Trump proposes cutting long distance support

[David Benton]

Quite incredible to one used to detailed budgets, that there is no $$$ amount for Amtrak in the proposed budget.
Unless Trump proposes a law forbidding Amtrak from running Ld trains , the cut is to Amtrak's subsidy as a whole. Overheads etc are spread evenly, (some would say skewed to put more costs on the Long distance trains), exiting long distance increases costs for the remaining business. But without a $ fiqure on the capital and running budgets proposed, it is impossible to calculate the actual effect.

[NRGeep]

Anthony, ... there is a clause ... a defense against any such law as proposed.

... the institutional structure to operate and administer the operation of such would have to be built from the ground up ...

It wouldn't be quick or easy to dismantle the LD network either. It's possible that some of the haters would try to provoke a strike and break the unions. But I'm hoping the haters in Congress will "need more time" to make big changes, and postpone any bombardment into next year or later.

Fiscal Year 2018 should be full of positives for Amtrak. The big Stimulus projects will kick in later this year: The upgrades on the Cascades, the Billion worth of upgrades to make St Louis-Chicago run at 110 mph, and the time-saving work on the Piedmont Corridor Charlotte-Raleigh (all those routes are likely to add a frequency or two or three), as well as upgrades on the Wolverines route Kalamazoo-Detroit, around Albany, and on the Vermonter route. (Am I forgetting another one?)

I expect these high(er) speed routes to add another half million to Amtrak's passenger totals by the end of FY2018.

It's even possible that more units from the CAF order will join the fleet, as well as a bunch of the Charger diesel locomotives. Then we can hope for a more normal situation for Amtrak, with ridership growing, revenue increasing, farebox recovery edging up, on-time performance improving, etc.

With so much going right, why then would next year be the time to mess with Amtrak?

That's precisely the impetus for some in Congress to eliminate any and all funding for Amtrak.

[John_Perkowski]

Any prudent operator will post the 180 day notices in reverse order of losses...biggest losers first.

As for the mandate to the Class 1s, lest you forget...RPSA 70 relieved them of that responsibility by statute. When they joined Amtrak, that burden was taken from them. Since their land grants (for the western roads) are far in the past, GBN is right...what was proposed would die in Federal court in a week as a taking.

In addition, GBN notes the re creation of infrastructure...both physical and corporate. All too true.

[Ken W2KB]

Correct.

By throwing everything into the fireplace, a few favorites can be removed "we saved meals on wheels!" while others get lost in the fire.

If it was ONLY Amtrak, or ONLY PBS, or ONLY....well, you get the point. But they're all lost in the smoke behind other titans.

Amtrak and the others are definitely small potatoes when compared to the gorilla that is ignored in the budget and much of the press.

• The U.S. federal budget is nearly $4 trillion.
• The U.S. borrowed nearly $600 billion last year.
• The national debt is $19.9 trillion, with no plan to address the growing debt anytime soon.
• Debt per citizen is currently at $61,346 -- or $166,146 per taxpayer.

[SemperFidelis]

Edit: The man's title is President. I am a lefty, but I was raised to always respect the office, if not the person holding it. I hate it when people just refer to the President of the United States by his or (maybe one day?) her last name. President Trump is proposing these cuts, not just Trump.

As much as I hate to admit it, because I love the military, the drivers of our deficit, since the time of the good and decent President Eisenhower, is military and Pentagon spending. The defense budget, not the paltry sum we throw at Amtrak, is to blame. All those shiny planes and tanks that people love so much cost a ton of money.

People love targeting welfare and other supposedly huge programs when, in fact, it is quite obvious that the deficit mainly comes from spending more on national defense than the next 8 countries combined at the top of the military spending list.

However, anytime people who bother to actually care about this issue, rather than simply echoing what they have recently heard on thier "news" channel of choice, they are attacked as "not loving the troops enough.". The attackers generally tend to be of the chickenhawk variety, loving the military soooooo much that they never even bothered to serve in it.

Congress won't vote against defense increases because they are afraid of the "anti military label". However, cutting deeply into the one place where people can still find real, actual, factually based news, PBS and the BBC broadcasts it provides to millions of intelligent listeners of all political stripes, is applauded. My VERY Republican brother and I both listen to the BBC news and both consider it the only accurate news left.

If Congress has to choose between cutting long distance rail or cutting funding for yet another superfluous aircraft carrier (we have 12, our potential enemies have a total of 2)...well, the choice for a congressperson obvious. The loss of a long distance train will maybe last a news cycle. The loss of our 13th carrier will bounce around the echo chamber of "news" programs for friggin' ever.

A good President, one who puts the last several to shame, President Eisenhower warned that we should be wary of the growing influence of the military industrial complex and, damn, did he turn out to be right.

[David Benton]

My apologies, especially since the Article starts off "President Trump".
We don't have such edicts here, the Prime Minister is almost always referred to by name.
I can no longer edict the original post.
I have been scratching my head as to whom they are gearing up to go to war with, so I see the point of the rest of your post.

[Woody]

... If it was ONLY Amtrak, or ONLY PBS, or ONLY... But they're all lost in the smoke behind other titans.

Amtrak and the others are definitely small potatoes compared to the gorilla ...

• The U.S. federal budget is nearly $4 trillion.
• The U.S. borrowed nearly $600 billion last year.
• The national debt is $19.9 trillion ...
• Debt per citizen is currently at $61,346 -- or $166,146 per taxpayer.

Oh, you talking about that little monkey. LOL.

The real gorilla wears a uniform. Military spending is running at least $600 Billion a year. According to Wikipedia, that is not counting interest on debt taken on to pay for earlier military spending, Veterans' pensions and other benefits, nuclear weapons R & D and production, foreign aid for acquiring arms (which is most of it), Homeland Security, etc.

Military expenditures exceed the total amount of funds allocated to support Social Security, transportation, unemployment, labor, science, energy and the environment, international affairs, housing, veteran’s benefits, Medicare, education.

Please note that I understand the importance of defense spending. (I'm not paranoid, but I know that ISIS has a sharp knife ready for the likes of me.) Really, I'm not all that scared of the spending or the debt. As share of the budget, or share of Gross National Product, both measures are smaller than under Reagan's late 80's peak.

But if we're gonna look for Billions in wasted tax money, we're more likely to find such in the $600 Billion+ in military spending than in Amtrak's $1.5 Billion request for operations and capital investment.

[wigwagfan]

But if we're gonna look for Billions in wasted tax money, we're more likely to find such in the $600 Billion+ in military spending than in Amtrak's $1.5 Billion request for operations and capital investment.

Several problems:

1. President Trump won,

2. The military has tremendous support, and far more economic activity,

3. The proposed cuts to Amtrak largely hit those areas who willingly supported Trump,

4. The military is mentioned in the Constitution. Transportation's only mention is "post roads". Amtrak isn't the Post.

Prepare for a major winddown of the federal government...which although will be a short term pain for those dependent upon those services, will open up many new avenues especially in the transportation field, as the states and lower bodies of government will now build systems within their means but without the red tape and requirements of the federal government that is tied to federal funding. We'll see fewer Empire Builders, but more Brightlines. Fewer Sunset Limiteds, more commuter trains.

[David Benton]

But the States don't have more money at their disposal ??? And some states won't find any trains.

[Gilbert B Norman]

Volks, the Amtrak enabling legislation, RPSA 70, while amended several times by subsequent legislation, specifies that the System will be National in scope. Whether a collection of Corridor's on the Coasts as well as one and maybe more in between, might meet the "National" test, only an LD system, no matter how skeletal, has met that test over time.

But wouldn't it be "sport" if a Spending Bill were enacted specifically designating the LD's are "Zeroed", the 180 Days Notices are posted, Adios drumheads are procured, the Abolishment notices go up resulting in the mass confusion any wholesale bumping and bidding brings about, C-2 displacement and severance payments begin to those adversely affected, and the yards become full of Superliners.

Then some advocacy group kicks a Judge out of bed and that half dazed jurist grants an injunction of the strength that the provision under RPSA 70 remains controlling and that there is no longer a National system - all because someone in their haste and/or ignorance did not introduce an "Amtrak Reform" bill to repeal that "National" provision of RPSA 70.

Of course there's a lot further to go, appeals to a circuit (advocates trying to get the "Libby Ninth" to hear the case), maybe even The Supremes.

But in the meantime, the trains that were whacked have to roll again.

Barristers around here, pick this apart.

[Jehochman]

This is classic budget posturing. Start by proposing draconian cuts to everything. See what people will fight to keep. Make a bunch of compromises to get the votes necessary for passage, and you end up with a new budget that's not too far from the old one. President Trump is a weak president. He barely made it into office by a few tens of thousands of votes. He has a slim majority in the senate. I do not expect big changes any time soon, just a lot more posturing for the base.

[daylight4449]

> because we finally have a president interested in investing in infrastructure;

Buwahahahaha!

Just going to play devils advocate here, but Amtrak is a service... Can't really call it "infrastructure". That falls to the NEC and other similar corridors. As for cutting the long distance routes, even if you cut a good chunk of them is that really a bad thing? Tadman brought up some excellent points that echo positions I took in a note I posted to my facebook page. I'll leave the link to it below (only because I don't know how to go about and quote the whole thing here);

https://www.facebook.com/notes/d-lamber ... 5719143371" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[SouthernRailway]

Without long distance routes, many current corridors never would have been developed. North Carolina, for example, wouldn't have developed the Carolinian or Piedmonts.

For some budget truths:

In 2016, mandatory programs (chiefly Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid) took up $2.4 trillion in spending. Defense took up $584 billion. Non-defense, non-mandatory spending took up only $600 billion in spending. So fix entitlements, since spending on them outweighs everything else by far.

[David Benton]

https://www.businessinsider.com.au/trum ... ?r=US&IR=T" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Not a bad summary of the issue.

[David Benton]

On the lack of infrastructure spending.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/17/us/p ... cture.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;