Passenger Trains > SW Chief funding failing in Colorado

Southwest Chief runs off track in JBC
Pueblo Chieftain
by Jeff Tucker
April 16, 2015

> Pueblo County Commissioner Sal Pace expressed his frustration
> Wednesday as funding for Amtrak’s Southwest Chief railroad line
> didn’t pass through the Legislature’s Joint Budget Committee.
>
> “General fund support for the Chief came down to one legislator. We
> couldn’t secure Senator Kevin Grantham’s vote,” said Pace, who chairs
> the state’s Southwest Chief Commission. “I can’t speculate to his
> rationale, but it underscores how desperately we need someone from
> Pueblo on the JBC. There are other avenues for funding, which we are
> aggressively pursuing beginning today.”
>
> Supporters of the Southwest Chief had secured a victory in the House
> last week when two amendments were added to the House’s version of
> the state budget bill that set aside $1 million as a match from other
> sources to obtain a federal grant to upgrade and repair rails through
> Trinidad, La Junta and Lamar. A $500,000 appropriation would have
> funded a study of linking the route to Pueblo.
>
> Neither of those measures survived the JBC on Tuesday, leaving the
> delegation from Pueblo and Southern Colorado weighing its options.

Story:

Southwest Chief runs off track in JBC

 

Could this fall into the category of this Amtrak route not traversing an important part of the state?  This happens in many states where decisions get made in large urban areas to the detriment of those in rural, or less populated areas.  

P Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This happens in many states where decisions get made in large urban areas to the
> detriment of those in rural, or less populated areas.  


Take a careful look and you'll see this is happening to the whole country.

That is one reason why passenger service disappeared from the Souther Tier of NY State 45 years ago and will never, ever return.

What are they smoking?......

Posted from Android

Legislatures routinely approve spending measures that benefit narrow interests.  If a particular legislator is keenly interested in something like this, if, say, it is his or her number 1 priority, there usually is a way to make it happen, unless he or she happens to be from the minority party, or if the amount is too big, or if the state is broke.  If the affected legislator is only "mildly interested" in something, or doesn't have good staff, or is outside the power base, then the effort will likely fail. 

It does also suggest that this issue is not of great overall interest to the State of Colorado, as in who really cares whether some small towns have Amtrak or not.  Otherwise even the Governor might get involved to support the idea, rather just some rank-and-file legislator.

Here's what one Senator (Kevin Grantham, representing an area to the north of the Southwest Chief route) who voted against the measure stands for:

"As your Senator from District 2, I will seek to advocate for legislation that will preserve, promote, and advance the cause of:

• Limited Government
• Lower Taxes/Fees
• Fiscal Responsibility
• Second Amendment Rights
• Traditional Family Values
• Private Property Rights
• Free Market Capitalism
• Small Business Owners
• Personal Responsibility"

This legislator does not look like a candidate to support the Southwest Chief, in all honesty.
 



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 04/16/15 10:56 by reindeerflame.

Good thing we have Federal funding of interstate transportation and don't need to worry about such legislative parochialism.

abyler Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Good thing we have Federal funding of interstate
> transportation and don't need to worry about such
> legislative parochialism.

=======================================

Until Boardman and his gang foist off the long distance trains on the States.

The leadership in Pueblo needs to run a reality check on their desire for a passenger train: for #3 to go straight west at LaJunta into Pueblo rather than swinging southwest towards Trinidad as it currently does would require it to swim upstream against the torrent of loaded coal trains coming off the Joint Line and moving the opposite direction. Once it arrived in Pueblo, assuming the train used the existing Pueblo Union Depot, it would require a backup move of about a mile eastward to Pueblo Junction, where it would have to make a reverse move north onto the old DRGW main before it could resume its intended journey southward to Trinidad.  Once it was southbound, it would be swimming upstream against the torrent of now empty coal trains coming north out of Trinidad.  Not a good plan...  But hey, it IS Colorado, and they smoke things there that cause crazy dreams!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/16/15 11:30 by ATSF5669.

ATSF5669 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The leadership in Pueblo needs to run a reality
> check on their desire for a passenger train...
==========================================

"We have tracks, so it must be no problem to run the train here..."

GenePoon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> abyler Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Good thing we have Federal funding of interstate
> > transportation and don't need to worry about
> such legislative parochialism.
>
> =======================================
>
> Until Boardman and his gang foist off the long distance trains on the States.

Their mantra: NEC = Nothing Else Counts

GenePoon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> =======================================
> Until Boardman and his gang foist off the long
> distance trains on the States.

I don't disagree that Boardman seems disinterested in advocating for the LDTs, even though doing so is absolutely part of his job description. He also seems to throw LDTs under the bus sometimes at hearings, attributing losses to them that appear to be overstated/distorted. Chicago remains unsorted. The diesel problems continue. The quality of the onboard experience continues its decline. 

And so I wonder...WHY does he do this? Other than once parroting a congressional quote about the importance of the LDT network, I cannot remember him in recent times saying anything supportive or positive about the long distance trains. It's a dereliction of duty as far as I'm concerned. 



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/16/15 12:48 by ColdRainAndSnow.

Before PRIAA took affect, he kept testifying the operating deficit was "pretty much all from the long distance trains".
Then he dumped the non-NEC Corridors onto the states, which was about $100 Million. $600 Million remains.
85% does not fit my definition of "pretty much all".

Mr. Boardman may simply believe in the concept that the most appropriate role for the passenger train in the 21st Century is on routes where the average trip time is 4 hours or less, based on contemporary worldwide experience in modern economies.  Perhaps for him the LDT network is just an afterthought, something of minimal consequence, and a vestige of the past.

ColdRainAndSnow Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> GenePoon Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > =======================================
> > Until Boardman and his gang foist off the long
> > distance trains on the States.
>
> I don't disagree that Boardman seems disinterested
> in advocating for the LDTs, even though doing so
> is absolutely part of his job description. He also
> seems to throw LDTs under the bus sometimes at
> hearings, attributing losses to them that appear
> to be overstated/distorted. Chicago remains
> unsorted. The diesel problems continue. The
> quality of the onboard experience continues its
> decline. 
>
> And so I wonder...WHY does he do this?

Well. he must collect a pretty decent paycheck.  For many, that is reason enough to keep doing something you are not passionalte about.

reindeerflame Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mr. Boardman may simply believe in the concept
> that the most appropriate role for the passenger
> train in the 21st Century is on routes where the
> average trip time is 4 hours or less, based on
> contemporary worldwide experience in modern
> economies.  Perhaps for him the LDT network is
> just an afterthought, something of minimal
> consequence, and a vestige of the past.

All of which, if true, would be completely unacceptable given his role as the CEO of the NATIONAL Railroad Passenger Corporation, in which LDTs play an important role. 

ColdRainAndSnow Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> reindeerflame Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Mr. Boardman may simply believe in the concept
> > that the most appropriate role for the
> passenger
> > train in the 21st Century is on routes where
> the
> > average trip time is 4 hours or less, based on
> > contemporary worldwide experience in modern
> > economies.  Perhaps for him the LDT network is
> > just an afterthought, something of minimal
> > consequence, and a vestige of the past.
>
> All of which, if true, would be completely
> unacceptable given his role as the CEO of the
> NATIONAL Railroad Passenger Corporation, in which
> LDTs play an important role. 



Here it's more a matter of whether his employer thinks he is doing a sufficient job, namely the Amtrak Board, and ultimately the Administration and Congress.  Amtrak's name likely can't be used to demand a legal outcome, as nomenclature is frequently disregarded.

P Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Well. (Boardman) must collect a pretty decent paycheck.  For many, that is reason enough to keep doing
> something you are not passionate about.

=====================================

From an earlier Trainorders thread at http://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?4,3715647,3715937#msg-3715937:

> (Boardman) is paid at least $350,000 a year not including benefits –
> about twice the pay of the secretary of defense.  Five of Amtrak’s
> top officers make over $200,000 a year."
>
> For what it's worth, here are some comparable federal salaries:
>
> Vice President $230,700
> Senator $174,000
> Representative $174,000
> Majority and Minority Leaders $193,400
> Speaker of the House $223,500
> Chief Justice, U.S. Supreme Court $255,500
> Assoc. Justice, U.S. Supreme Court $244,400

> Read more:

Salaries of the President, Vice President, and Other U.S. Officials






 

< All of which, if true, would be completely unacceptable given his role as the CEO of the NATIONAL Railroad Passenger Corporation, in which LDTs play an important role. >

If Mr Boardman's problem with LDT's is that their farebox recovery is not > 100%, then he should be opposed to all rail trainsit and commuter rail systems.



 

Good heavens, is the world ending because Amtrak is?  No!  The Pony Express was no longer useful; it served its time and went away.  Stage Coaches were here today and gone tomorrow.  The same goes for railroad passenger trains.  The only thing is that you (we) are living in the time it happens.  Sometimes experiencing history can be "unpleasant".