intention to end federal support for boondoggles like California’s high-speed train to nowhere."
 
I suppose mainly because parties seldom do much with the platform once they get elected. It is really hard to tell what will happen. Similar language has been in platforms for a while now. In the Reagan David Stockman tried to implement the platform for two years and then he was basically sidelined and life went on as before. People who write the platform don;t necessarily have much control over what Congress will actually do.
 
People who have not lived through the early Reagan (Stockman) years have no clue what a bad year looks like ;)
I don't think we've ever come as close to losing Amtrak as we did during the initial years of the Reagan Administration.....which eventually (and wisely) gave up trying to kill the program and let Amtrak live in peace. Don Phillips, of Trains magazine and (then) the Washington Post, commented that for a time in Congress, Amtrak was dead.

If the company survived those challenges, I don't think we have much to worry about under President Trump, who has far bigger fish to fry. People need to realize the "Amtrak is doomed, woe is me!" senseless rhetoric isn't helping anything.
 
People who have not lived through the early Reagan (Stockman) years have no clue what a bad year looks like ;)
I'm just old enough to remember early Reagan (also a political junkie from a young age). This is probably why I'm more relaxed about Trump than many of my friends: I remember Reagan. Clearly.
 
I suppose mainly because parties seldom do much with the platform once they get elected.
Yeah, they have totally ignored the platform for a really long time. The Republicans have ignored their own platform since the Reagan administration, possibly earlier, and the Democrats have ignored theirs since the Clinton administration at least.
 
People who have not lived through the early Reagan (Stockman) years have no clue what a bad year looks like ;)
I'm just old enough to remember early Reagan (also a political junkie from a young age). This is probably why I'm more relaxed about Trump than many of my friends: I remember Reagan. Clearly.
Agreed. As I recall, some of Amtrak's biggest route cuts happened under Democrat administrations. I also think it is dangerous to paint Dems and Repubs with broad strokes. The truth is, NO ONE really knows how this new president will advance a rail agenda.

My biggest gripe with rail supporters, especially on this board, is that the ONLY way forward they see is just pour more money into Amtrak to expand/build new fleets/etc. and REFUSE to look at fundamental organizational changes within the organization and daily operations.

"Profit" and "successful" don't have to mean the same thing.

Mica, whom this thread began with, was never going to politically go for that paradigm shift. Well, this past Tuesday the shift occurred on a plate tectonic scale. Let's see what shakes out.
 
My biggest gripe with rail supporters, especially on this board, is that the ONLY way forward they see is just pour more money into Amtrak to expand/build new fleets/etc. and REFUSE to look at fundamental organizational changes within the organization and daily operations.

"Profit" and "successful" don't have to mean the same thing.

Indeed but successful is subjective and there is the rube that is Amtrak. Successful to whom? What is the REAL mission? Well, that depends on who funds it. Until it is funded in a consistent manner, it will ALWAYS be subject to the political whims of those who fund it.

I don't believe board remembers refuse to look at operational or organizational changes. I do believe that most realize that politicians are notoriously resistant to changes that impact their interests so some of the changes people seek are unlikely to come with the government's paw on the pulse.

Those on that really know what can occur can look at examples of potential savings only to have it stymied by particular members that decry the costs, but interfere when things are altered. Even Mica's change was initially larded with elimination of F&B losses without the loss of jobs.
 
Good points. We may be able to sum it up as "you protect my Amtrak route I'll protect yours " ? Corollary " You help me improve service on my route ( area ) and I'll help you improve yours ".
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I define success as on time with quality onboard service and experience first and foremost. I quietly advocate that AMTRAK take care of hauling coach, slumbercoach, and basic food service portions of the routes and then sublet / lease/ farm out the above the wheels operation of the food and sleeping car passengers for a cut of the profit from those.

I know the usual suspects who troll this site will flame away with usual the usual political based rants seen through the micro view of their world, but the truth is that Amtrak's onboard service, for the price charged, is abysmal in comparison to other forms of transportation.

I'll grant you that the costs of moving people along rail over LONG distances is much more costly than air. But until we can attract a larger number of people to "get onboard", there will not be the broad based political pressure applied to expand service that we need.

:hi:
 
I define success as on time with quality onboard service and experience first and foremost. I quietly advocate that AMTRAK take care of hauling coach, slumbercoach, and basic food service portions of the routes and then sublet / lease/ farm out the above the wheels operation of the food and sleeping car passengers for a cut of the profit from those.
Why should Amtrak only get a cut of the profit, when they can do it themselves and keep all the profit?
 
I define success as on time with quality onboard service and experience first and foremost. I quietly advocate that AMTRAK take care of hauling coach, slumbercoach, and basic food service portions of the routes and then sublet / lease/ farm out the above the wheels operation of the food and sleeping car passengers for a cut of the profit from those.

I know the usual suspects who troll this site will flame away with usual the usual political based rants seen through the micro view of their world, but the truth is that Amtrak's onboard service, for the price charged, is abysmal in comparison to other forms of transportation.

I'll grant you that the costs of moving people along rail over LONG distances is much more costly than air. But until we can attract a larger number of people to "get onboard", there will not be the broad based political pressure applied to expand service that we need.

:hi:
I'm not sure how much of this board you actually read but it is replete with posts bemoaning the loss of quality of the product and the costs which have grown prohibitive (in my opinion) for the average person. Even the employees have mentioned the product has declined and some have even been reported as embarrassed. However, that is one the problems when people demand that costs are cut while having competing visions. While I agree that your vision mirrors mine (an on time, well serviced quality product that makes the experience "memorable" and worth repeating), others may regard our same vision as taxpayer subsidized "luxury" (I always have to contain my laughter when someone uses luxury) or "vacation" travel. There are many who believe Amtrak should be funded as though it is a bus on steel wheels since it should be nothing more than transportation.

I'm not sure how political based rants works its way into this general post but I'd think you'd agree that in order to gain more riders, you need more equipment, more frequency and more options....which means you need adequate funding. It is not a surprise that once the stimulus funding was provided, a bunch of wrecked cars were restored to service and ridership grew. A consistent stream of funding means you can plan for fleet renewal. The diesel fleet takes a hard pounding and there is no relief in sight. The equipment is old and has a relentless pace. The reason people mention funding for additional equipment is because it is the obvious solution.

It would be nice to have properly rested equipment that could be properly maintained instead of deploying a diesel from a turnaround point with the car still wrapped around the cow catcher because you're power short. ^_^
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Why should Amtrak only get a cut of the profit, when they can do it themselves and keep all the profit?
Because I do not believe their current structure from HR to politics will allow it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
While I agree that your vision mirrors mine (an on time, well serviced quality product that makes the experience "memorable" and worth repeating), others may regard our same vision as taxpayer subsidized "luxury" (I always have to contain my laughter when someone uses luxury) or "vacation" travel. There are many who believe Amtrak should be funded as though it is a bus on steel wheels since it should be nothing more than transportation.

I'm not sure how political based rants works its way into this general post but I'd think you'd agree that in order to gain more riders, you need more equipment, more frequency and more options....

​The fact is that the sleepers need the coaches and the coach passengers need the sleepers. It's no different than legacy air carriers across the Atlantic. The airliner needs both types of seats, BUT there is a significant hard product and soft product difference between the front and back cabins. I would not go so far as to say that is all that obvious on Amtrak. I suggest that a higher class product can demand much more in premium charges. That does indeed require quality equipment and service.

We don't have to look far. Iowa Pacific, if I read everything correctly, is already showing that it can be done. I am not anti-Amtrak. I am anti-Amtrak having to always be in charge of every facet of the travel experience.

In other words, there is a compromise that I believe can lead to great demand, increased quality of onboard service, and exposure to a broader base of the American public that can drive even more improvements.
 
Already mentioned above. Mica has the transportation resume, is now available, and likely doesn't want to go home to Florida at age 73 to start a whole new career. Just the little problem that Amtrak fans hate him.

And a better candidate is? Better give the name to the transition team quick.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top