What will Trump mean for Amtrak?

I hope that this comment will not be taken as the first shot in a political flame war, but when we discuss major infrastructure for all transportation, let us keep in mind that President Trump IS a Third-party "nationalist/populist" president who by whatever means was able to capture a major party to use as a platform resulting in his successful election. Here is the linked Times article and Fair Use passage from which this thought was formulated:

http://nytimes.com/2017/01/20/us/politi ... dency.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Lest Republicans become complacent, Mr. Trump made it clear that he believes he is leading a populist movement that has little regard for any party platforms or loyalties. He thundered against free trade, a pillar of the Republican Party, as he did during the campaign.

He promised a Franklin D. Roosevelt-style public works campaign — “new roads and highways, and bridges, and airports, and tunnels, and railways” — something the Republicans would have implacably opposed had it come from Mrs. Clinton

I'm not sure how trustworthy this is, but I hope to god it's not true. (Full disclosure: I'm a diehard Democrat)

http://usa.streetsblog.org/2017/01/19/t ... t-funding/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Fair use quote

Trump’s budget won’t be released for a few more weeks, but according to the Hill, it will draw heavily from a Heritage policy document that calls for taking an axe to conservative targets like the National Endowment for the Arts and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting [PDF]. Of course, Heritage wants to put transit on the chopping block too.

...

With a new president and unilateral Republican control of Washington, however, believers in slash-and-burn budgets are clearly emboldened.

Here’s how Heritage wants to gut federal support for transit and rail — these are the programs that Americans who support transit may soon have to defend.

“Phase out” the Federal Transit Administration — $4 billion annually
...
Eliminate major capital investment in transit — $2.2 billion annually
...
Eliminate funding for Amtrak – $519 million annually
...
Eliminate funding for TIGER – $510 million annually
...
Eliminate subsidy for WMATA — $153 million annually

Gilbert B Norman wrote:I hope that this comment will not be taken as the first shot in a political flame war, but when we discuss major infrastructure for all transportation, let us keep in mind that President Trump IS a Third-party "nationalist/populist" president who by whatever means was able to capture a major party to use as a platform resulting in his successful election. Here is the linked Times article and Fair Use passage from which this thought was formulated:

http://nytimes.com/2017/01/20/us/politi ... dency.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Lest Republicans become complacent, Mr. Trump made it clear that he believes he is leading a populist movement that has little regard for any party platforms or loyalties. He thundered against free trade, a pillar of the Republican Party, as he did during the campaign.

He promised a Franklin D. Roosevelt-style public works campaign — “new roads and highways, and bridges, and airports, and tunnels, and railways” — something the Republicans would have implacably opposed had it come from Mrs. Clinton

I REALLY think it's time to end this thread, as it's already a political topic, and I personally would trust the National Enquirer before the New York Times, where you can't tell where the Editorials leave off and the "news" begins. I mean absolutely NO offense to you, Mr. Norman, or anyone else, nor am I singling you out, but as railfans we really ought to leave the political stuff for other forums. Please?
Peace,
Jonathan

Seems a little disingenuous to call for apolitical discourse...only right after you take a shot at the New York Times.

No offense meant to you, sir, Mr. Whattheyrailfan because I am guilty of doing the very same thing now and again.

I second the motion, though. Since certain (stupid) people can't or won't behave themselves, accusing people with different opinions of murdering babies and whatnot, threads that do anything more than mention policy should be shut.

And, by the by, I find it a shame that we can't debate the politics of railroads without certain elements derailing (sorry for the pun) the threads and attacking people's patriotism and motives, choosing to echo talking points and phrases heard on the radio and the news rather than coming up with original thought. There really is a lot to be said about the politics of rail as we are a nation that has chosen to politicize damn near everything.

Many politicians have tried to eliminate Amtrak in the past, none have succeeded. Having Amtrak services in your district is viewed by the masses as bringing home the bacon. Not all pork projects are viewed with disdained.

While the masses may not like seeing increasing subsidies, most like seeing the subsidies decreasing and hopefully yearn to see Amtrak earning a profit eventually. I don't know of anyone having an Amtrak train servicing their communities wishing to see it eliminated. What I see and hear is people debating how to reduce the subsidies it needs. Drop food services, charge more for fares and food, add more sleepers, add business class, add more coaches, add more trains, add more routes, change routes, etc. Rarely have I read or heard the average, non politicalized citizens screaming for Amtrak's complete elimination.

The direction the political wind blows varies year by year, decade by decade, and will forever. Never-the-less Amtrak is still alive and kicking, still receiving brand new cars, locomotives, and new facilities across the nation. It's not going away.

SemperFidelis wrote:Seems a little disingenuous to call for apolitical discourse...only right after you take a shot at the New York Times.

No offense meant to you, sir, Mr. Whattheyrailfan because I am guilty of doing the very same thing now and again.

I second the motion, though. Since certain (stupid) people can't or won't behave themselves, accusing people with different opinions of murdering babies and whatnot, threads that do anything more than mention policy should be shut.

And, by the by, I find it a shame that we can't debate the politics of railroads without certain elements derailing (sorry for the pun) the threads and attacking people's patriotism and motives, choosing to echo talking points and phrases heard on the radio and the news rather than coming up with original thought. There really is a lot to be said about the politics of rail as we are a nation that has chosen to politicize damn near everything.

I can't figure out from your rambling, practically incoherent post, what the heck you're spouting off about? Yeah, I dissed the NYT.......SO WHAT! I said a newspaper is biased, and you respond with....GIBBERISH! THIS is why I SUGGESTED (NOT said) that this thread be discontinued. Personally, I'd rather talk about the CT River Line, or the Montrealer/Vermonter. No offense.

If you don't like it , simply don't open it .

I just want to know the cold hard facts on where he stands with Amtrak....it seems like to me he has no actual position yet.

AgentSkelly wrote:I just want to know the cold hard facts on where he stands with Amtrak....it seems like to me he has no actual position yet.

Can I substitute alternative facts for "cold hard facts"?

NO substitutions,Cold Hard Facts ONLY!

Stay away from the "political" sludge, please!

Lets wait for the budget from President Trump is turned over to the Congress Critters for their "considerations"
and his first State of the Union address to them.

Hey,

Whatelyrailfan...I was agreeing with you. Pretty sure that much was obvious. If you can't figure out what I wrote, or consider it gibberish, it might be time to settle down a little bit, take either more or fewer pills, and reread the post. It is plain and straightforward. I was upset that we can't have political discussions here because certain folks just speak in talking points.

Settle down a little, buddy...also, look up the terms rambling and incoherent. My post was neither. Clear as day, but I could simplify it if needs me. Break it down a few steps so it's neither rambling nor incoherent.

I like people who don't talk like talk radio hosts. I like people who offer thier own, original thoughts. I think it is funny that you made fun of the NY Times and then called for an apolitical forum. I think it is funny that I do the same thing.

Perhaps the fact that I am self aware enough to make fun of myself is off-putting? Seriously, have a few glasses of boubon and chill.

I am pretty sure everyone, those not looking for something tob be upset about anyway, who read my original post understood what I was writing.

Backshophoss wrote:Lets wait for the budget from President Trump is turned over to the Congress Critters for their "considerations"
and his first State of the Union address to them.

If you wait for the budget, that is too late. But it seems like nobody has any insight. That darn Bork Effect where if you say anything specific you will get cut down.

Whatever the Sec'y of Transportation and her husband say will carry weight. Amtrak can point to net positive cash flow (am i correct?) on the NEC, point to decreasing subsidies to make their case to continue existing subsidies and draw more capital.

I feel, but do not know, that most of the focus will be on the "budget busters" (medicare/obamacare/medicaid/VA healthcare, Social Security, defense, etc) and new "Trump Initiatives" rather than cutting right away. If he can't zero the line item I'm betting he will level fund it the first year or so.

Technically Amtrak is already supposedly private! Selling the NEC would be a disaster. Things can be leased for specific lengths of time with enforcible performance standards, but if you sell you lose control. Trump can understand that or be made aware of it.

SemperFidelis wrote:Hey,

Whatelyrailfan...I was agreeing with you. Pretty sure that much was obvious. If you can't figure out what I wrote, or consider it gibberish, it might be time to settle down a little bit, take either more or fewer pills, and reread the post. It is plain and straightforward. I was upset that we can't have political discussions here because certain folks just speak in talking points.

Settle down a little, buddy...also, look up the terms rambling and incoherent. My post was neither. Clear as day, but I could simplify it if needs me. Break it down a few steps so it's neither rambling nor incoherent.

I like people who don't talk like talk radio hosts. I like people who offer thier own, original thoughts. I think it is funny that you made fun of the NY Times and then called for an apolitical forum. I think it is funny that I do the same thing.

Perhaps the fact that I am self aware enough to make fun of myself is off-putting? Seriously, have a few glasses of boubon and chill.

I am pretty sure everyone, those not looking for something tob be upset about anyway, who read my original post understood what I was writing.

My apologies for the misunderstanding on my part. And while I enjoy a good Bourbon every now and then, my preference is a good single malt Scotch. Seriously, I DID misunderstand, and I was wrong.
Peace, Jonathan

Volks, lest we forget President Trump is not a conservative. He never campaigned as would a "Heritage Foundation/Hillsdale College" candidate. On the REALLY BIG issues, he has not said on Health care that it will be gone; I'm inclined to think the only he has is its "brand name"; will Congress pass and he enact new health care legislation? Of course, but what's enacted could really end up nothing more than a new name - how does Americare sound?

But this is likely my final thought; I see the jailer coming and he's got his keys out, as well as his .357.