Federal Budget Request

Shop deals on ebay
Advertise with us
shop deals on amazon
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.
B

Ben

Guest
In President Obama's State of the Union address, he mentioned that one of the administration's goals is to invest in infrastructure and high-speed rail. On February 14, the President will unveil his proposed federal budget, which will contain large sums of money for rail. As I understand, the House and Senate will use this as a framework to draft their versions of the budget, which then will be reconciled at a conference committee. After that, the President can either sign the bill or veto it. If it is vetoed, it can be overrided with a 2/3 vote in both the House and Senate, or they can redo it until the President approves.

Is this how the process works? If it is, what do you think will happen to rail funding for FY 2012 and beyond? If the President has much power over Congress, I think we could see a large increase in rail funds in the near future. I doubt Congress has 2/3 votes to overrule the President, as the Senate is still controlled by Democrats.
 
Realistically, with the large deficit facing the US, I think Amtrak and other rail spending will be cut, but not eliminated as some in Congress are proposing. I doubt Amtrak will get any funds for capital spending such as new equipment unless they can come up with creative funding methods. Which means the current Superliner equipment some of which is over 30 years old will have to continue to suffice. At somepoint, older equipment will need to be replaced or trains will need to be eliminated due to lack of equipment. The only rail expansion will likely be in states that are willing to partner with the federal goverment to fund new services. I think the Jacksonville-Daytona-Miami Florida East Coast line will become reality since Florida as some funds available, but this won't really be additional service since it involves switching Jacksonville - Miami trains from the more westerly route. I think Illinois will start some new services. I think high speed rail in California will continue to be built. Once California high speed rail is up and running and does well, other areas will start to develop high speed rail. Its great to dream, but I don't think there will be any significant increase in rail passenger funding coming from Washington.
 
I actually am more optimistic about HSR funding than most people. The difference is that there will be an increase in funding (Mica has said that the government has been too slow in promoting it, and promises a massive increase in funding). The difference is one caveat: it will only be money for services planned at greater that 125mph speed, true HSR. So Amtrak wouldn't benefit much from this new money. Amtrak will probably not get any capital funds, but will get enough to continue operating as is.
 
jphjaxfl said:
Realistically, with the large deficit facing the US, I think Amtrak and other rail spending will be cut, but not eliminated as some in Congress are proposing. I doubt Amtrak will get any funds for capital spending such as new equipment unless they can come up with creative funding methods. Which means the current Superliner equipment some of which is over 30 years old will have to continue to suffice. At somepoint, older equipment will need to be replaced or trains will need to be eliminated due to lack of equipment. The only rail expansion will likely be in states that are willing to partner with the federal goverment to fund new services. I think the Jacksonville-Daytona-Miami Florida East Coast line will become reality since Florida as some funds available, but this won't really be additional service since it involves switching Jacksonville - Miami trains from the more westerly route. I think Illinois will start some new services. I think high speed rail in California will continue to be built. Once California high speed rail is up and running and does well, other areas will start to develop high speed rail. Its great to dream, but I don't think there will be any significant increase in rail passenger funding coming from Washington.
Click to expand...
It was my understanding that replacement cars and engines have already been ordered as part of the stimulus bill. Am I correct? If so, can or will these orders be cancelled?
 
The existing orders are likely safe. Though it's possible that the manufacturers can forget about Amtrak excersizing the options. But the new cars are only viewliners and the replacement engines are only electric engines. So the superliners will just continue creaking along.
 
Hanno said:
It was my understanding that replacement cars and engines have already been ordered as part of the stimulus bill. Am I correct? If so, can or will these orders be cancelled?
Click to expand...
Amtrak placed both these orders out of their regular capital budget. They asked for a special appropriation, but did not receive it, so they used internal funding. Neither the Viewliner order or the electric locomotive order used stimulus funding.

Amtrak is hoping to get some special funding in future appropriations. If they do not, they will have to cut other capital projects to complete the orders.
 
Ben said:
In President Obama's State of the Union address, he mentioned that one of the administration's goals is to invest in infrastructure and high-speed rail. On February 14, the President will unveil his proposed federal budget, which will contain large sums of money for rail. As I understand, the House and Senate will use this as a framework to draft their versions of the budget, which then will be reconciled at a conference committee. After that, the President can either sign the bill or veto it. If it is vetoed, it can be override with a 2/3 vote in both the House and Senate, or they can redo it until the President approves.
Click to expand...
Yes, that is correct - with the minor exception that the President has zero obligation to submit a budget. All spending bill originate in the House. And since the Republicans control the House and the President is a Democrat, I would expect to hear those immortal words: Dead On Arrival.

The Presidents budget is more of an opening negotiation that part of the legal process.

And since neither party has a 2/3, watching the stalemate could be fun -- remember President Clinton v Congress Republicans during the 1990's ?
 
Now I'm certainly glad the President has brought about the idea of better passenger rail in this country, however you can't just come up with the idea and throw money at it and expect people not to get mad. There needs to be a funding mechanism in place for it, much like the Highway Trust Fund of the 1950's. Something like a National Defense Public Transportation Act, which is probably the best idea I've heard so far. While I certainly don't think Amtrak funding will go away, maybe this is the best time to come up with such a plan, when the money is scarce. Time to get creative here, which is what I think is going to happen. We have no choice really.
 
:hi: Good idea Chris! If the airlines lay you off again ( :( )perhaps you could take over such a fund as the administrator, wed actually have someone in Washington who knows about transportation and isnt a career politician! :help:

As to the deficits, perhaps the Repub-TPs would like to call in President Clinton, IIRC we had a budget surplus when he left office which the Bush gang proceeded to blow to pieces with their phoney wars, tax cuts for the super rich and other such BS! The function of our Govt. should be to provide that which is for the common good, not to favor greedheads and fanatical extremists of every stripe! Amtrak will survive, contact your members and also the White House, as Ive said before Amtrak Joe needs to get busy! :excl:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
There is a house bill would cut subsidies for Amtrakbut not dissolve it. The bill won't go anywhere and I'll tell you why. First, even conservative Republicans have constituents, and very few Congressman would want to vote for a bill that will end the passenger train serving their district or state. Second, Democrats control the White House and Senate, and they're not going to support this so even if the House passes it, it won't become law. Third even if it did pass Obama would veto it. So everyone relax Amtrak is not going to be put out of business. Also consider that oil prices may rise beyond belief in 2011. Amtraks ridership will be UP and the politicans will need to take notice.

As for HSR, I don't see that happening. Lets be happy with what we have right now.
 
the only thing that rail proponents should be focused on is the creation of passenger rail or high speed rail title in the next transportation bill. one has never existed before, and once one is created it will likely exist for eternity (or at least the 6 year life of the bill). amtrak has survived worse and will likely make it through this budget cycle with nothing worse than a slightly smaller budget than what was requested.

amtrak is one of the conservative movement's favorite whipping boys and code word for "out of control" government spending (USPS, NEA, public broadcasting, etc etc). the reality, as many have noted here, is that the services pass through a LOT of congressional districts, provides jobs, and is the only alternative to driving in many places.
 
George Harris said:
DaveKCMO said:
perhaps because amtrak facilities aren't known for being ADA compliant.
Click to expand...
????? They are and they have to be.
Click to expand...
Most Amtrak stations are not fully ADA compliant. Many stations now have wheelchair lifts, but don't have good access from the parking area and station, don't have ADA compliant rest rooms, or crumbling platforms. Amtrak received $144 million in the FY2010 funding as part of a multi-year program to bring 482 stations up to ADA compliance. The goal is to get all stations to full ADA compliance - the exact definition of which has been subject of dispute - by 2015. A big problem has been to determine who has controlling ownership of and responsibility for the platforms, stations, and parking facilities - and then getting the owners to agree to what needs to be done and who pays for it. There is a progress report on the work for upgrading stations for ADA and accessibility on the Amtrak website which discusses all the problems encountered at http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/BlobServer?blobcol=urldata&blobtable=MungoBlobs&blobkey=id&blobwhere=1249216603583&blobheader=application%2Fpdf&blobheadername1=Content-disposition&blobheadervalue1=attachment;filename=Amtrak_ADA_AccessibilityComplianceReport_Oct2010.pdf. Appendix 3 lists who owns the platforms, station structure, and parking facility for all 482 stations if anyone is curious about it.

The ADA compliance issue is sort of getting off topic, but not entirely because the new Congress might cut the funding to Amtrak for getting all the stations up to ADA compliance standards. Would become yet another unfunded Congressional mandate. The ADA funding is being used to replace crumbling platforms, fix up stations, renovate the rest rooms, make some fixes to the parking lots or facilities which benefit everyone using the station. It has been a pot of funding that is helping to get stations to a better state of repair. If that funding goes away, then the program grinds to a halt while Amtrak looks to the station owners and cities to fix the stations and platforms which will drag out the ADA compliance and station fix-up process for a very long time.
 
Congratulations, you have just made the most common stupid mistake of them all. Disabled Americans do not automatically have a need for a wheelchair. In fact, some disabled Americans have sufficiently athletic bodies to run marathons- and do.

Being blind, or legally blind, or too blind to drive a car is a disability. People who can't drive cars should not be discriminated against. Thus the operation of intercity rail is mandatory as a result of the ADAs basis of preventing discrimination against disabled Americans.
 
Based upon what has happened recently in Wisconsin, I'd be concerned if the President gets more and more vocal in his support of improvements in passenger rail service. By making it a centerpiece of his administration, it makes it easier for the opponents to target their opposition. Be promoting it, he turns rail service into a target for the opposition -- and, believe me, there is considerable opposition out there (a large segment of it misinformed, unfortunately).
 
Green Maned Lion said:
Congratulations, you have just made the most common stupid mistake of them all. Disabled Americans do not automatically have a need for a wheelchair. In fact, some disabled Americans have sufficiently athletic bodies to run marathons- and do.
Being blind, or legally blind, or too blind to drive a car is a disability. People who can't drive cars should not be discriminated against. Thus the operation of intercity rail is mandatory as a result of the ADAs basis of preventing discrimination against disabled Americans.
Click to expand...
Thank you.

Also needs mentioning: There are many "mobility impairments" that result in difficulty getting around or walking any significant distance that are considered disabilities under the ADA law that do not rise to the the need to be in a wheelchair.

By the way, any form of seizure issue will cause loss of drivers license for peirods of up to one year beyond the time of the last episode. These people may be fully mobile in all ways at other times, and are not disabled by the ADA definition, but they cannot drive, so must either use public transportation or find someone else to drive them places.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Back
Top