$1.4 Billion from the Senate

prr60 wrote:In the interest of fairness, Mr. Mineta has not made any public statements about this subcommittee action. His staff has only said the matter is being studied. A member of the subcommittee said he threatened a to recommend a veto, but that is what is called "heresay".

I, for one, would like to here what Mr. Mineta actually says or does directly before we once again vilify the man.

Mineta truth be known has spoken with a forked tongue throughout the Amtrak funding issue since day one. I don't believe he's ever really uttered a truthful statement, having gotten his "research" from so-called "think tanks" such as Heritage, Cato, etc.

Time after time we find the so-called DOT head slamming Amtrak and making false accusations and repeating myths.

NARP has a good rebuttal to his campaign of lies.

http://www.narprail.org/amtrakzerofy06.htm

I found it interesting how the "honorable" Mineta decried Amtrak not having a second route in southern Montana when his DOT years ago had imposed a moratorium on routes Amtrak could run! The DOT told Amtrak in fact, to discontinue about a half-dozen trains, including some that were well-patronized, like the CHI-Texas service and CHI-SEA train.

prr60 wrote:In the interest of fairness, Mr. Mineta has not made any public statements about this subcommittee action. His staff has only said the matter is being studied. A member of the subcommittee said he threatened a to recommend a veto, but that is what is called "heresay".

I, for one, would like to here what Mr. Mineta actually says or does directly before we once again vilify the man.

Now there are public statements by Mineta to this effect:

Amtrak subsidies of more than $1.1 billion proposed in Congress "may be subject to a veto'' unless lawmakers include more reforms of the passenger railroad, U.S. Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta said in an interview.

From Bloomberg

Here's an interesting theory:
Would it make more sense for the states to fund infrastructure and the government to fund operation losses? If the state funds infrastructure, they can tailor requirments such as bus/auto/rail interface for what works locally and what the local growth goals are. Further, by upgrading/downgrading stations and property, the state changes how the passengers perceive the service, thus changing sales conversion rates. Finally, the state would be funding track improvements, which not only improves passenger service but also freight service, which helps local economies even more. THen the government is left to cover operation deficits. It seems to me this encourages state to state competition to have the best local facilities, thus encouraging rail travel as a whole.

That'd be nice if the states were swimming in money. I think most states in the Union are in some sort of money troubles.

In the news today:

According to one industry source, conferees may have to make a choice between the House version that restores $600 million in the FAA's Facilities and Equipment (F&E) funding upon which modernization of the air-traffic control system restsmoney and the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Commmittee version that restores funding to Amtrak.

I understand the states aren't swimming in money, but if the state is responsible for operating losses funding and the feds are responsible to infrastructure, the state has an incentive to kill the train - if variable costs outweigh income by $5 per rider, the funding request on a train with 10 pax is $50, while a train with 100 riders is $500. However, if the state is responsible for infrastructure, there is positive incentive because the ridership helps local business and tourism (and tax revenue).