Most likely, Mineta had a chauffered limo on each end to get to and from the airports, and made the flight on a government-owned plane that was standing by for him.

 

How would he know anything about a private commuter's experience?

Here is the latest statement (11-18) from All Aboard Ohio (formerly the Ohio Association of Railroad Passengers)...

 

www.allaboardohio.com

 

Amtrak president’s firing threatens Ohio’s trains, plans for future

 

All Aboard Ohio said the recent firing of Amtrak President David Gunn by the corporation’s board of directors represents a direct threat to Ohio’s already limited passenger train services, comprised entirely of long-distance trains.

 

Furthermore, the nonprofit association said there needs to be a fully appointed, seven-member Amtrak board of directors, with at least some having railroad expertise and a more bi-partisan base. Currently, there are only four board members, two of whom are “recess appointments” who were named by the Bush Administration while Congress was in recess. Those two members’ terms expire at the end of the year. The other two members are Chairman David Laney, also a Bush appointment, and Norm Mineta, Bush’s secretary of transportation who has yet to attend an Amtrak board meeting.

 

After Gunn’s firing, the ousted railroad turnaround expert predicted that the Amtrak board would proceed with discontinuing numerous trains, particularly long-distance routes that comprise all of Ohio’s passenger rail services. Mineta has proposed on numerous occasions that the federal government stop providing operating subsidies to all trains, and leave that responsibility to cash-strapped states to fill the void. Most train services, even short-distance routes, cross state lines.

 

“It's pretty difficult to improve train services when they are no longer there," said Bill Hutchison, president of All Aboard Ohio. "Until we get a stable and significant source of federal capital and operating funding for fast passenger trains, it would be irresponsible to expect cash-strapped states to pick up the pieces of an interstate rail system."

 

“History's path is littered with disjointed transportation schemes when the federal government asked states to take the leadership in promoting the movement of goods and people," Hutchison added. "The difficulty in getting states to agree on cost-sharing formulas in the absence of federal funding leadership is why the Founding Fathers urged inclusion of the Commerce Clause in the Constitution. That clause gives the federal government responsibility over interstate commerce – a responsibility being abdicated by the Bush Administration when it comes to having a world-class rail system.”

 

Hutchison said Ohioans can expect such recommendations, given that this is the same administration which proposed earlier this year to use the bankruptcy courts to reform Amtrak.

 

On Feb. 18, 2005, the Bush Administration delivered its Fiscal Year 2006 budget request, offering no subsidies for Amtrak. On Page 243, in the "major savings and reforms" section, the administration wrote:

 

"With no subsidies, Amtrak would quickly enter bankruptcy, which would likely lead to the elimination of inefficient operations and the reorganization of the railroad through bankruptcy procedures. Ultimately, a more rational passenger rail system would emerge, with service on routes where there is real ridership demand and support from local governments-such as the Northeast Corridor. ...Such a scenario would likely yield restructuring and efficiencies through the auspices of a bankruptcy court."

 

“Instead, it would destroy Amtrak, which is a lousy way to save a railroad, especially one that has no profit centers,” Hutchison said.

 

He added that Gunn’s Nov. 9th firing came only days after the U.S. Senate overwhelmingly passed Amtrak reform legislation 93-6. In addition to structurally reforming Amtrak and requiring it to compete with other railroads to operate publicly funded trains, the legislation would also permit an increase in capital funding to modernize Amtrak’s trains, tracks and stations while reducing its debt burden and lowering its annual operating subsidy by 40 percent. Also, Congress recently turned down the Bush Administration’s request to eliminate dining- and sleeping-car services on trains – essentially reducing them to steel-wheeled buses that would have eroded ridership.

 

"The Bush Administration’s desire to sell pieces of Amtrak to private enterprise, which cannot compete with the tens of billions in federal funds given each year to air and highway modes, reveals their double-standard that only passenger trains should live or die in a ‘transportation free-market’ – which does not exist,” Hutchison said. “What they are proposing will leave us with little or nothing in the way of rail service at a time of increasingly unstable gas prices, an aging population, a troubled airline industry, a bus network in retreat, chronic highway congestion and a nation threatened with less mobility.”

 

END

Link to a National Public Radio Interview with David Gun  that aired today (11/22)

 

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5022721

I was in a resturant today and I overheard a couple of people chatting about the firing. One of the men said he would never ride Amtrak again, the other said he would never vote for Bush again, which is dumb due to term limits. Anyway the first  guy really knew his Amtrak shooting off facts and changes Gunn made portraying him as the messiah. If I only had an urbanohio business card...

Even if Laney's motivations are honorable and well-intentioned  :roll:, the premise that a nationwide passenger rail service can attain break-eve or operate profitably, especially in competition with heavily subsidized commercial aviation and highway systems, is false.

Budget Gives Amtrak Carrots, but Wields Sticks as Well

 

 

By MATTHEW L. WALD

Published: November 26, 2005

WASHINGTON, Nov. 25 - Congress was fairly generous with Amtrak in the transportation budget it passed just before it went home for Thanksgiving, but the package has some unusual strings attached.

 

Read more at:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/26/politics/26amtrak.html

Begin rant...

 

I hate those bastards in the Bush Administration. They are going to get their wish in killing off Amtrak with nothing on the ready track to replace it.

 

Part of me wants to see peak oil arrive earlier and abruptly, rather than later and gradually, so that this oil-addicted country will realize just how short-sighted it has been on this and other issues. Apparently the devastation of our inner cities, isolation of the urban poor and our awful environmental record wasn't bad enough for them. Not until it starts hitting the corporate elite in the pocketbook might our leaders see the folly of putting all our transportation eggs in one basket. And, then again, maybe it will take a revolution by the former middle class....

 

Rant is complete. I feel a little better now.

It's foolhardy to attempt to dismantle Amtrak without a feasible replacement already in place.  How timely we discuss this, just after Amtrak's busiest week of the year.

 

I took vacation last week to spend Thanksgiving with a friend in Boston.  Since I left on Monday, I was able to redeem Amtrak Guest Rewards points for a free coach ticket from Washington Union Station to Boston South Station.  Granted, it was a decent-length ride, but the 7:30 travel time was definitely shorter than what you could do in a car for 440 miles in the Northeast Corridor, and I didn't have to deal with airport security, children, etc.  Half the time, I slept.

 

For the return trip, I bought an Acela Express business class ticket (God, I love the Acela trains.)  Nothing quite like cruising across the landscape at 150 mph.  The only problem was that there were some delays in New Jersey.  We got hung up at Newark for a few minutes, I think primarily because of the volume.  (Amtrak added 60 extra trains in the Northeast for the holiday week.)  When we reached BWI, I saw the Arrivals monitor, which showed every train southbound train as 5-20 minutes late.  My train was sold out from Providence southward.  In fact, a guy sat down next to me at Baltimore, and told me he had been sitting in the cafe car since Philadelphia.  I kinda have a problem with overselling the train, especially the premium Acela, but I digress.

 

Anyway, back on track, so to speak.  A few observations:

 

1.  The tracks in Connecticut suck, restricting speeds.  East of New Haven, speeds are slowed because of the aging bridges, which Amtrak has in its capital plan (developed by Mr. Gunn) and is starting to replace.  The bridge over the Thames River, for example, is 95 years old.  West of New Haven, the tracks are owned by the State of Connecticut, in partnership with the New York MTA (Metro North Railroad).  This 130-mile or so stretch is the worst section of track in the Northeast.  Naturally, this makes me skeptical that turning over passenger rail to the states will give us better results. 

 

2.  I already noted that my return train was sold out south of Providence.  Many of the stops in the Northeast are in relatively small cities, yet they have pretty good rail patronage since the service is so frequent and reliable.  Cities like Wilmington, Providence, New Haven and Stamford are all smaller than Akron, and about as big as Dayton.  This is to say nothing of small towns like Kingston, RI or Mystic, CT.  There is no reason why Ohio cities can't support frequent passenger rail service.   

 

3.  Northbound, my Regional train was right on schedule.  Southbound, we got to New Haven 9 minutes early, and New York 1 minute early.  I got to thinking that the only way you can truly have reliable passenger rail is to have dedicated passenger trackage, with electrically-powered locomotives.  I know KJP has outlined how impossible this could be, but I firmly believe it's the only way to go.  The freights will always give passenger rail second-class status, especially as their loads increase.  We really need something akin to the Interstate Highway Act, but to build passenger rail networks along designated corridors. 

 

Thoughts from the peanut gallery?

I agree that the ideal scenario would be a passenger rail system separated from the freight roads, but it's not likely to happen any time soon because of the costs involved. First, we'll have to build public support and demand via incremental improvements in the present system, with faster, better and more frequent service.

 

[rampant_digression]

I can envision a passenger rail system with tracks installed in the medians of the existing interstate highways. In many cases there's enough real estate to accomodate double track, and although some structures would have to be modified, it would be much more economical than acquiring virgin right-of-way. The grades, while sometimes too severe for freight trains, would not be a problem for modern light, fast passenger trains. I believe the legislation that created the interstate highway system made a provision for use of the medians for railways.

 

I see the separated passenger trains as part of an integrated national passenger transportation system; we should remove the legal barriers that prevent companies from operating more than one mode of transportation so that competing companies could each invest as they see fit in airlines, passenger trains and buses. Either the rights-of-way and terminals could be jointly owned by the carriers that use them, or they could be publicly-owned and and paid for by collecting realistic fees from the tenant carriers. Various modes would share transportation terminals, with convenient, quick public transportation to city centers and the surrounding smaller cities.

 

Our present non-system, in which various modes sometimes compete in markets where they cannot operate effectively or economically, leaves smaller communities isolated. It even leaves non-drivers in medium-sized and some larger cities without access to travel, and enforces car dependency.

 

[/rampant_digression]

but if we put rail in the medians, where would all of the Ohio Highway Patrol officers sit with their laser guns?

 

I do seriously wonder what safety forces might lobby against such construction.  Although the concrete medians are common in the cities (providing no cut through for police, fire, medics), there are also usually more exits available where a vehicle could turn around and re-enter heading the opposite direction. 

 

is this an issue anywhere else where rail in the median exists?

I think that the way to start developing passenger-only trackage is by means of incremental extensions, very similar to the upgrades currently underway between Harrisburg and Philadelphia.

 

I disagree with running rail in highway medians.  It's a bad idea on so many levels, but primarily because it discourages access and development.  If one rides a train in New England or on the LIRR, it's pretty clear that rail stations need to be integrated into business districts, rather than isolated on highways.  If you run passenger rail in highway medians, you end up relegating the rail as a second-class mode to the highway (um, well, even more so), and defeat the economic case for passenger rail in the first place. 

 

Other concerns are engineering, including grades and curvature.  I doubt that geometry for a roadway engineered for cars at 70 mph is able to accommodate trains in the median running twice as fast (or faster). 

Dan has made arguments against trains in highway medians that I've also made before. Besides, we have so many abandoned rail rights of way, I don't think we need highway medians for tracks. In other cases, a number of still-active mainline railroads used to have more tracks than they do now, such as the former New York Central mainline through Cleveland, which was four tracks east to New York City and three to four tracks west to Chicago. You have the abandoned Erie/Pittsburgh & Lake Erie Railroad from Cleveland through Aurora to Warren, Youngstown, New Castle and then on to Pittsburgh, or if you want, revive the Lake Erie & Eastern which is now a bike path south of Bedford and Hudson to Ravenna, then take another abandoned Erie mainline from Ravenna to Warren.

 

See what I mean? There's lots of opportunities to reactivate old railroad lines, and perhaps in some cases, if we wanted 150-mph Acela-type trains or 190-mph TGV-style trains, we could build on a mix of new cross-country alignments, on old railroad alignments or even next to existing highways. But, whatever happens, these lines must go into downtowns, since pedestrian acess to high-density land uses is essential to the success of high-speed rail.

 

Maybe someday. Of course, I could always move to Europe. Maybe after my parents have left this Earth.

Again... off topic.... but one big problem with trying to use interstate highway medians in Ohio is that they are already being paved over to create more capacity for motor vehicles... as is the case along most of I-71.

I just heard last night that Senate bill 1516, the Amtrak reauthorization and reform legislation, was removed in conference committee from the budget reconciliation bill. If true, I assume there will be an attempt to pass S.1516 as a stand-alone bill, but I suspect the chances of that are less likely.

 

Looks like the Bush Administration has another victory in its efforts to dismantle Amtrak, with nothing waiting in the siding to replace it.

 

Senate Bill 1516 is still a "live" bill.  The thought is that it has the legs to pass the House as a stand-alone bill, because of the huge margin by which it passed in the Senate (93-6). 

 

We need to be talking with our members of Congress while they are home for the holidays and making it abundantly clear that Ohio needs SB-1516 in order to build and achieve the goals of the Ohio Hub Plan.  Regardless of how things shake out with Amtrak (and I doubt Bush's plan will win out), SB-1516 is needed because it allows states to approach investing in the infrastructure for passenger rail and expanded freight rail capacity in a way that isn't currently being done at the federal level through Amtrak. 

NARP thinks S.1516 can pass as a stand-alone bill. By the way, Noozer, I just returned to work today after a week on vacation and heard your message on my voice mail. I will call you shortly.

Keep in mind that the author of this op-ed column is a rock-ribbed conservative Republican, but Paul Weyrich is also very much a realist and has been a vocal proponent of the need to develop our nation's rail infrastructure for both passenger & freight.  I think you'll find his opinion interesting on the firing of David Gunn.

 

All Aboard: Aggravation for Amtrak

By Paul M. Weyrich (11/30/05)

 

Readers of this commentary know that over the years I have had a fair amount to do with Amtrak. I worked on its creation with the then General Counsel of the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Robert R. (Bob) Kessler. Later three Secretaries of Transportation appointed me to a total of six one-year terms on the Amtrak Board. The Majority Leader of the United States Senate subsequently appointed me to the newly created Amtrak Reform Council, upon which I served as Vice Chairman for five years, first under Governor Christine Todd Whitman and then under former Federal Railroad Administrator and Amtrak Board Member Gilbert Carmichael. Our recommendations later were echoed by the Bush Administration, which has shown little interest in Amtrak. For example, the Amtrak Board is to comprise seven seats. One Amtrak Member had been appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Two Members are recess appointees whose terms expire on December 31, 2006. The status of another appointee has been questioned in Congress. There are three vacancies. There have been vacancies through much of the Bush Presidency. The present Board terminated Amtrak President David L. Gunn.

 

 

 

http://www.americandaily.com/article/10446

Though I disagree with much of what these authors have to say, in the interest of presenting both sides of the debate, here's what they had to say about the firing of David Gunn

 

Fired Amtrak Chief Stood in the Way of Reform

By Anthony Haswell, Joseph Vranich

Posted: Thursday, December 1, 2005

 

Baltimore Sun

Publication Date: December 1, 2005

 

Some members of Congress from the Northeast are arguing that David L. Gunn should not have been fired as Amtrak's president because he improved the railroad.

 

A few have demanded that Amtrak's board reinstate him to his job.

 

 

 

 

Available on the AEI website at http://www.aei.org/publication23512

Does anyone know the background story on Joe Vranich's transformation from an ardent supporter of Amtrak to a vehement opponent?

From what I know, Vranich is a long-time proponent (largely self-promoted) of high speed rail (I mean high speed in the French TGV or bullet train sense) for the U.S.  He promoted himself as the high-speed rail guru when Bill Clinton was first running for President and used supportive quotes from Clinton liberally as he promoted his own books and papers.  Not that the development of high speed rail in the U.S. would be a bad thing, but Vranich is upset because no one in government would pick up on his issue.  he has always blamed (rightly or wrongly) Amtrak for what he perceives as Amtrak's standing in the way of developing better passenger trains in the U.S. 

 

I think he's way off base in fixing blame.  The blame for the lack of rail development ... for freight or passenger.... in this nation lies upon successive presidential adminstrations who either talked a good game (Clinton), ignored passenger rail (Bush the 1st) or have actively tried to demolish passenger rail (Bush the 2nd).  Congress also must shoulder some of the blame for both failing to properly fund Amtrak over it's 34 years of existence, and for failing to allow Amtrak to add new routes or develop innovative new services like high speed rail.

 

In short, Vranich is the lving definition of the term "sour grapes."  He is not an unintelligent man, but he has let his own ego get in the way of truly advancing the cause of improved passenger rail.

Thanks for your comments, noozer.  I thought the editorial was interesting for its reliance on largely uninformed and undocumented assertions.  I noted a distinct lack of analysis on cause-and-effect.  Instead, the authors seemed to take systematic and structural flaws of Amtrak, and put the blame on David Gunn. 

It should be known that Vranich had worked for Amtrak in the 1970s as a low-level manager in the public/governmental relations department, but he was fired for reasons that reportedly involved alcohol. Vranich does, at times, appear to be intelligent, but one thing in particular caused me to question his overall judgment...

 

He once publicly questioned why Amtrak has six daily trains to an impoverished city like Detroit but offers zero trains to a tourist mecca like Branson, Mo.

 

Joe, I think the answer probably has something to do with Detroit having 900,000 people, its metro area having 5 million and Branson having just 30,000.

Monday, Dec. 5, 2005

Paul Weyrich's Group Hires Former Amtrak President

 

Recently terminated Amtrak President David L. Gunn has accepted

a position as an adjunct scholar with the conservative Free

Congress Foundation, Chairman Paul M. Weyrich announced today.

 

 

 

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/12/5/153539.shtml

An excellent assessment by Railway Age.

National Association of Railroad Passengers (NARP) (www.narprail.org), ardent supporters of David Gunn during his tenure, are softpedaling their response and trying to sound as conciliatory as they can. They seem to acknowledge that they aren't in a position of power, and have to be able to work with whoever runs Amtrak.

NARP typically soft-peddles their responses. Their stated reason is that they "have to work with the same people" they would otherwise criticize. To me, I believe they are overly desirous of acceptance.

 

I wrote an article about handicapped access to trains, which will appear in the next issue of the Midwest High Speed Rail Association. Ross Capon at NARP reviewed it and took issue with my statement that a revised federal policy toward disabled-access was done "at the behest of the Federal Transit Administration." Ross said there was no need for me to "go ballistic."

 

Ballistic? Ross has never seen me go ballistic, but some of the folks here sure have! My motto in certain stomach-turning situations, when someone is likely to get an ulcer, is:  it's better to give than to receive.

The only reason why Bush & Co. try to get away with this is because they know that can. I wish some organization would file a lawsuit against Bush and Mineta for violating the law. These government officials apparently feel they are above it.

http://www.narprail.org/cms/index.php/hotline/more/hotline_437/

(from the National Association of Railroad Passengers website

 

Twenty seven House Republicans sent a letter to Budget Committee Chairman Jim Nussle (R-IA) requesting adequate funding for Amtrak in fiscal 2007.  The letter states, in part, “While the President’s FY07 budget request for Amtrak is a significant step forward in providing sufficient funding for passenger rail, we are concerned that this funding proposal would leave the rail system incapable of providing effective service for its 25 million annual passengers.” This year’s letter had seven new signatories when compared to last year’s letter.  Signers this year are (new signers indicated by *):

 

 

Rep. Steve LaTourette (OH), Rep. Mike Castle (DE), Rep. Michael G. Fitzpatrick (PA), Rep. John R. Kuhl (NY)*, Rep. John J.H. Schwarz (MI)*, Rep. Spencer Bachus (AL)*, Rep. Timothy V. Johnson (IL), Rep. Todd Platts (PA), Rep. Rob Simmons (CT), Rep. Mark Foley (FL)*, Rep. Jim Gehrlach (PA), Rep. Sherwood Bohlert (NY), Rep. John E. Sweeney (NY), Rep. James A. Leach (IA)*, Rep. Peter T. King (NY), Rep. Phil English (PA), Rep. Jim Saxton (NJ), Rep. Curt Weldon (PA), Rep. Mike Ferguson (NJ)*, Rep. Michael R. Turner (OH)*, Rep. Christopher H. Smith (NJ), Rep. Frank LoBiondo (NJ), Rep. James T. Walsh (NY), Rep. Dennis R. Rehberg (MT), Rep. Sue W. Kelly (NY), Rep. Robert W. Ney (OH), and Rep. Jerry Weller (IL).

 

Congress will be on recess next week for the President’s Day District Work Period.  Take advantage of your legislators being at home—ask them to oppose the Bush shut-down Amtrak budget request of $900 million, and to support at least a continuation of this year’s $1.3 billion.  Go to our Action Alert Center for full details.

 

Here’s the math.  In FY 2007, debt service will take about $295 million.  Amtrak’s FY 2006 appropriation limits the operating grant to $495 million.  That is a very aggressive target, considering that the FY 2005 baseline was $586 million (as set by the DOT inspector general). 

 

Even if Amtrak hits the $495 million target in both FY 2006 and 2007, $900 million for 2007 would leave just $110 million for capital investment—a sharp decline from last year’s $496 million budgeted ($455 million actual) at a time when a big, critical project (Thames River Bridge replacement) is beginning to gather momentum.  Such a capital budget likely would halt heavy overhauls and quickly lead to a decline in service quality and reliability.

 

The Amtrak Board has not yet approved a specific request for Fiscal 2007, although it could do so at its next meeting March 2.

 

 

Cool. But I don't think this administration cares what most of Congress or anyone else outside the NeoCon agenda thinks. It's probably the thinking part that scares them, if not the part that compromises their belief that they are God's chosen caretakers of the globe.

Wow, kinda surprised to see Turner's name on there.

I think Congress is our last best hope for passenger rail (at least as long as we have to deal with a Bush Administration that talks about "oil addiction" out of one side of their mouths and then cuts funding for Amtrak, state-supported passenger rail operations a railroad infrastructure loan progam and mass transit.

 

Good to see Turner on there.  I know of a few folks in the Dayton area who have been fired up about the Ohio Hub rail plan and I think they've been calling and e-mailing Turner's local office.  Maybe they've gotten the message through?  One can only hope.

 

The important thing to keep in mind is that all of these names are Republicans.... that shows there is substantial support on both sides of the aisle for passenger rail.  The job now is to build on that base.

It is interesting to see that only 3 representatives from OH signed.  Where are the rest that would like to try to turn around our state...we should have seen 100% of our representatives on this list.

Most of Ohio's Democratic Congress members are supportive of passenger rail and Amtrak funding.  Other Republicans who have been supportive (Other than those mentioned in the above article) include Regula and Hobson. 

 

Senator DeWine has been especially supportive.

 

Among the ones who have either done nothing or have actively worked against passenger rail funding are Pryce, Tiberi, Chabot and Gilmor.

 

You're never going to get 100% support from the Ohio delegation, but somje advocates spend way too much time on representatives that are already in our corner.  What needs to be done is to start showing up as the rest of our delegation runs for re-election and begin asking them in public what they are doing to support passenger rail or why aren't they supporting passenger rail?  The next step is to start writing letters to the editor that challenge these members of Congress why they have done nothing to support passenger rail at a time when gasoline prices are getting higher, traffic congestion is getting worse, and Ohio is losing jobs because it cannot move either people or freight efficiently on our highways.... and because we have not developed our rail systems as a viable option?

The article to which Dukakis is responding can be found here:

 

http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=513424

 

The woman who wrote it has zero understanding of transportation policy and their outcomes in the U.S. and overseas. Unfortunately, too many in Congress (or the White House and the Federal Railroad Administration) have reacted without research just as has she had.

_______________

 

Amtrak Needs More Federal Backing, Not Privatization

May 17 2006 - The Harvard Crimson

 

By: MICHAEL S. DUKAKIS

 

To the editors:

 

Re "Plane Pain," op-ed, May 10,

 

Emily Ingram tells us that the answer to inadequate rail passenger service in the United States is to privatize Amtrak just the way the British privatized their national rail system.

 

 

Right on, Mikey! 

 

I've done the Boston-to-DC trip on Acela, and damn if it didn't take 7 hours, even on the Sunday after Thanksgiving.  Another time, I was taking Acela from DC to New York Penn.  The guy sitting next to me was from Paris, and was actually quite impressed.  When I asked him why, he responded by telling me, "You know that the train is going to run.  They're not going to go on strike."

 

Good catch by Dukakis that France's SNCF is government-run.  As is the Deutsche ICE that Miss Ingram seems to love so much.  In fact, I think the UK is the only European nation that has privatized its rail system, to the lack of success noted by Dukakis.  Someone correct me if I'm wrong. 

 

I think the article is just more evidence that an Ivy League education can definitely be a waste of money.  Did anyone notice the grammatical problem in the tag line at the end of the article?  LOL

 

The Germans are considering privatizing their rail system.  The system has already been develoved somwhat to the states...for example Bavaria runs its internal rail systems via something called Bayern Takt...

 

The Bayerische Eisenbahngesellschaft in english, if you want to learn more.

 

The Bavarian example is sort of interesting as it is something that could happen in the US, where the state could develope/coordinate a statewide transport system....the Bavarian system goes beyond rail and also looks at supporting and coordinating local transit too, including in rural areas.

 

Bavarian Transport Policy

 

....and this all pretty interesting as Bavaria is one of the more conservative German states.

 

 

 

       

Yes! This is exactly what we need to hear from both the media and our political leaders.  Unfortunately, we do not hear this from enough of the latter.

Unfortunately, I saw an AP article on the electrical outage that began with "Amtrak, the financially maligned passenger railroad, suffered another major blow today...."

 

I didn't need to read any more than that.

One incident shuts down Amtrak in the Northeast Corridor, and the critics are all over Amtrak and the concept of subsidized passenger trains.

 

Hardly a winter goes by that weather doesn't cause major disruptions in the region's air travel (often while the trains keep running), and those critics don't have anything to say about the flawed concept of depending upon heavily-subsidized airlines for short- and intermediate-distance travel in an area subject to severe winter weather.

 

 

I've always noticed that the slightest rail incident will get nationwide coverage, but that a 20 car pileup is hardly noteworthy. Such is the media world we live in.

I've always noticed that the slightest rail incident will get nationwide coverage, but that a 20 car pileup is hardly noteworthy. Such is the media world we live in.

 

Yeah. Even when some moron drives his minivan around the gates and gets himself and his wife and kids emulsified, the headline invariably reads "Amtrak Train Kills Family of Four!"

I've always noticed that the slightest rail incident will get nationwide coverage, but that a 20 car pileup is hardly noteworthy. Such is the media world we live in.

 

Nah.  50 cars minimum (and those do get national coverage; re: couple of pileups on I-94 in Western Michigan last year)

Okay, 50 car minimum...ha...so that's why a 20 car pileup isn't newsworthy...but most train accidents have very few fatalities and most of the time that's because some motorist drove around the gates and got hit. Statistically, rail is VERY safe but that is lost on the media.

 

People have a cavailer attitude about trains. They simply don't realize how fast they are moving or what they weigh. They are simply an inconvenience on the way to the kid's soccer game. I heard it said that the diffference in mass between a train and a car is so huge that if you drove over an empty beer can, that would be the equivalent of being hit by a train while in your car.

 

A lot of the worst accidents over the last few years were caused by motorists. The wreck in Bourbonnais, IL that killed several passengers was caused by a steel hauler who got stuck on the tracks. A fiery crash in Florida was caused by a gasoline truck that went around the gates. Even fire trucks and school buses have been caught going around gates. As a result, in some places, we are now seeing efforts to close grade crossings or use gates that seal off the tracks from vehicles.

 

 

^ Got to protect the stupid from themselves and others.

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0530-24.htm

 

Published on Tuesday, May 30, 2006 by the Seattle Times 

Forget Gas; We Need A Plan to Keep Passenger Trains Rolling 

by Alfred Runte 

 

Here we go again -- blaming everything on the oil companies for the

spiraling cost of gasoline. How about we try something positive for

a change, say, restoring our passenger trains?

 

 

FY07 TRANSPORTATION

FHWA - $39.1 billion (3.5 bil. more than 2006)

FAA - $15.2 billion (1.4 bil more than 2006)

Amtrak - $900 million (270 mil. less than 2006)

 

What a crock of sh*t

 

http://appropriations.house.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_id=624&Month=6&Year=2006

Amen bro' !!

 

And it has been that way ever since 1971 when Amtrak was created.  For all the fuss that goes on year after year over whether to fund Amtrak and whether government should "subsidize" passenger rail service, the actual funding of Amtrak has historically been less than 2% (and in most years less than 1%) of the total federal transportation budget.  We get what we pay for and what we get is a passenger rail system that would embarras someone from Fiji.

 

 

It was even worse in the years between WWII and the start of Amtrak. Government at all levels poured nearly $1 trillion into roads and zip on railroads.

 

Thus, from WWII to the present, total government spending on roads was $3 trillion and about $50 billion on railroads.

 

I think the amazing story here is that we have any railroads left at all in this country with public policy so distorted in favor of pavement-based transport. But those who don't bother to look at such figures say the decline of railroads was due to the free market. If that's a free market, then I'm 6-foot-10, muscular and have a full head of hair.

And the beat goes on..... this is the release from the US House website.  Don't know what this means for the funding request for the Ohio Hub environmental impact study.  But note that they zeroed out the FTA's "Small Starts" program , which many cities have been using for things like "downtown trolleys".

 

 

 

FULL COMMITTEE PASSES FY07 TRANSPORTATION, TREASURY, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT BILL 

 

June 6th, 2006 - -

 

FY06 Appropriation: ..................................  $64.1 billion ($131.1 billion total budgetary resources)

FY07 Budget Request: ...............................  $67.6 billion ($138.7 billion total budgetary resources)

FY07 Subcommittee Mark: ........................  $67.8 billion ($139.7 billion total budgetary resources)

 

 

Transportation Budget Gimmicks

Over the committee’s strong objections, Congress has passed major transportation authorization bills which established guaranteed levels of discretionary transportation spending.  These laws amended the rules of the House to prevent consideration of appropriations bills unless they provide inflated levels of discretionary spending for certain transportation programs.  As non-security discretionary resources continue to decline, serious consideration must be given to repealing these onerous, fiscally irresponsible rules. 

 

Provides for Smarter, More Efficient Amtrak Operations

The bill provides $900 million for Amtrak and includes significant financial and management reforms.  The bill mandates that Amtrak reduce its operating subsidy which includes finding savings in food and beverage service, and first class service.  Amtrak also would again be barred from marketing ticket discounts of more than 50 percent in peak hours.  In addition, the DOT Inspector General is required to report back regularly to Congress on Amtrak’s progress on financial reforms.

 

Supports Aviation

A total of $15.2 billion is provided to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) -- $1.4 billion above the fiscal year 2006 enacted level and $2.4 billion above the President’s request.  This includes funding for FAA operations, for the Airport Improvement Program, and for Essential Air Service.  The bill includes $16 million to hire and train 132 new air traffic controllers, and an additional $12 million above the request to hire and train of safety inspectors in the office of aircraft certification and flight standards.

 

Addresses Critical Housing Needs

The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is funded at $35.3 billion, $1.2 billion above the request and $1.7 billion above last year.  Key funding levels are as follows:

Tenant-Based Rental Assistance (Section 8 vouchers) is funded at $15.8 billion, $358 million over last year and $144 million below the budget request. The costs of this program alone, is 45 percent of HUD’s total budget.

Project-Based Rental Assistance (project-based contracts) is funded at $5.5 billion, $438 million above last year and $200 million below the request. Along with recaptures from expiring contracts this fully funds all contracts.

Provides $4.2 billion for the Community Development Fund, $22 million above FY06 and $1.2 billion above the President’s request.  This includes $3.9 billion for the Community Development Block Grant and $270 million for Economic Development Initiative projects, $60 million less than last year.  The committee created a new requirement that all grantees under this program must provide 40% matching funds in order to receive any funds. 

HOME Investments Partnership is level funded at $1.9 billion, $159 million above the FY06 enacted level.

Includes $735 million for Housing for the Elderly, and $237 million for Housing for Persons with Disabilities.  These amounts are $189 million and $118 million respectively above the requested levels.

Provides the requested level for the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight of $62 million.

Supports the War on Drugs

Provides $27 million to the Office of National Drug Control Policy, plus:

$227 million for the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas program.

$194 million for other Federal drug control programs.

$20 million for the Counter-drug Technology Assessment Center.

 

Funds Highway Spending

The bill funds the Federal-aid highways program at $39.1 billion, as set by the recently enacted surface transportation authorization legislation, SAFETEA-LU. This is equal to the President's request and $3.5 billion more than the FY 2006 enacted level, excluding emergency supplementals.

 

District of Columbia

Federal Funds 

FY06 Enacted:  $597 million 

FY07 Budget Request:  $597 million 

FY07 Funding:  $575 million 

 

 

 

 

Federal Funding

FY06

($ mil) FY07

Request

($ mil) FY07

House Bill

($ mil)

Resident Tuition Support $33 $35 $35

D.C. Courts, including Family Court 217 197 220

Defender Services in D.C. Courts 44 43 43

D.C. Courts Services and Offender Supervision 169 182 182

Public Defender Service for D.C. 30 33 33

Contribution to School Improvement in D.C. 40 41 41

New Bioterrorism and Forensics Lab 5 0 0

Emergency Planning and Security Costs 13 9 9

Navy Yard Metro 0 20 20

 

 

Federal Judiciary

Provides a 5.9 percent increase in discretionary funding for Federal Judiciary.  Total funding is $6.1 billion, $343 million above FY06 and $197 million below the request.  This level will enable courts to effectively process priority criminal, civil and bankruptcy cases.

 

Agency Funding

Federal Transit Administration is funded at the levels set by the guarantees in SAFETEA-LU.

Department of Treasury is funded at $1.04 billion, $32 million above FY06 and $26 million above the President’s request.

The Internal Revenue Service is funded at request level of $10.5 billion, $63 million below FY06 and $110 million below the request.

Election Assistance Commission is funded at $17 million, also $3 million above FY06.

 

Member project funding

The bill provides $895 million for Member projects.  Last year’s conference report included approximately $3 billion total in member project funding. For comparative purposes, Member projects in the EDI account alone are down by $60 million dollars from last year, and - in a departure from previous years - all EDI grants will be required to have a 40% match.

 

Program Terminations

·    HOPE VI: -$99 million;  Rural Housing and Economic Development: -$17 million; Section 108 loan guarantees: $4 million; Brownfields: -$10 million; FTA Small Starts: -$200 Million; Housing Counseling Assistance: -$45 million; National Defense Tank Vessel Construction Program: -$74 million; Open Roads Financing Pilot Program: -$100 million

 

Other Provisions

Continues current law restrictions on competitive sourcing.

Includes a provision providing pay parity between civilian and military employees.

Funding for General Services Administration, Federal Buildings Fund does not include $306 million requested by the President for construction of Coast Guard headquarters at the St. Elizabeth’s West Campus.

 

 

###

 

http://appropriations.house.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_id=624&Month=6&Year=2006

Bush continues to squabble over the pittance Amtrak gets and wants to kill transit small starts, which would help fund the Columbus trolley. In the meantime, he has squandered $400 billion on a pointless war in Iraq. Pennywise and pound foolish, I'd say. What could that money have gotten us in terms of energy independence thru construction os a world-class surface transportation system?

 

We could have electrified railroads and transit that would use not one drop of oil for fuel, massive construction of bike/ped facilities...again, no oil needed!! We could also have made a huge investment in hybrid/electric vehicle technology, but noooo...we are being led down the primrose path by oil men and far-right crazies who are blind to reality.

 

We keep wasting our national wealth, as well as the lives of our young to maintain the same old status quo.