Candidate Positions on Amtrak/HSR

Tommy Meehan wrote:

goodnightjohnwayne wrote:Overall, I'm not sure that a Romney Administration would be anything but favorable to private sector HSR, and we all know there's a huge regulatory hurdle for any HSR operation.

The trouble is there isn't any private sector HSR. And it's not clear the private sector (minus huge subsidies) wants any part of Amtrak.

[/quote]

Not sure that's true Tommy; didn't the French company want in on CA HSR? Offered to build it and operate it I think. You've got Talgo as well; aren't they operating some services?

In other matters, everyone's favorite Amtrak supporter Mica is complaining about commuter service run by Amtrak

http://dc.streetsblog.org/2012/09/13/ho ... -business/

This could impact CDOT SLE.

At a highly politicized hearing on Tuesday, House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chair John Mica slammed “Amtrak’s failure to compete with the private sector,” arguing that the national rail company should stop bidding to run commuter rail services.

The hearing centered around a new report from House Republicans [PDF] criticizing Amtrak for competing with private companies for commuter rail contracts. “Amtrak is a highly subsidized, Soviet-style rail system,” Mica said, “but despite every ticket being underwritten nearly $50 by the taxpayers, Amtrak is an absolute failure in competing with the cost-effectiveness and level of service provided by the private sector.”

But it also seems that Republicans would prefer to see Amtrak become even more of a “Soviet-style” operation. One of the report’s major conclusions is that Amtrak should stop trying to compete for commuter rail contracts awarded by local governments. “Amtrak wastes the taxpayers’ money bidding on commuter rail contracts that it cannot win,” Mica said in a press release. The report cited seven instances where Amtrak entered competition for these contracts and lost or withdrew.

Meanwhile, Florida Democrat Corrine Brown pointed out that Amtrak makes a profit of $15 million annually on its commuter rail service. Brown accused Republicans of orchestrating the hearing to punish Amtrak for suing Veolia Transportation, which nabbed a contract for commuter rail service in Florida after hiring away three Amtrak employees. A jury faulted Veolia for the hirings, but said Amtrak would not have kept the contract even if they had retained those employees.

Jeff Smith wrote:Not sure that's true Tommy; didn't the French company want in on CA HSR? Offered to build it and operate it I think. You've got Talgo as well; aren't they operating some services?

I believe the French company in question is SNCF and, IIRC, it's a subsidiary of the French government, so not sure it really counts as "private" HSR. I interpret Mr. Meehan's point as being that there in no HSR system anywhere which has not, at some point, been the beneficiary of major gobs of government/public money, and I think that's undeniably true.

Thanks for the clarification. We could say that about Airbus too, I suppose. So quasi-private, almost like a Conrail.

Tommy Meehan wrote: The "Dems" haven't dropped High-Speed and Intercity Passenger Rail projects, they're doing them. This is from a press release from Transportation Secretary LaHood yesterday (announcing the latest grant to Indiana):

There's more to the story: both parties (more Democrats than Republicans) are "doing" rail projects, but both parties (more Republicans than Democrats, but both) are at fault for failing to adequately stand up for Amtrak.

November 15, 2011
Senate averts Amtrak cutback

- By JONATHAN RISKIND

MaineToday Media Washington Bureau Chief

WASHINGTON - Deep cuts that would have crippled the Downeaster rail service between Portland and Boston have been sidetracked.

"We fought hard to preserve Amtrak funding, and I am pleased that, after vigorous debate, we were able to maintain funding for state-supported routes such as the Downeaster," Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, wrote in an email Monday announcing a deal that preserves the funding. Collins is a member of the transportation appropriations subcommittee....The Senate had passed a version of the bill granting Amtrak $1.48 billion, and maintaining federal support for state-supported routes. The House gave Amtrak a total of $1.1 billion, and cut the operating budget to $227 million from $563 million.

Obama's High-Speed Rail Project Gets $1.5 Billion Slashed In Budget Deal
High Speed Rail

First Posted: 04/11/11 03:21 PM ET Updated: 06/11/11 06:12 AM ET
React
Important
Funny
Typical
Scary
Outrageous
Amazing
Innovative
Finally
Follow
Government Shutdown , High Speed Rail , Obama Budget , $1.5 Billion , Budget Deal , Obama High Speed Rail , Obama $1.5 Billion , Politics News
share this story
258
228
39
Get Politics Alerts
Sign Up
Submit this story

WASHINGTON -- As part of the final budget deal formally agreed to on Friday night, the Obama administration signed off on a big cut to a closely held transportation policy priority.

Multiple Hill sources from both parties confirm that the final continuing resolution (CR) to fund the government through the end of September will include a $1.5 billion cut in funds for the planned national high-speed rail system. Jennifer Hing, communications director for the House Appropriations Committee, said that the reduction could actually grow larger as lawmakers negotiate the final language.

“The final agreement will reflect" the $1.5 billion of high-speed rail funds slashed from the temporary CR, Hing wrote in an email to HuffPost, "but that is not to say that it couldn’t be more.”

In signing off on cuts, the Obama administration is taking a major hit to one of the president’s favorite transportation priorities. In the process, he is also giving fodder to critics who have accused the White House’s push for high-speed rail as pie-in-the-sky policy that would fall far short of transforming the nation’s antiquated infrastructure.

There was a proposal by SNCF to bid on the construction of the San Francisco-Los Angeles segment of the planned California high speed rail project. California turned it down. ( http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/califor ... costs.html ) SNCF and some critics say that was a bad decision while the CHSRA says it was a bad proposal (http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/searc ... =ascending ).

I mentioned earlier that about ten years ago there was some evidence the Blackstone Group was interested in acquiring the NEC (when the Bush Administration wanted to break up Amtrak and sell the viable parts) but nothing came of it.

Romney says his plan is for the federal government to "get out of the way" and let the private sector takeover Amtrak. That implies the private sector is interested in taking over Amtrak. I think we all know they're not.

As a lifelong Democrat and supporter of passenger rail service, if the two candidates (see subject line of thread) positions on Amtrak and high speed rail were reversed.....I'd support Romney.

.

As previously stated, the Democratic platform omits "high speed rail" and now we see these cuts to......drum roll......"high speed rail." It's pretty clear that this is a matter of policy, reflecting the language of the platform, and when it comes to this particular party platform, there is some truth in advertising. Maybe the Republicans are also telling the truth about their support for private sector HSR?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/1 ... 47587.html

So the Democrats are agreeing to cutting $1.5 billion from publicly funded High Speed Rail? It seems this isn't the party line issue some people are making it out to be?

goodnightjohnwayne wrote:...So the Democrats are agreeing to cutting $1.5 billion from publicly funded High Speed Rail? It seems this isn't the party line issue some people are making it out to be?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/1 ... 47587.html

Nonsense. This is pure spin. The article is from April 2011. And anyway, who do you suppose forced the cuts?

The Republicans in Congress forced the administration to cut a favored program

As part of the final budget deal formally agreed to on Friday night, the Obama administration signed off on a big cut to a closely held transportation policy priority.

and now, seventeen months later this is being used as evidence that Obama doesn't really favor high speed rail after all?

Bull-loney!

.

Tommy Meehan wrote:

goodnightjohnwayne wrote:...So the Democrats are agreeing to cutting $1.5 billion from publicly funded High Speed Rail? It seems this isn't the party line issue some people are making it out to be?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/1 ... 47587.html

Nonsense. This is pure spin. The article is from April 2011. And anyway, who do you suppose forced the cuts?

The Republicans in Congress forced the administration to cut a favored program and now, seventeen months later this is being used as evidence that Obama doesn't really favor high speed rail after all?

.

Then why isn't it in the platform? Why wasn't it referenced during convention speeches? Bill Clinton, who cut Amtrak during his administration, didn't mention it, and he had a seemingly unlimited time slot?

I get the fact that you're a party line voter. Lots of people are. But facts are facts. And this isn't a clear cut case of my "guy is for/against it and your guy is taking the opposite side." It's not that simple. And FYI, they're called Continuing Resolutions because they are Continuing, as in kicking the can down the road. The cuts are still in effect and might get a lot deeper, both sides having agreed on across the board cuts if the lame duck session is this Congress doesn't change it.

goodnightjohnwayne wrote:I get the fact that you're a party line voter....

You don't get it.

I wrote several times if the party's positions on Amtrak and high speed rail were reversed I'd support Romney.

And the fact the Democratic party didn't put anything in the platform about Amtrak or high speed rail and didn't mention it during the convention means what?

The current administration is pursuing the program. You can't spin your way past that fact.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2012/0821/ ... ward-again

.

Tommy Meehan wrote:

goodnightjohnwayne wrote:I get the fact that you're a party line voter....

You don't get it.

I wrote several times if the party's positions on Amtrak and high speed rail were reversed I'd support Romney.

And to be honest, it doesn't matter who you vote for in the presidential election, since New York State's electoral votes aren't in statistical contention. The voters who matter are the persuadable, undecided voters in swing states.

Tommy Meehan wrote:And the fact the Democratic party didn't put anything in the platform about Amtrak or high speed rail and didn't mention it during the convention means what?

It means that it isn't a policy priority. It's on the back burner, and if it isn't gone for good, it isn't a priority.

Tommy Meehan wrote:The current administration is pursuing the program. You can't spin your way past that fact.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2012/0821/ ... ward-again

.[/quote]

That article is largely based on statements from think tanks and the fact that Jerry Brown has moved forward with HSR in California, which makes no difference whatsoever, because California, like New York, isn't a swing state. Where are the direct public statements pertaining to federal policy? Oh wait, they've gone completely silent on the Democratic side of the isle, and this at a time when they're leading in polling data. The presidential election is pretty much a done deal, a senate majority is almost certain for the Dems and they still aren't talking about HSR, which says a lot about the lack of enthusiasm for HSR.

goodnightjohnwayne wrote:That article is largely based on statements from think tanks...

I think you misrepresent what the article from the Christian Science Monitor says. The article quotes the Regional Plan Association which is an advocacy and public interest group. It quotes someone from the American Public Transit Association which is a trade group. It's mostly just straight reporting.

In the [i]Chistian Science Monitor[/i] Mark Clayton wrote:Just a few months ago, the program seemed moribund – or headed that way fast. First, Republican governors in Florida, Ohio, and Wisconsin early last year rejected federal dollars and high-speed rail plans for their states, citing their expectations for cost overruns and insufficient ridership. Then, in November, Congress axed the White House's six-year, $53 billion budget request for high-speed rail. Critics celebrated, with the conservative National Review proclaiming in a headline, "The Death of a High-Speed-Rail Program."

....[But] Congressional hatchets did not touch most of the $10 billion allotted, under the 2009 economic stimulus act, for high-speed rail and "higher performance" rail (with trains that travel 90 to 110 m.p.h.). They mainly slashed future funding. As a result, 153 projects are now swinging into action with $9.6 billion in funding, the Federal Railroad Administration reports.

This is what I'm talking about.

The current Administration is trying to make possible a historic opportunity for Amtrak and high speed rail to finally get some serious funding and finally have a real shot at demonstrating their worth.

If you believe in passenger rail service, if you want to see it get a fair chance, I think you have to put politics aside and support this Administration's efforts in this area.

.

Tommy Meehan wrote:Romney says his plan is for the federal government to "get out of the way" and let the private sector takeover Amtrak. That implies the private sector is interested in taking over Amtrak. I think we all know they're not.

Of course they are... with big fat government subsidies and guarantees, of course.

This way, instead of running it itself, the government can pay 40% MORE to a private company to run it. That company can then take a percentage of the take, and re-invest it (er, "contribute") it to the party that makes their personal gravy train run.

In most civilized countries, this would be a scheme run by the Mob. In Washington, it's just Tuesday.

Tommy Meehan wrote:

goodnightjohnwayne wrote:That article is largely based on statements from think tanks...

I think you misrepresent what the article from the Christian Science Monitor says. The article quotes the Regional Plan Association which is an advocacy and public interest group. It quotes someone from the American Public Transit Association which is a trade group. It's mostly just straight reporting.

In the [i]Chistian Science Monitor[/i] Mark Clayton wrote:Just a few months ago, the program seemed moribund – or headed that way fast. First, Republican governors in Florida, Ohio, and Wisconsin early last year rejected federal dollars and high-speed rail plans for their states, citing their expectations for cost overruns and insufficient ridership. Then, in November, Congress axed the White House's six-year, $53 billion budget request for high-speed rail. Critics celebrated, with the conservative National Review proclaiming in a headline, "The Death of a High-Speed-Rail Program."

....[But] Congressional hatchets did not touch most of the $10 billion allotted, under the 2009 economic stimulus act, for high-speed rail and "higher performance" rail (with trains that travel 90 to 110 m.p.h.). They mainly slashed future funding. As a result, 153 projects are now swinging into action with $9.6 billion in funding, the Federal Railroad Administration reports.

This is what I'm talking about.

The current Administration is trying to make possible a historic opportunity for Amtrak and high speed rail to finally get some serious funding and finally have a real shot at demonstrating their worth.

If you believe in passenger rail service, if you want to see it get a fair chance, I think you have to put politics aside and support this Administration's efforts in this area.

.

I do believe in passenger rail service and would like to see it get a fair chance, but at others on railroad.net have pointed out, we are talking chump change in the greater scheme of things. There are other issues of such far more importance by orders of magnitude, that passenger rail should not be the deciding factor in the election. It may also be that a subsidized private entity running Amtrak would drive out costs and inefficiencies if incentives were properly set resulting in more and better rail service at lower cost.

Ken W2KB wrote:It may also be that a subsidized private entity running Amtrak would drive out costs and inefficiencies if incentives were properly set resulting in more and better rail service at lower cost.

Well, that's the theory one hears, but the biggest real-world trial I know of (the UK) is not very supportive. Since service was privatized, rail usage has greatly expanded. The same is true, however, of countries that have not privatized--e.g., France. But public/government "subsidy"/"investment" (take your pick of terms) has either quadrupled or quintupled since 1993 (if Mr. Mathews is about, he can correct any error), and the UK has the highest fares per km of any European country. So much for greater efficiency and lower costs.

Station Aficionado wrote:

Ken W2KB wrote:It may also be that a subsidized private entity running Amtrak would drive out costs and inefficiencies if incentives were properly set resulting in more and better rail service at lower cost.

Well, that's the theory one hears, but the biggest real-world trial I know of (the UK) is not very supportive. Since service was privatized, rail usage has greatly expanded. The same is true, however, of countries that have not privatized--e.g., France. But public/government "subsidy"/"investment" (take your pick of terms) has either quadrupled or quintupled since 1993 (if Mr. Mathews is about, he can correct any error), and the UK has the highest fares per km of any European country. So much for greater efficiency and lower costs.

Or perhaps the US could leverage the UK experience and correct deficiencies that caused the higher costs. Get the contract including incentives right.