What would McCain as President mean for Amtrak?

we do seem to have a bit of a contradiction here . on the one hand some are saying that politicans are demanding LD amtrak service in their state in return for their support for the nec services ( and they may well be correct ) .on the other hand , we have some saying that LD Amtrak is irrelevant , neither the general public , nor politicans would fight for its survival , outside the nec ( while i don't agree with this , it may also be correct ) . But the problem then becomes , why would a politican demand a service that neither they nor their constituents want ??? Surely they would bargain for something they did want ???

If McCain is elected it will not be good news for Amtrak nor for supporters
of passenger trains. He will likely appoint somebody as Secretary of
Transportation who also does not like Amtrak and other high officials
also will reflect his views.
He might not be able to kill Amtrak but Amtrak will continue to live on a
"hand to mouth" month by month existance.
McCain has made no secret of his dislike for Amtrak and nothing good
will likely happen if he is elected.
Noel Weaver

that would mean the end of amtrak.

David Benton wrote:we do seem to have a bit of a contradiction here . on the one hand some are saying that politicans are demanding LD amtrak service in their state in return for their support for the nec services ( and they may well be correct ) .on the other hand , we have some saying that LD Amtrak is irrelevant , neither the general public , nor politicans would fight for its survival , outside the nec ( while i don't agree with this , it may also be correct ) . But the problem then becomes , why would a politican demand a service that neither they nor their constituents want ??? Surely they would bargain for something they did want ???

Well I have posted about it before, probably a broken record by now.

NEC states contribute more tax revenue then they get fed money in return. Low density states in the Mid west really take much more money than they give in return to the government. So anything that makes the NEC more efficient in continuing to become one Megalopolis, does directly benefit those thieving low density states.

McCain doesn't impress me as a very sensible economist. The gas tax holiday is one of the dumbest ideas I've seen in a long time and is indicative of a very shallow knowledge of how a strong economy works. The economy and gas prices are going to be hot topics this summer and ways to expand public transportation should be getting a good deal of lip service in the campaigns. However, any politician who advocates for a gas tax holiday will have a tough time getting my vote in November. But if McCain wins the election I can imagine a scenario where some astute capital management companies--like Cerberus--might try to buy the Acela or NEC operations from Amtrak in a deal that puts the most profitable segments of Amtrak in private hands and leaves the less profitable segments on the taxpayers' backs. I know many people think that private ownership would be best for Amtrak and I expect McCain would be sympathetic, but I don't think that selling the best performing assets would improve the nation's overall transportation problems in any way. If the Democrats control the White House I think that an Acela sell-off or a dismantling of Amtrak would be a non-starter.

I highly agree with Vincent and Noel Weaver.

I closely watched attempts to create Arizona State supported trains in Southern Arizona in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s. There was no help from Senator McCain.

As a freight engineer that protected Amtrak service for 10 years and now an Amtrak engineer for 20 years, my experience is that Amtrak acts more like a Federal Agency than a business. When a Presidential Administration favors Amtrak service is better. When an administration does not favor Amtrak service suffers badly.

westernrrtx wrote: As a freight engineer that protected Amtrak service for 10 years and now an Amtrak engineer for 20 years, my experience is that Amtrak acts more like a Federal Agency than a business. When a Presidential Administration favors Amtrak service is better. When an administration does not favor Amtrak service suffers badly.

When was the last time an administration favored Amtrak? Seems like the better part of Clinton and Bush II has been anti-Amtrak. I think, to some extent, it has as much to do with the administration's ability to appoint a competent board (which, in turn, has to make sure the company has competent management). Still, it relies on funding so perhaps it does operate politically ,which woudl mean rewarding allies and punishing opponents rather than designing service to customer needs.

Suburban Station wrote:

westernrrtx wrote: As a freight engineer that protected Amtrak service for 10 years and now an Amtrak engineer for 20 years, my experience is that Amtrak acts more like a Federal Agency than a business. When a Presidential Administration favors Amtrak service is better. When an administration does not favor Amtrak service suffers badly.

When was the last time an administration favored Amtrak? Seems like the better part of Clinton and Bush II has been anti-Amtrak. I think, to some extent, it has as much to do with the administration's ability to appoint a competent board (which, in turn, has to make sure the company has competent management). Still, it relies on funding so perhaps it does operate politically ,which woudl mean rewarding allies and punishing opponents rather than designing service to customer needs.

Oh come on, this thing is like beating a dead horse!
A simple equation for everyone here...

MCCain+Presidency=No (or less) amtrak
MCCain-Presidency=No worries (or much less, anyway)

also, what president DID like amtrak? Enlighten me.

Suburban Station you are correct. But you could sure tell the ones that really hated us.

Should McCain be elected President, it would appear that the Dems will still control the House and the Senate. McCain would follow in the footsteps of George "Signing Statement" Bush. He has issued more signing statements than all the previous presidents in modern times. For those that are not familiar with signing statements, when a President wants to take exception to a bill passed by the Congress, but does not want to veto the entire bill, he issues a signing statement taking exception to a particular part of the legislation. He has directed specific government agencies to disregard the provision he objects to. Whether a President McCain would direct the Department of Transportation not to provide funds to Amtrak, even though they were approved by the Congress, would remain to be seen.

Remember, Senator McCain loves being a "maverick", which I define as doing his own thing and to heck with the Congress.

Dick

psct29 wrote;

A McCain presidency does scare me, but not because of him threatening to cut off Amtrak. Congress will continue to fund Amtrak, because especially here in the Northeast, Amtrak is a bipartisan issue (with one lone exception, I believe)after all, the Northeast delegation (except NH) votes

I fully concur; with the exception of Amtrak long-distance, almost all current rail passenger service, both Amtrak and commuter, is situated in locations where the fuel crunch will inveigh heavily in their favor.

However, Amtrak LD gains little benefit from this because the population density and schedules are too thin, and providfing service deemed essential for the carless in these areas is achieved more economically by other means.

The area between Minneapolis, Omaha, Kansas City and Dallas, on one hand, and the denesely-settled strip along the Pacific Coast, on the other, has sometimes been referred to as the "empty quarter", With the exceptions of Denver and Phoenix/Tucson, it has been steadily losing population for decades as fewer peoplw are needed for agriculture and many younger locals move away once they finish their education.

The essential/emergency transportation needs of the relatively few non-drivers in this area can be met by other means, such as vanpools or local bus service. There simply isn't enough business to sustain rail service in the form of the locals and motor cars of two or three generations ago,

Even if a Democrat is elected with substantuial gains in Congress, the traditional passenger train is out of synch with both the urban-orientation of Mr Obama and the feminized "global village" of Ms Clinton. The creation of a new light-density highway-oriented "fallback" transportation network would likely create more "patronage" jobs than the loss of Amtrak LD would elimnate. And some of the of the displaced resources could be transferred to other areas where they could be more productive.

On another subject, abenm613 wrote;

from my previous post

I think not even the most partisan of the participants here could make a case for Amtrak LD on an economic basis.

response

It's not the economic reason. It's that people do ride trains and it would be unfair to deprive them of this option. That's why politicians support it. Americans deserve as much freedom of choice in transportation modes as do Europeans, Russians, or the Chinese. For argument sake, let's assume the U.S. only has 140 million taxpayers (of course in reality there are more, but...), and Amtrak receives about $1400 million per year. Thus, every taxpayer pays only $10 a year for Amtrak (that is, less than $1 per month). I don't mind paying this amount to make sure this country has passenger trains. I believe most taxpayers would agree with me.

That "option" is based upon the premise that I, and millions like myself, will no longer have the option of furnishing my own transortation in my own vehicle, or that that option will be deliberately priced beyond the means of many by heavy taxation, as has always been the case in Europe.

As is the case with most Americans, my ancestors came here to avoid the stagnation and class-consciousness of the Old World, and the sham of "options" offered only in conformity with the wishes of the state is going to be recognised for what it is.

The essential/emergency transportation needs of the relatively few non-drivers in this area can be met by other means, such as vanpools or local bus service. There simply isn't enough business to sustain rail service in the form of the locals and motor cars of two or three generations ago,

Speaking of commuter trains as a mean of transportation for non-drivers, it's true that low population density doesn't generally make these trains economically viable. But there are exceptions, such as the Music City Star in the Nashville TN area. The experience of Nashville shows that commuter rail can be a viable option for many other cities of the same size, such as Atlanta, Denver, Houston, etc. Nevertheless, this mode is still unlikely to justify itself in extensive rural areas where some commuter van or minibus service is indeed more appropriate. I'm not disputing that. However, bringing this as a point agains LD trains is like mixing apples with oranges. LD trains are not meant for everyday commute for rural residents who probably don't commute much anyway. The principal role of LD trains in those areas is to provide an essential connection to the outside world. For example, if a resident of Havre MT wants to travel anywhere, he does not have much of a choice. There are not so many flights from that location, and the fares on them may not be affordable for an average traveler. Thus, the Empire Builder is the most convenient way from Havre to either Seattle or Minneapolis where major airports are available. Intercity buses, too, have their share in American travel market as the most economical mode, or a connecting service to a LD train. But a bus (or even a set of buses) cannot and should not replace a LD train itself with all its amenities and comfort.

Regarding the improvement of Amtrak, I believe there should be more overnight trains over medium distances, such as NYC-Toronto, NYC-Montreal, NYC-Pittsburgh, Chicago-Minneapolis, Denver-S.L.City, etc. Of course, this is NOT a replacement of the existing LD trains. Both types of services are needed in this country.

Regarding McCain, while his anti-Amtrak reputation is well-known, nevertheless he sometimes allows common sense to prevail. For example, in December of 2000, in his moving farewell speech to Sen.Lautenberg (whose High Speed Rail Investment Act was blocked by McCain shortly before), McCain made following statements:

The second point is, I urge [Sen. Lautenberg] to consider that we have to make a fundamental choice about the national rail system in America -- not just an east coast rail system but a national rail system. There are many countries in the world, including European countries, that regularly subsidize their railway systems. I understand that. I don't dispute it. Perhaps that decision has to be made in the United States of America and in the Congress of the United States with the cooperation of the administration...
...
I think a strong argument can be made by anyone who has tried to fly to Newark, or to LaGuardia, or Kennedy lately that they recognize the difficulties in relying simply on air transportation. I think an argument can be made. But I think it deserves full debate and discussion. I thank [Sen. Lautenberg]. I understand his disappointment on this issue. But I would like to make a personal commitment that his spirit will live on, and we will fully examine and fully ventilate this issue and try to come up with a proposal that will satisfy the needs of his constituents and Americans all over this country....

Sounds good, right? However,..

I am not prepared to make a decision yet that the taxpayers of America should subsidize a rail system for America. I think the Senator from New Jersey would agree with me that the west coast needs one probably almost as much as the east coast does. We need to make a fundamental decision about what the Government's role will be in a national railway system, and then we need to decide to what degree it is subsidized.

Still not bad. This was said 7.5 years ago. Less than a year later, shortly after 9/11, McCain proposed some kind of a security bill specifically addressed to Amtrak.
True, we unfortunately cannot expect McCain to the best friend of Amtrak, if he becomes President. But sometimes common sense prevails even by someone like McCain. So, we should keep letting him know that we do value nationwide passenger rail system (currently represented by Amtrak).

abenm613 wrote: For example, if a resident of Havre MT wants to travel anywhere, he does not have much of a choice. There are not so many flights from that location, and the fares on them may not be affordable for an average traveler. Thus, the Empire Builder is the most convenient way from Havre to either Seattle or Minneapolis where major airports are available.

that holds more much of the Empire builder, but not so much for the capitol ltd.

abenm613 wrote: But a bus (or even a set of buses) cannot and should not replace a LD train itself with all its amenities and comfort.

shold the government subsidize my lifestyle? should I recieve vouchers to stay at the sheraton rather than the best western?

abenm613 wrote: Regarding the improvement of Amtrak, I believe there should be more overnight trains over medium distances, such as NYC-Toronto, NYC-Montreal, NYC-Pittsburgh, Chicago-Minneapolis, Denver-S.L.City, etc. Of course, this is NOT a replacement of the existing LD trains. Both types of services are needed in this country.

don't think I could disagree more. the problem isn't lack fo expensive, overnight services, it's the fact that it takes 9 hours to get to Pitt. It's 7h20m from Philly, yet under 6 by car. It's what, 12 or 14 hours to toronto? Speed is the primary problem, not overnight service, IMO.
As for McCain, I'm not sure he is any less prone to common sense than the typical washington lawmaker. Amtrak's biggest problem is that it relies on such people to begin with.
Westernrr-It's my opinion that the dynamic shifting in favor of passenger rail once again. it's up to Amtrak to make itself a proponent of modern passenger rail rather than just another bureaucracy.

2nd trick op wrote:That "option" is based upon the premise that I, and millions like myself, will no longer have the option of furnishing my own transortation in my own vehicle, or that that option will be deliberately priced beyond the means of many by heavy taxation, as has always been the case in Europe.
.

Yes, you may have the "freedom" to own and use private transport - if you can find the energy to make it go. It's not wicked governments that control that but circumstances. I don't think the foreseeable future will have the cheap energy for your desires.

By heavy taxation European governments are suppressing a demand that can't actually be met. In futuer it will be hard to provide that energy. If you can work a car with solar power (I doubt it) then by all means drive it.

2nd trick op wrote:That "option" is based upon the premise that I, and millions like myself, will no longer have the option of furnishing my own transortation in my own vehicle, or that that option will be deliberately priced beyond the means of many by heavy taxation, as has always been the case in Europe.
.

Yes, you may have the "freedom" to own and use private transport - if you can find the energy to make it go. It's not wicked governments that control that but circumstances. I don't think the foreseeable future will have the cheap energy for your desires.

By heavy taxation European governments are suppressing a demand that can't actually be met. In future it will be hard to provide that energy. If you can work a car with solar power (I doubt it) then by all means drive it.