Trump and Amtrak/Budget cutting funding

[WoodyinNYC]

I love it. Passenger rail has been a losing proposition for over 50 years. Ever hear if a concept called Utilitarianism? Do the greatest good for the greatest number. Don't blame Trump for the fact that a tiny fraction of the population use LD service. Or the losses. Come up with false analogies that govt programs don't have to make money. Of course they don't. Food Stamps don't make money. Tanks and missiles don't either. However our voters and politicians decided they are necessary social and safety expenditures. For selfish reasons I'd want LD to continue. My life will be negatively impacted. So will yours, I get it. Yet I can think of hundreds of higher ranking priorities.

I take your point. I'd keep Food Stamps, or Obamacare, over LD trains if I had to make that hard choice. But that isn't the only choice: How about restoring the estate tax so that spoiled brats like the Koch Brothers would pay a fair share for running the country when they inherit a $30 Billion oil company from their daddy.

The steady drumbeat of propaganda from the tax-avoiders is that this country is somehow short of funds. Nonsense. We've had a lousy economic policy under Bush and Obama. But if we still have money to prepare to invade more Middle Eastern countries or build another $11 Billion aircraft carrier or cut taxes on the richest among us, then surely we can afford to invest more in passenger rail.

Meanwhile I have not signed on to support losing money forever. Over the past 15 years or so -- following the introduction of the Acela as a turning point -- Amtrak has gotten better. More passengers, more revenue, flat or lower losses, better farebox recovery, even better On Time Performance and customer satisfaction scores. Amtrak is a turnaround business story, but it needs more investment to keep getting better.

Over the past 10 years or so -- following the windfall investment from the Stimulus -- Amtrak has gotten better even faster, with upgrades to the infrastructure and especially to its fleet. Almost 100 wrecked cars resting at Beech Grove maintenance center were rescued, rehabbed, and put back to work on the tracks. New electric locomotives on the NEC. New diesels for the Midwest and California corridors. Four more Talgo trainsets. And a small order for new baggage cars, diners, and sleepers for the Eastern long distance trains, as well as a small order for bi-level coaches for the Midwest corridors; both orders have missed many deadlines, but that doesn't seem to be Amtrak's fault, and eventually the new cars will arrive. Not to forget an order placed for Avelia Liberty trains to replace the Acelas, faster, cheaper and easier to operate, 40% more capacity, and enuff cars to allow more high speed trains during rush hour.

Before the end of this year, we should see the biggest Stimulus rail projects completed. By this time next year, Amtrak ridership could be up 500,000 riders from the handful of upgraded corridors, especially the showcase project St Louis-CHI, but also Detroit-CHI, Seattle-Portland, Charlotte-Raleigh, New Haven-Hartford-Springfield-Vermont, and a stretch of tracks south and west of Albany. Together these projects will improve ridership totals and revenues, but also improve On Time Performance and average speed for Amtrak trains.

When Amtrak grows, it benefits more riders while reducing its 'costs per' -- costs per passenger, cost per train, costs per hour, costs per dollar of revenue, etc. More investment leading to more growth can fix most of Amtrak's problems and start to reduce its losses every year.

If Congress would appropriate $4 Billion a year for capital investment as Obama repeatedly requested, we could begin work on one or two more corridor upgrades every year. Consider St Paul-CHI, Cincinnati-Indianapolis-CHI, Philly-Pittsburgh, Omaha-Des Moines-Quad Cities-CHI, Memphis-CHI, Baton Rouge-New Orleans-Mobile, Springfield-Worcester-Boston, and others. Upgraded corridors greatly help the Long Distance trains as well. And Amtrak needs large new orders for both single-level and bi-level coaches and other cars for renewing and expanding its fleet.

The cure for what ails Amtrak is more Amtrak.

 

[Anderson]

Do you have any idea how important Amtrak is to small states? And how important their representatives and senators feel that Amtrak is to their constituents? Here is an article in which Montana's junior senator ® tries to convince Amtrak to add a stop in Montana. Do you think this GOP senator is going to defund Amtrak when his constituents are blasting his office email system asking for more Amtrak?

You are mistaking the Heritage talking points Trump used for his budget request for what he really wants. The two aren't quite the same. Trump has dropped a Heritage foundation budget on the budget process because it is useful for Trump in his effort to negotiate for reduced spending in some areas and increase funding in others. Trumps budget is NOT exactly what he wants. It is what he thinks is most likely to GET HIM what he wants. Trump negotiates like a crafty business man, not like most politicians.

Read his book. Until you do, you won't understand Trump.

And that having been said, I am not positive that Trump really cares one way or the other about Amtrak. It doesn't matter if he does in the end. It only matters that most Dems and a substantial minority of the GOP DEFINITELY WANT Amtrak in their states to continue.

While I have no rational way of coming to that conclusion, it certainly is one hypothesis that is not contrary to the facts observed so far. But as usual most of the consequential part of the hypothesis is still out in the future, so we will see.

Meanwhile, I am happy to hold out hope that this sort of a hypothesis will come true and keep fighting to make sure that we have the ducks lined up properly to facilitate the desired outcome of such. That is the best one can do at present, purely from a pragmatic perspective. The situation that we are in is what it is. The thing is to figure out a path given the constraints to the desired outcome.

This is in line with what a friend of mine suggested (and indeed that I've observed as well): Trump wanted a defense spending bump and presumably didn't want to cut NASA (since let's face it, someone at NASA can tease the idea of his name going on a plaque on Mars or using spinoff tech from the mission to open up the Trump Interstellar Hotel). So, Heritage did a "round up the usual suspects" budget to balance out those cuts but a lot of the usual right-wing bait items are items that can also be safely traded away.

 

[seat38a]

I love it. Passenger rail has been a losing proposition for over 50 years. Ever hear if a concept called Utilitarianism? Do the greatest good for the greatest number. Don't blame Trump for the fact that a tiny fraction of the population use LD service. Or the losses. Come up with false analogies that govt programs don't have to make money. Of course they don't. Food Stamps don't make money. Tanks and missiles don't either. However our voters and politicians decided they are necessary social and safety expenditures. For selfish reasons I'd want LD to continue. My life will be negatively impacted. So will yours, I get it. Yet I can think of hundreds of higher ranking priorities.

I take your point. I'd keep Food Stamps, or Obamacare, over LD trains if I had to make that hard choice. But that isn't the only choice: How about restoring the estate tax so that spoiled brats like the Koch Brothers would pay a fair share for running the country when they inherit a $30 Billion oil company from their daddy.

The steady drumbeat of propaganda from the tax-avoiders is that this country is somehow short of funds. Nonsense. We've had a lousy economic policy under Bush and Obama. But if we still have money to prepare to invade more Middle Eastern countries or build another $11 Billion aircraft carrier or cut taxes on the richest among us, then surely we can afford to invest more in passenger rail.

Meanwhile I have not signed on to support losing money forever. Over the past 15 years or so -- following the introduction of the Acela as a turning point -- Amtrak has gotten better. More passengers, more revenue, flat or lower losses, better farebox recovery, even better On Time Performance and customer satisfaction scores. Amtrak is a turnaround business story, but it needs more investment to keep getting better.

Over the past 10 years or so -- following the windfall investment from the Stimulus -- Amtrak has gotten better even faster, with upgrades to the infrastructure and especially to its fleet. Almost 100 wrecked cars resting at Beech Grove maintenance center were rescued, rehabbed, and put back to work on the tracks. New electric locomotives on the NEC. New diesels for the Midwest and California corridors. Four more Talgo trainsets. And a small order for new baggage cars, diners, and sleepers for the Eastern long distance trains, as well as a small order for bi-level coaches for the Midwest corridors; both orders have missed many deadlines, but that doesn't seem to be Amtrak's fault, and eventually the new cars will arrive. Not to forget an order placed for Avelia Liberty trains to replace the Acelas, faster, cheaper and easier to operate, 40% more capacity, and enuff cars to allow more high speed trains during rush hour.

Before the end of this year, we should see the biggest Stimulus rail projects completed. By this time next year, Amtrak ridership could be up 500,000 riders from the handful of upgraded corridors, especially the showcase project St Louis-CHI, but also Detroit-CHI, Seattle-Portland, Charlotte-Raleigh, New Haven-Hartford-Springfield-Vermont, and a stretch of tracks south and west of Albany. Together these projects will improve ridership totals and revenues, but also improve On Time Performance and average speed for Amtrak trains.

When Amtrak grows, it benefits more riders while reducing its 'costs per' -- costs per passenger, cost per train, costs per hour, costs per dollar of revenue, etc. More investment leading to more growth can fix most of Amtrak's problems and start to reduce its losses every year.

If Congress would appropriate $4 Billion a year for capital investment as Obama repeatedly requested, we could begin work on one or two more corridor upgrades every year. Consider St Paul-CHI, Cincinnati-Indianapolis-CHI, Philly-Pittsburgh, Omaha-Des Moines-Quad Cities-CHI, Memphis-CHI, Baton Rouge-New Orleans-Mobile, Springfield-Worcester-Boston, and others. Upgraded corridors greatly help the Long Distance trains as well. And Amtrak needs large new orders for both single-level and bi-level coaches and other cars for renewing and expanding its fleet.

The cure for what ails Amtrak is more Amtrak.

I'll believe "Not to forget an order placed for Avelia Liberty trains to replace the Acelas, faster, cheaper and easier to operate, 40% more capacity, and enuff cars to allow more high speed trains during rush hour," when it does happen but I'm not holding my breath. Considering no rail orders by Amtrak have gone right recently including the current Acela's, what makes you think the Avelia Liberty order will do any better?

 

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

I'll believe "Not to forget an order placed for Avelia Liberty trains to replace the Acelas, faster, cheaper and easier to operate, 40% more capacity, and enuff cars to allow more high speed trains during rush hour," when it does happen but I'm not holding my breath. Considering no rail orders by Amtrak have gone right recently including the current Acela's, what makes you think the Avelia Liberty order will do any better?

Does the introduction of Acela's (2000) count as "recent"?

Like it or not, Amtrak has much more motivation to improve service on the huge money making (if not profitable then from a ridership/revenue standpoint) than they do for Viewliner II's and Superliner IIi's (or the replacement for Superliners) to use on LD routes that aren't as popular or make nearly as much money. And it's not pitting sides here. Amtrak covers 94% of operating costs through ticket sales. If the Avelia Liberty allows them to sell more seats then more money comes in and that 94% becomes closer to if not at or higher than 100%.

 

[A Voice]

However our voters and politicians decided they are necessary social and safety expenditures.

A robust and modern transportation infrastructure (and the associated services) isn't a necessary social expenditure? Seriously? Through chronic lack of investment, our roads, rails, and airports are already on a course for gridlock.

Passenger rail is not just a desirable, but often a required part of transit and mobility. Even in rural areas where other modes might arguably pick up the slack, you still need network connectivity and options in mode of transport to best exploit mobility and development.

I love it. Passenger rail has been a losing proposition for over 50 years. Ever hear if a concept called Utilitarianism? Do the greatest good for the greatest number. Don't blame Trump for the fact that a tiny fraction of the population use LD service. Or the losses. Come up with false analogies that govt programs don't have to make money. Of course they don't. Food Stamps don't make money. Tanks and missiles don't either. However our voters and politicians decided they are necessary social and safety expenditures. For selfish reasons I'd want LD to continue. My life will be negatively impacted. So will yours, I get it. Yet I can think of hundreds of higher ranking priorities.

I take your point. I'd keep Food Stamps, or Obamacare, over LD trains if I had to make that hard choice. But that isn't the only choice: How about restoring the estate tax so that spoiled brats like the Koch Brothers would pay a fair share for running the country when they inherit a $30 Billion oil company from their daddy.

The steady drumbeat of propaganda from the tax-avoiders is that this country is somehow short of funds. Nonsense. We've had a lousy economic policy under Bush and Obama. But if we still have money to prepare to invade more Middle Eastern countries or build another $11 Billion aircraft carrier or cut taxes on the richest among us, then surely we can afford to invest more in passenger rail.

Meanwhile I have not signed on to support losing money forever. Over the past 15 years or so -- following the introduction of the Acela as a turning point -- Amtrak has gotten better. More passengers, more revenue, flat or lower losses, better farebox recovery, even better On Time Performance and customer satisfaction scores. Amtrak is a turnaround business story, but it needs more investment to keep getting better.

Over the past 10 years or so -- following the windfall investment from the Stimulus -- Amtrak has gotten better even faster, with upgrades to the infrastructure and especially to its fleet. Almost 100 wrecked cars resting at Beech Grove maintenance center were rescued, rehabbed, and put back to work on the tracks. New electric locomotives on the NEC. New diesels for the Midwest and California corridors. Four more Talgo trainsets. And a small order for new baggage cars, diners, and sleepers for the Eastern long distance trains, as well as a small order for bi-level coaches for the Midwest corridors; both orders have missed many deadlines, but that doesn't seem to be Amtrak's fault, and eventually the new cars will arrive. Not to forget an order placed for Avelia Liberty trains to replace the Acelas, faster, cheaper and easier to operate, 40% more capacity, and enuff cars to allow more high speed trains during rush hour.

Before the end of this year, we should see the biggest Stimulus rail projects completed. By this time next year, Amtrak ridership could be up 500,000 riders from the handful of upgraded corridors, especially the showcase project St Louis-CHI, but also Detroit-CHI, Seattle-Portland, Charlotte-Raleigh, New Haven-Hartford-Springfield-Vermont, and a stretch of tracks south and west of Albany. Together these projects will improve ridership totals and revenues, but also improve On Time Performance and average speed for Amtrak trains.

When Amtrak grows, it benefits more riders while reducing its 'costs per' -- costs per passenger, cost per train, costs per hour, costs per dollar of revenue, etc. More investment leading to more growth can fix most of Amtrak's problems and start to reduce its losses every year.

If Congress would appropriate $4 Billion a year for capital investment as Obama repeatedly requested, we could begin work on one or two more corridor upgrades every year. Consider St Paul-CHI, Cincinnati-Indianapolis-CHI, Philly-Pittsburgh, Omaha-Des Moines-Quad Cities-CHI, Memphis-CHI, Baton Rouge-New Orleans-Mobile, Springfield-Worcester-Boston, and others. Upgraded corridors greatly help the Long Distance trains as well. And Amtrak needs large new orders for both single-level and bi-level coaches and other cars for renewing and expanding its fleet.

The cure for what ails Amtrak is more Amtrak.

I might take issue with a few of your minor points and examples, but overall I completely agree. Well said.

I'll believe "Not to forget an order placed for Avelia Liberty trains to replace the Acelas, faster, cheaper and easier to operate, 40% more capacity, and enuff cars to allow more high speed trains during rush hour," when it does happen but I'm not holding my breath. Considering no rail orders by Amtrak have gone right recently including the current Acela's, what makes you think the Avelia Liberty order will do any better?

I've said this before, but if the Avelia Liberty (Acela II) order goes even remotely like CAF or Nippon-Sharyo, things will get interesting when leases expire on the current Acela trainsets if the replacements have not yet arrived.

Like it or not, Amtrak has much more motivation to improve service on the huge money making (if not profitable then from a ridership/revenue standpoint) than they do for Viewliner II's and Superliner IIi's (or the replacement for Superliners) to use on LD routes that aren't as popular or make nearly as much money. And it's not pitting sides here. Amtrak covers 94% of operating costs through ticket sales. If the Avelia Liberty allows them to sell more seats then more money comes in and that 94% becomes closer to if not at or higher than 100%

You are correct. We need to be careful with that "94%" number, though. As already pointed out, it (unfortunately) doesn't mean a modest increase in fares would put Amtrak at the break even point, free of required subsidies.

 

[jis]

I'll believe "Not to forget an order placed for Avelia Liberty trains to replace the Acelas, faster, cheaper and easier to operate, 40% more capacity, and enuff cars to allow more high speed trains during rush hour," when it does happen but I'm not holding my breath. Considering no rail orders by Amtrak have gone right recently including the current Acela's, what makes you think the Avelia Liberty order will do any better?

Do you then also believe that the ACS-64 order which has just been successfully completed is not an Amtrak order? Whose order was it then?

 

[RampWidget]

Amtrak is an easy target because it is presented and thought of in our national transportation policy (unjustly, IMO) as a "Subsidy" budget item. OTOH, expenditures costing billions of dollars such as deepening port channels by the Army Corps of Engineers and improving the Interstate Highway system are seen as necessary public "investments".

In reality, as others here have pointed out, no other form of transportation is profitable if it were 100% independent of Government funding (with the possible exception of freight rail in the US).

I recall a valuable piece of perspective that was taught in a Highway Engineering class in my undergraduate days: The average thickness of an Interstate highway concrete slab is eleven inches. If that highway were to be used only by automobiles, the slab would only need to be one inch thick. Tax dollars pay for the extra ten inches in the Interstate as a hidden subsidy to the trucking industry. And no, despite their protestations, they don't even come close to covering the cost via the road-use tax and motor-fuel tax.

Your comments are welcomed, as always.

 

[RSG]

I love it. Passenger rail has been a losing proposition for over 50 years. Ever hear if a concept called Utilitarianism? Do the greatest good for the greatest number. Don't blame Trump for the fact that a tiny fraction of the population use LD service. Or the losses. Come up with false analogies that govt programs don't have to make money. Of course they don't. Food Stamps don't make money. Tanks and missiles don't either. However our voters and politicians decided they are necessary social and safety expenditures. For selfish reasons I'd want LD to continue. My life will be negatively impacted. So will yours, I get it. Yet I can think of hundreds of higher ranking priorities.

This argument is part of the problem as to why transportation in the USA is often schizophrenic and usually behind the times in both repairs of existing infrastructure and new construction.
We tend to view transportation in isolated bubbles instead of looking at it as parts of one big picture. It's not a matter of passenger aviation or passenger rail or passenger bus or personal vehicular transport or a combination of some of those; it's all of those combined.

But if you were an alien who was visiting the US for the first time, you'd quickly come to the conclusion that airplanes and cars were the only way people got from Point A to Point B outside of an urban core. It's no wonder that legislators and the general public also see it that way. Yet when something disrupts either or both of those methods, all of a sudden everyone realizes how dependent we are on a couple of forms of transport, at least until service is restored and it's business as usual again.

Not to mention that the Interstate Highway System wasn't designed so that Chevy Chase could make a movie franchise epitomizing and romanticising family travel; it was created as a potential military staging system. But you'd have a hard time utilizing it for that if it was necessary, since most who use it (and are dependent on it) have come to regard it as their God-given right to use as they see fit (and often drive like maniacs doing so). Yet there's always priority given when it comes to its repair---until it's time to find a quick source of extra money and the Highway Trust Fund is raided to cover something else. It only truly becomes a higher ranking priority when there's a bridge collapse or a sinkhole in a section of highway caused by erosion which could have been prevented with additional maintenance.

The quickest way to immobilize a nation is to prevent it from going about its normal course of business and disrupt travel. In a fully integrated transportation scheme that would be more difficult to do, but is currently quite easy. Therefore, if we started looking at our transportation system not only as a means to get from place to place, but as an essential part of national security with inherent redundancy, there wouldn't be a constant discussion about rattling the tin cup for Amtrak and gee-why-is-gub'mint-in-the-business-of-transportation-anyway. It would be seen as essential transportation for regular users and part of a backup plan for the rest of the nation. That is the value to those who otherwise don't utilize it and is just as important as a long-range missile program---which may never be actually used. When we get closer to making that point of view a reality, the closer we will be to solving our national transportation insecurity problem.

 

[seat38a]

I'll believe "Not to forget an order placed for Avelia Liberty trains to replace the Acelas, faster, cheaper and easier to operate, 40% more capacity, and enuff cars to allow more high speed trains during rush hour," when it does happen but I'm not holding my breath. Considering no rail orders by Amtrak have gone right recently including the current Acela's, what makes you think the Avelia Liberty order will do any better?

Do you then also believe that the ACS-64 order which has just been successfully completed is not an Amtrak order? Whose order was it then?

Let me clear myself up, ENGINE's have been fine as far a we know so far. Passenger cars have been dismal.

 

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

However our voters and politicians decided they are necessary social and safety expenditures.

A robust and modern transportation infrastructure (and the associated services) isn't a necessary social expenditure? Seriously? Through chronic lack of investment, our roads, rails, and airports are already on a course for gridlock.

Passenger rail is not just a desirable, but often a required part of transit and mobility. Even in rural areas where other modes might arguably pick up the slack, you still need network connectivity and options in mode of transport to best exploit mobility and development.

"Required part of transit and mobility"? Somebody ask Las Vegas, Nashville, Columbus, and Louisville among others. I'll believe rail transportation is a right when "everybody" has it. Everybody does not so it's a privilege. If people lose it, too bad. You want trains? Fill them. If 5 people live in your town, you don't deserve train service.

 

[Ryan]

You have a funny definition of what "right" and "privilege" mean.

 

[ParanoidAndroid]

However our voters and politicians decided they are necessary social and safety expenditures.

A robust and modern transportation infrastructure (and the associated services) isn't a necessary social expenditure? Seriously? Through chronic lack of investment, our roads, rails, and airports are already on a course for gridlock.

Passenger rail is not just a desirable, but often a required part of transit and mobility. Even in rural areas where other modes might arguably pick up the slack, you still need network connectivity and options in mode of transport to best exploit mobility and development.

"Required part of transit and mobility"? Somebody ask Las Vegas, Nashville, Columbus, and Louisville among others. I'll believe rail transportation is a right when "everybody" has it. Everybody does not so it's a privilege. If people lose it, too bad. You want trains? Fill them. If 5 people live in your town, you don't deserve train service.

Hint hint Thurmond, West Virginia

 

[A Voice]

However our voters and politicians decided they are necessary social and safety expenditures.

A robust and modern transportation infrastructure (and the associated services) isn't a necessary social expenditure? Seriously? Through chronic lack of investment, our roads, rails, and airports are already on a course for gridlock.

Passenger rail is not just a desirable, but often a required part of transit and mobility. Even in rural areas where other modes might arguably pick up the slack, you still need network connectivity and options in mode of transport to best exploit mobility and development.

"Required part of transit and mobility"? Somebody ask Las Vegas, Nashville, Columbus, and Louisville among others. I'll believe rail transportation is a right when "everybody" has it. Everybody does not so it's a privilege. If people lose it, too bad. You want trains? Fill them. If 5 people live in your town, you don't deserve train service.

First, you left out a key, critical word from the quote: "often a required part of transit and mobility" (emphasis added). If New York lost rail transit it would not just be "too bad"; The city and metropolitan area would be unable to function. But just because something is really required doesn't necessarily mean it always happens, and that is particularly true with passenger rail. Atlanta sees two passenger trains a day and has very, very limited light rail systems, but anyone who has driven through the place during rush hour will tell you the area truly requires some form of rail. Nashville has commuter rail but no intercity service.

I also specifically stated that in rural areas (though I'm not aware of any cities with a population of five) other modes might suffice. But there are completely valid reasons, stated above, for providing an appropriate level of passenger rail here, too. A city of 35,000 doesn't need rail transit, unless it happens to be located near a major metropolitan area such as Chicago, then it likely does. Locations such as Las Vegas and Louisville should properly be on the routes of long-distance trains; These are 'missing links' in the system.

Further, nobody said rail transportation is a right, nor say anything even remotely like that. It is not about being 'deserving' of anything or granting a privilege; That completely misses the point (some grocery have a sale on red herring or something today...). Transportation is a necessary and appropriate function of government, and passenger rail is part of that.

 

[Rover]

Passenger / Vacation rail (vs. commuter & freight rail) is very low on the Govt.'s list of priorities.

In their mind, people take planes or drive to their vacations, or to get from one place in the country to the other, some using buses.

In reality, if you like vacation and scenic rail, as a priority, and not a luxury in your life, then the US is not the place to enjoy that.

If it's a top priority, and you can afford it, then move to Europe, to Switzerland.

I don't think the US Govt. is ever going to get behind passenger rail, like they have air transportation.

If you have modest means, then you'd better be able to buy or rent an RV, to "see the U.S.A."

But, if you're rich, then the Govt. has got really got your back... you can see the USA by flying around in your private plane., and landing at one of thousands of airports with paved runways.

Now, you see, how things really work in the good 'ol USA !!!

 

[jis]

Heheh Red Herrings indeed! Lots flying around today

 

[brianpmcdonnell17]

I know that some may not find transportation to be an important factor in choosing a place to live, but the fact that Chicago is the hub of the Amtrak network is an important reason I plan on moving there next year. While Europe certainly has a better rail system, it would not make sense for me to move there because almost all of the places I would travel to would be in the US so I would have to fly anyway. At least within the US, almost every major city can be reached by rail even if it is inconvenient.

 

[Lonestar648]

I was reading an article that listed the budget cuts as proposed by Speaker Ryan. It appears almost identical to Trump's with Amtrak Subsidies -- $1.565 billion eliminated along with transit funds for several groups including the Metro in Washington. Question one, at that amount, isn't that more than just long distance trains being cut? Also, without Metro in DC, where will all of the Washington govt staff park? I realize that this a proposal but still is unsettling.

 

[tommylicious]

Republicans need to show they can agree on something. Amtrak is losing money which makes it a very easy target for Trump, Congress to point to as another example of "government waste". LD services should be a done deal, probably shuttered by spring '18.

 

[A Voice]

I was reading an article that listed the budget cuts as proposed by Speaker Ryan. It appears almost identical to Trump's with Amtrak Subsidies -- $1.565 billion eliminated along with transit funds for several groups including the Metro in Washington. Question one, at that amount, isn't that more than just long distance trains being cut? Also, without Metro in DC, where will all of the Washington govt staff park? I realize that this a proposal but still is unsettling.

Yes, a budget cut of that level would shut Amtrak down completely, including Acela and the Northeast Corridor. Everyone should know that's not happening. The long-distance trains remain safe as well, though exactly how all this plays out - and what exact funding levels will be - remains to be seen.

 

[acelafan]

How is it known the long-distance trains remain safe as well? I disagree.

 

[A Voice]

How is it known the long-distance trains remain safe as well? I disagree.

History. We've been down this road many, many, many times before. Amtrak has seen bigger threats to its existence before, particularly the early years of the Reagan administration, and survived largely or completely unscathed. What has arguably changed since then is the recognition that passenger rail is a critical and necessary means of transportation in congested regions (and especially the Northeast). There remain more vocal critics of the long-distance (LD) network, with arguments based primarily on a fundamental lack of understanding of the LD trains' purpose and true market, but again, there's history. Amtrak should be expected to remain intact, or not to remain at all - and again, that's not happening.

That said, technically you are correct - we don't actually know anything for an established, concrete, written in stone fact. But neither do all the posters proclaiming that the LD trains are toast; The difference, however, is again, that we have history on our side. Many persons have similarly pronounced Amtrak - and/or the LD network - dead before in similar circumstances.

 

[neroden]

GWB submitted "zero out Amtrak" budgets to Republican Congresses more than once and lost. Reagan's attacks were actually more effective than GWB's.

We have a further advantage now: they're not even trying to kill the NEC, which they WERE trying to do before. The thing is, as I said, any cuts to long-distance trains just move overhead costs (which are nearly all the costs) over to the NEC, so they're not in a position to attack the long-distance trains either. And we have a yet further advantage: the Trump "budget" has already been declared DOA in Congress, due to idiocy like this *and* the fact that it isn't even a complete budget.

So, in fact, we've just discovered the Republicans don't have a working majority in the House. They have about 23 people who will vote "no" on everything, which means that they can't pass anything without Democratic votes. But they're still following the "Hastert rule" of trying to pass everything without Democratic votes, because they're loons.

The result is that I do not expect them to pass a budget at all. Expect another continuing resolution, which is the only thing they'll get Democratic support for. It remains to be seen whether they're even willing to raise the debt limit.

 

[Bob Dylan]

Yep, the Circus has arrived in Sodom on the Potomac with lots of Clowns and no Elephants!

Lock up the women and the children and Let the Games Begin!

 

[Ziv]

Neroden, I think the part of your comment I kept in the quote box below is really important. Trump is not a conservative, he is a bombastic populist. The Freedom Caucus spit in his soup, and Trump holds a grudge. It is very possible that he will turn to Manchin, Heitkamp et. al. for the votes he needs. The GOP is broken and Trump may roll the Freedom Caucus and turn to moderate Dems for a couple easy wins. Or he could completely turn away from the GOP orthodoxy and go full populist and still keep the majority of his Trump supporters.

It is possible that this time will be seen as similar to what happened to Clinton when the Contract With America team was elected to the House in 1994. Clinton went from a fairly consistently liberal Presidency to his policy of triangulation, and that is when he started to get things done.

So, in fact, we've just discovered the Republicans don't have a working majority in the House. They have about 23 people who will vote "no" on everything, which means that they can't pass anything without Democratic votes. But they're still following the "Hastert rule" of trying to pass everything without Democratic votes, because they're loons.

 

[Maverickstation]

Here is an excellent article on the Carter Cuts of 1979, and the back and forth during that year.

http://history.amtrak.com/blogs/blog/a-new-map-emerges