Passenger Trains > McCain's Political Position on Amtrak

In earlier threads, some have stated their skepticism about McCain's views of Amtrak. Although I try to avoid discussing politics on Trainorders, I want to be as informed a voter as possible, once November rolls around. As I stated in an earlier thread, I've looked at McCain's campaign website, and he has a lot of views I agree with, but no mention of transportation. If there is any evidence, or cause of concern that McCain is against Amtrak (or public transit in general), I really would like to know.

As I said, I hate discussing politics. I just want to know the truth... so let's PLEASE keep this discussion as mature as possible!! Thanks!



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/08/08 15:40 by hesdjjim.

From what I've heard in years past, he thinks Amtrak is a waste of money,
and commuter rail should be paid by states.

There is a reason you don't hear his opinions on transportation...he's on the wrong side of it.

This might be helpful:

http://mccain.senate.gov/public/

In the search box, type, "Amtrak". I got 40 results.

> he's on the wrong side of it.

So says you. 95% of Americans agree with McCain...

tburzio Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > he's on the wrong side of it.
>
> So says you. 95% of Americans agree with
> McCain...

Would you give a citation for that statistic, please?

Otherwise. . . so says you.

McCain was an original sponsor of the Transportation Security Act of 2007, which provided money to assist with transit security, Amtrak's Hudson River and East River tunnel improvements, etc.

He has supported various local transit bills, and gained federal assistance for rail projects in Phoenix. However, in general, he hasn't been a supporter of long distance rail services. He may have introduced or supported legislation to sunset the Sunset. I know there was a bill to eliminate certain trains which had greater than some amount of losses.

Wasn't McCain's wife on a super late Sunset Limited that ended up derailing about a decade ago?

Doesn't matter to me, he's gonna get a bad rap if he becomes president when it comes to Amtrak and mass transit in general in his views of it! Bush couldn't convince the country on Amtrak, I don't think McCain will either!

If you don't find anything on a candidate's website, just use a search engine. I plugged "mccain" and "Amtrak" into Yahoo and came up with a series of hits mostly indicating that Mccain does not support Amtrak. The following is from the Club for Growth critical of many of McCain's votes and positions, but praising his votes against Amtrak funding under the "Spending" category.

http://www.clubforgrowth.org/2007/03/arizona_senator_john_mccains_t.php

In December, I checked the issues sections of all of the candidates' websites to see what they said about Amtrak.

None mentioned Amtrak and no candidates had an issues section titled "Transportation." Richardson supported high-speed rail. Edwards & Obama, along with Richardson favored mass transit. All of these were in the energy and environmental issues. The blog section of Mike Gravel's website had a pro-Maglev position.

Dave

czephyr17 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Wasn't McCain's wife on a super late Sunset
> Limited that ended up derailing about a decade
> ago?

IIRC, his wife and daughter (?) were on the Sunset once when it struck a truck-trailer at an uncontrolled crossing somewhere in Texas and derailed. Happened a couple of years ago, if memory serves me right. Thankfully they were uninjured.

MarinCommuter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> czephyr17 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Wasn't McCain's wife on a super late Sunset
> > Limited that ended up derailing about a decade
> > ago?
>
> IIRC, his wife and daughter (?) were on the Sunset
> once when it struck a truck-trailer at an
> uncontrolled crossing somewhere in Texas and
> derailed. Happened a couple of years ago, if
> memory serves me right. Thankfully they were
> uninjured.


You're correct, M.C. about a xing accident with McCain's wife and child on board. They weren't injured but McCain was not pleased with the way Amtrak personnel handled the incident and has held a grudge over it for years (this had to be 10 years ago or so!).

hesdjjim Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In earlier threads, some have stated their
> skepticism about McCain's views of Amtrak.
> Although I try to avoid discussing politics on
> Trainorders, I want to be as informed a voter as
> possible, once November rolls around. As I stated
> in an earlier thread, I've looked at McCain's
> campaign website, and he has a lot of views I
> agree with, but no mention of transportation. If
> there is any evidence, or cause of concern that
> McCain is against Amtrak (or public transit in
> general), I really would like to know.
>
> As I said, I hate discussing politics. I just
> want to know the truth... so let's PLEASE keep
> this discussion as mature as possible!! Thanks!

This guy doesn't believe us about McCain, huh ? Well, you'll be sorry if he wins!!
In the nutshell about the Eagle Lake derailment:

McCain’s wife, Cindy, and 13-year-old son, Jack, were on an Amtrak train that derailed in 1999 in Eagle Lake, Texas. They were not injured.

Now for the full details about the SAME wreck---it was NOT pleasant :

#94 - July 9, 1999
Amtrak had its second derailment in just eight days, yesterday. The eastbound Sunset Limited hit a truck that was pulling a saltwater disposal tank across a crossing east of Eagle Lake, Tex. This was about 65 miles west of Houston. The impact derailed both locomotives and seven of the ten cars on the train. One locomotive landed on its side, at a right angle to the track. Press reports described the crossing as on a short dirt road leading from a rice field onto U.S. Highway 90-A, protected by crossbucks but without gates or lights.
Eighteen people on the train were injured. The engineer was thrown from the wreckage and the engineer trainee had to be pulled out through a windshield. Everyone but the trainee is out of the hospital; the trainee should be out shortly.
The truck driver was not hurt badly. Police said the truck may have had faulty brakes and that they were considering charges against the driver.
Among the passengers were the wife and teenage son of Sen. John McCain (R.-Ariz.), who is Chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee and a frequent critic of long-distance passenger trains. They were headed for a family vacation in Florida, and were flown from the area in a private plane. Other passengers milled about the scene until school buses could take them five miles to the Eagle Lake Community Center, where shelter from the heat and refreshments were provided. Later, they were put on buses and sent to Houston.
It was less orderly at the Houston station, where relatives of incoming passengers and those planning to leave on the train waited for information. Former U.S. Rep. Craig Washington and his two sons were waiting to go to Orlando, but ended up flying.

Cheers to all,

KRK

It's hard to know what each candidate's position is on Amtrak, as it basically doesn't come up, except for McCain, and even he hasn't had much to say about Amtrak during the current campaign season. Despite his past objections to Amtrak "wasting" money on LD trains, he has strongly opposed subsidies for Essential Air Service, and also heavy subsidies for Arizona's water programs.

LD trains don't seem to be as much of a party based issue as one would think however, even if McCain is strongly opposed to subsidies for them.

Some of the strongest supporters of LD trains have been Republicans, such as Trent Lott of Mississippi, and continue to be, such as Governor John Tester of Montana. Likewise, some of the greatest sunsetting of LD trains has occurred at the hand of Democrats, such as Jimmy Carter.

So just because McCain is bad news for LD trains, it's not safe to assume that Obama or Clinton would be good news (the previous Clinton was not), or that a different Republican would be bad news.

Also, despite McCain's position or grudge, he would have a difficult time convincing congress to drop LD trains, especially given the current conditions in this country.

benthere Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's hard to know what each candidate's position
> is on Amtrak, as it basically doesn't come up,
> except for McCain, and even he hasn't had much to
> say about Amtrak during the current campaign
> season.

Actually its NOT that hard, thanks to the Internet, to find out a candidate's position on Amtrak if she or he has held federal office. In addition to the post on McCain's position, here are others I found using a search engine by plugging in a candidate's name and Amtrak:

Obama

http://durbin.senate.gov/record.cfm?id=240508&&;

Ron Paul

http://www.hope4america.org/voting.php#Enviroment

Hillary Clinton

http://trains4america.wordpress.com/2007/10/31/hillary-clinton-on-amtrak-are-good-words-enough/

I was not able to determine Huckabee's Amtrak position using a search engine.

>
> So just because McCain is bad news for LD trains,
> it's not safe to assume that Obama or Clinton
> would be good news (the previous Clinton was not),
> or that a different Republican would be bad news.

With Amtrak as with ALL other issues, I can only base my vote on the candidates' statements made during the campaigns, the issues statements on their websites, issue comparisons provided in some media outlets, and their actions and votes in Congress or their actions as governor. I don't base my votes for a current candidate on what previous presidents have or have not done.

>
> Also, despite McCain's position or grudge, he
> would have a difficult time convincing congress to
> drop LD trains, especially given the current
> conditions in this country.

In the future, its no longer going to be a matter of just "cutting" or "saving" long-distance trains. The equipment is wearing out and shortages of rolling stock have become a problem. At some point in the next 10 years (if not sooner), hard decisions are going to have on whether to spend lots of money to repair older cars and acquire new cars and locomotives. Additionally, the next administration and Congress will have to address the issue of maintaining* Amtrak service over highly congested freight corridors.

*Ideally, we could get past maintaining and go to improving service, but throughout most of Amtrak's history the battle has been to keep the existing system in place.

Dave



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/09/08 06:26 by RuleG.

Thanks for the links to info on each candidates view.

Obama doesn't mention the need for a national system like Hilary does, but given that he's from Illinois, I would hope that he would be aware that not all of those trains coming in and out of Chicago are local trains.

Hopefully I can find out more at the NARP Region 8/AORTA conference in Portland on 2/23, but that's before I have to make a choice at my state caucus, which is today.

While I like what Hilary had to say about Amtrak, I have doubts to how effective she would be in convincing congress to approve any major changes, as she tends to be a polarizing figure. My vote today is likely going to go to Obama, since he has a higher approval rating among Republicans and Independents, and thus would be more likely to be able to obtain the bipartisan cooperation needed to make real improvements.

BTW, this little gem was on the page with link you provided with Hilary's position on Amtrak: "The Arizonan has said shutting down Amtrak — if he's elected — would be “a non-negotiable issue” for him. Short-sighted, indeed."

Too busy at the moment to go find the quotes, but I recall from looking into this about a week ago that while not mentioning Amtrak specifically, Hillary has a token mention of public transport funding in general, tucked somewhere in the Energy or Environment sections of her page.

However, of the current candidates from both parties Obama has the best stated position on transportation funding, mentioning more than once in his literature that transportation planning should be reformed so that it is done in concert with land-use decisions, an excellent position which I was surprised to even be mentioned by a presidential candidate.

Interestingly, I recall that on Huckabee's website he mentions support for public transportation with a qualifier along the lines of "where it makes sense". He also mentions rail in stating that it should not be funded "where the density doesn't support it" (my paraphrase of his position).

Transportation was nowhere to be mentioned on McCain's site at the time I visited.

PennEngineer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
However, of the current candidates from both
> parties Obama has the best stated position on
> transportation funding, mentioning more than once
> in his literature that transportation planning
> should be reformed so that it is done in concert
> with land-use decisions, an excellent position
> which I was surprised to even be mentioned by a
> presidential candidate.

John Edwards' website had a similar statement.
>
> Interestingly, I recall that on Huckabee's website
> he mentions support for public transportation with
> a qualifier along the lines of "where it makes
> sense". He also mentions rail in stating that it
> should not be funded "where the density doesn't
> support it" (my paraphrase of his position).
>
I took another look at Huckabee's website. To his credit, there is a whole section on infrastructure. This must have been added since I last viewed his website in December. Most of it is about highways, but there are pro-transit statements. Here's the link:

http://www.mikehuckabee.com/?FuseAction=Issues.View&Issue_id=29

Dave



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/09/08 15:12 by RuleG.

Huckabee also mentioned that his idea for a stimulus was government subsidized jobs, such as the rebuilding of i95 between Boston and Miami. While I would prefer to see a focus on rail vs. highways, I would prefer to see government subsidy of jobs that build/rebuild the US infrastructure vs. welfare/rebate checks which go to purchasing consumer goods imported from China.

While Clinton and Obama have pledged support to mass transit, neither one has addressed (to my knowledge) the crumbling US infrastructure, including highways, bridges, dams, airports, and etc.

While I voted for Obama in today's Washington State caucus, and would vote for him over McCain, I might face a tough decision if Huckabee is able to overturn McCain's lead in the primary.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/09/08 16:06 by benthere.

Let's call a spade a spade here. The only reason anyone would base their vote on the future of long distance Amtrak trains is because A) it represents job security for you, B) are a dyed in the wool foamer who happens to like them, or C) both.

Long distance trains have not, and never will provide more than a fraction of a percent of our travelling needs. As with so many other things (such as the bridge to nowhere in Alaska), when looked at from a Big Picture perspective, long distance Amtrak trains are little more than pork that serves only to appease a very small percentage of the population. See also above A and B.

Even though I feel that oil resource depletion and all it's associated effects is a very real and very serious looming issue, I am of the opinion that nothing is going to be done about it until it becomes an emergency (such as gas reaching $10 or more per gallon-which-mark my words...it will before the year 2020).Repairing and replacing our infrastructure (highways and long distance railroads) is not a solution so much as a desperate grab for straws at finding new ways to continue old habits. And in any event, it will be too late to do anything about it anyway. As usual, it will be knee-jerk reactive measures and not prudent proactive.

The *REAL* solutions will lie in not how to transport people cross country cheaply and efficiently. The solution will be how to support and keep people to stay local. Basically no more 2000 mile trips to lay on the beach or to see Aunt Agnes. You will be born, live, and die all within a 50 mile radius. *THAT* is the solution.

That includes growing and manufacturing items locally to keep transportation down (nothing like that 1500 mile steak or those 6000 mile strawberries).



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 02/09/08 18:49 by Des-Lab.

Des-Lab Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Let's call a spade a spade here. The only reason
> anyone would base their vote on the future of long
> distance Amtrak trains is because A) it represents
> job security for you, B) are a dyed in the wool
> foamer who happens to like them, or C) both.
>
> Long distance trains have not, and never will
> provide more than a fraction of a percent of our
> travelling needs. As with so many other things
> (such as the bridge to nowhere in Alaska), when
> looked at from a Big Picture perspective, long
> distance Amtrak trains are little more than pork
> that serves only to appease a very small
> percentage of the population. See also above A and
> B.
>
> Even though I feel that oil resource depletion and
> all it's associated effects is a very real and
> very serious looming issue, I am of the opinion
> that nothing is going to be done about it until it
> becomes an emergency (such as gas reaching $10 or
> more per gallon-which-mark my words...it will
> before the year 2020).Repairing and replacing our
> infrastructure (highways and long distance
> railroads) is not a solution so much as a
> desperate grab for straws at finding new ways to
> continue old habits. And in any event, it will be
> too late to do anything about it anyway. As usual,
> it will be knee-jerk reactive measures and not
> prudent proactive.
>
> The *REAL* solutions will lie in not how to
> transport people cross country cheaply and
> efficiently. The solution will be how to support
> and keep people to stay local. Basically no more
> 2000 mile trips to lay on the beach or to see Aunt
> Agnes. You will be born, live, and die all within
> a 50 mile radius. *THAT* is the solution.
>
> That includes growing and manufacturing items
> locally to keep transportation down (nothing like
> that 1500 mile steak or those 6000 mile
> strawberries).

Amtrak LD trains provide a key transportation link for many areas that
are fairly isolated otherwise and do not have much alternative
transportation. Many small town airports need heavy subsidy in order
to maintain service too.
The paragraph about born, live and die within a 50 mile radius kind of
floors me, I guess that means that in the winter time nobody will be
taking trips from the snow and ice of the north to the beaches of South
Florida. That would certainally be a gross step backwards. It was in
the mid 80's here most of the past week up until Saturday when we got
some much needed rain.
If we are going to continue to subsidize at least some airline operations
and some airports, I think we should also continue to subsidize Amtrak's
operations both corridor and long distance for the services that they provide.
Noel Weaver