Passenger Trains > HSR in the news...again

One thing can be said about the High Speed Rail bill - it's generating a lot of ink.

The NY Times has a story up about how Republican gubernatorial hopefuls in several states are running on anti-HSR messages. They are promising to reject HSR stimulus money if elected, in which case they'll have to give it back, according to how the law is written....

"Federal officials declined to speculate on what would happen if anti-rail candidates were to win. But states that turn down rail money would probably have to return it to the federal government, which could then award it to states that want it."

How is this playing with the general (non-foamer) public in the states where this is an issue - California, Wisconsin, Ohio and Florida? Are they getting any traction with this message?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/05/us/05rail.html?_r=1&hp

I don't know if he is getting traction from it, but Kasich in Ohio is in the lead.

goxmit Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't know if he is getting traction from it,
> but Kasich in Ohio is in the lead.


For those of you passenger rail supports who support Republican candidates and insist that they are not worse the the Dems when it comes to Amtrak/HSR, this is more proof that they (Republicans) have become beholden to Tea Party supporters and are tripping all over each other to see who can move the furthest to the right. I guarantee Amtrak/HSR is directly in their sights as a high profile target they will use as an example of Government waste. At one time there were Rebubs who were truly Amtrak supportive. They are now an endangered species. They will now undoubtedly persue measures to block both Amtrak and HSR at every oppertunity in order to prove their conservative values.

ATSF3751 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ...(Republicans) have become beholden to Tea Party
> supporters and are tripping all over each other to
> see who can move the furthest to the right.

It's about time!

ATSF3751 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> For those of you passenger rail supports who
> support Republican candidates and insist that they
> are not worse the the Dems when it comes to
> Amtrak/HSR, this is more proof that they
> (Republicans) have become beholden to Tea Party
> supporters and are tripping all over each other to
> see who can move the furthest to the right.

I can't see how anyone can say the Dems are no better for passenger rail than the Republicans. Do people actually believe that Amtrak would be getting new Viewliners, NEC electric locomotives, etc under McCain? Do people think that we'd be seeing any investment in high speed rail under a Republican administration?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/04/10 22:13 by hsr_fan.

hsr_fan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
[snip]

> I can't see how anyone can say the Dems are no
> better for passenger rail than the Republicans.

Actually, the Dems are very bad for legitimate passenger rail (as opposed to the boondogle type).

Legitimate intercity services can only be supported by highly concentrated cities, which furthermore are dense enough to support a good transit system.

If you want to have intercity service between Chicago and St. Louis, you need to have more people living in the inner city of Chicago, as opposed to the suburbs and "ex-urbs." More people living in the ripe for development wastelands surrounding Douglas Park than those fleeing to Aurora and Hoffman Estates (or even Paducah).

And why do most people in the greater Chicago metropolis prefer to live in the suburbs (much preferably one outside of Crook County)? Government! And when it comes to big cities, "government" means Democrats, not Republicans.

I will go even further and say that the best thing that could be done to promote intercity passenger rail would be to abolish public schools and all government funding of schools. (Or do 100% vouchers and limit public school districts to a VERY small size).

Think about it...the crappy government indoctrination centers (aka "schools") are either the top 1 or 2 reason people flee the cities or never consider moving there in the first place. And if you live in Naperville vs near Douglas Park in Chicago, you simply are never going to use a train to St. Louis or Milwaukee.

Thus, if one wants more passenger rail, you need more people living within dense cities who can actually support the services. To have more people living there, you need to reduce/eliminate public "schools" and the high levels of taxation and regulation that is the hallmark of big-city government.

Bandito Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Thus, if one wants more passenger rail, you need
> more people living within dense cities who can
> actually support the services. To have more
> people living there, you need to reduce/eliminate
> public "schools" and the high levels of taxation
> and regulation that is the hallmark of big-city
> government.


A little off topic, I support public schools -- not teachers' unions who insist on retaining horrible teachers while driving out the good ones. It is the deplorable quality of our public school system that drives people away, not the fact that they are public schools.

Back to the topic... Just because John McCain has publicly expressed his non-support of Amtrak does not mean all Republicans are against Amtrak. Likewise, just because Glenn Beck criticizes Amtrak on his show doesn't mean that all Tea Partiers agree.

hesdjjim Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Bandito Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > Thus, if one wants more passenger rail, you
> need
> > more people living within dense cities who can
> > actually support the services. To have more
> > people living there, you need to
> reduce/eliminate
> > public "schools" and the high levels of
> taxation
> > and regulation that is the hallmark of big-city
> > government.
>
>
> A little off topic, I support public schools --
> not teachers' unions who insist on retaining
> horrible teachers while driving out the good ones.
> It is the deplorable quality of our public school
> system that drives people away, not the fact that
> they are public schools.
>
> Back to the topic... Just because John McCain has
> publicly expressed his non-support of Amtrak does
> not mean all Republicans are against Amtrak.
> Likewise, just because Glenn Beck criticizes
> Amtrak on his show doesn't mean that all Tea
> Partiers agree.

FWIW...I think that a lot of the tea-party people just might NOT agree when/if the cuts come and they see how it affects THEM. "All politics is local".

Its worth noting that the public schools generaly went bad when the federal government removed local control of the districts. Until then you had some good and some very bad, but in general people got a pretty decent education based on reality.

Now it appears that the main purpose of schools is to produce "good voters". A good voter is one that will always vote for the incumbent, and will never question campaign rhetoric. The people that are most likely to do this are those with no knowledge of history, math, physics, economics, or basic social dynamics. Therefore, schools work hard to insure that prospective voters either never learn anything about these subjects, or learn fairey tails that support the incumbents.

Unfortunately "good voters" of this sort do not equate with Good Citizens of the US up to about 1955 or so. (Or up until it became non-PC to refer to a voter as a Citizen rather than a Consumer (ie: a non-producer; an ambulatory device to turn things into waste products.)

Wait a minute...Chicago does not have the population to support rail? Is not METRA one of the most highly used commuter rail lines in the nation? Just try shutting it down. And there are not enough people for Chicago-St. Louis rail service? Ever ridden one of the Lincoln Service trains? Ever seen the 300+ passengers boarding one in CUS? Even trains to such places as Carbondale load 200-400 passengers a day. I'd say that is demand. No, its not Japan where you will load 1000+ passengers (well, the METRA trains often do), but by American and European standards its a lot. 4-8 busloads on one train...

This is a real dilemma for fiscal Conservatives. While we agree to different degrees with cutting spending, less government, no Obama Care, etc. I would assume most of us on this list want better rail transport. Of course you can't have it both ways. The problem is that Amtrak is such a small drop in the bucket compared to the over budget including the largely wasted Stimulus package, highway funds, Obama Care, and on and on. Personally I would be willing to pay higher taxes for better rail transport including HSR, but certainly not to turn us in to a version of Socialist Europe which is exactly what is happening. However I don't fee I can cast my vote based on just one issue. The overall good of the country must come first. BTW, remember it was Mr. Carter who did the biggest hatchet job on Amtrak ever and Kay Bailey and a few others have been a big Amtrak supporters so there are exceptions to the rule.

andersonb109 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This is a real dilemma for fiscal Conservatives.
> While we agree to different degrees with cutting
> spending, less government, no Obama Care, etc. I
> would assume most of us on this list want better
> rail transport. Of course you can't have it both
> ways. The problem is that Amtrak is such a small
> drop in the bucket compared to the over budget
> including the largely wasted Stimulus package,
> highway funds, Obama Care, and on and on.
> Personally I would be willing to pay higher taxes
> for better rail transport including HSR, but
> certainly not to turn us in to a version of
> Socialist Europe which is exactly what is
> happening. However I don't fee I can cast my vote
> based on just one issue. The overall good of the
> country must come first. BTW, remember it was Mr.
> Carter who did the biggest hatchet job on Amtrak
> ever and Kay Bailey and a few others have been a
> big Amtrak supporters so there are exceptions to
> the rule.


Trying to sort out what constitutes a "social good" has always bedeviled politicians of any flavor.

How do you measure whether schools produce kids who can read or write? If they don't, how do you fix that? What constitutes a good transportation network, and what's a suitable farebox recovery?

Unfortunately, you end up beholden to other constituencies like the teachers unions, or people who are committed to paying no taxes, and accepting no government services.

trainjunkie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's about time!


I agree

To me, all of the above arguments from we railfans just goes to prove how divided and paralyzed America is.

Since I'm in favor of "Government Spending" on passenger rail, I would "spin" the anti-rail position of our enemies this way:

"Anti-rail politicians (Kashic, Christie, McCaine, etc) are a bunch of hypocrites because they want to deny their Country the real benefits of HSR on the pretense of "saving" money for the Government which they dislike so much. What heroes! They want to benefit the "Government" and deny benefit to "their constituents".

Or, how about this one:

"These dopes haven't a clue how to create jobs and increase State revenues, so they look for the easiest "cost" to cut--like HSR. They're too blind to sea HSR creates jobs"

Joe

floridajoe2001 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> To me, all of the above arguments from we railfans
> just goes to prove how divided and paralyzed
> America is.
>
> Since I'm in favor of "Government Spending" on
> passenger rail, I would "spin" the anti-rail
> position of our enemies this way:
>
> "Anti-rail politicians (Kashic, Christie, McCaine,
> etc) are a bunch of hypocrites because they want
> to deny their Country the real benefits of HSR on
> the pretense of "saving" money for the Government
> which they dislike so much. What heroes! They
> want to benefit the "Government" and deny benefit
> to "their constituents".
>
> Or, how about this one:
>
> "These dopes haven't a clue how to create jobs and
> increase State revenues, so they look for the
> easiest "cost" to cut--like HSR. They're too blind
> to sea HSR creates jobs"
>
> Joe


If we could pick up a new deck of cards and deal it, that would be one thing, but it's not what we have.

We have declining tax revenues, entrenched unions who defend the undefendable, and interests that protect every susbidy as if the country depended on it. Education is a shambles, and increased spending has just made it worse with more bureaucrats and hogs at the trough. There's zero evidence that spending more on education gives better outcomes in most places.

There are a sizeable number of people in Newark NJ who want to refuse Zuckerburg's $100mn gift to the public schools because it involves helping charter schools, and closing down the worst public schools. Does that make sense?

Federal law in many grants requires that work done on projects that have federal assistance must pay union rates for all staffing. It's called Davis-Bacon, and has similar statutes in most northern and western states.

True conservative principles require no government involvment in anything but defense, law enforcement, ect. Tea Party members are "strict Constitutionalists", that is, they believe the country should only be governered by those laws written into the original Document, even without the amendments. The Tea Partiers are forcing the Repub party to the far right, which, has no room for Gov funded operations like Amtrak. While it's true a number of cuts occured under Carter, the Dems have generally not been charged up to eliminate Amtrak. But that is where the moderate Repubs are being forced to go.(Case in point: Tommy Thompson). I've said before that you can't truly be a true conservative and at the same time be a supporter of Amtrak, and that is becoming more true every day since the Tea Party began defining the meaning and philosophies of conservatives. As for all politics being local, that is the very problem in the Republic, each of us wants a balanced budget and lower taxes, but don't take away my program, it's more important than yours...ect.
As for the coming reality, the Repubs don't need a majority to stop Amtrak, but they will have enough seats in the House to force cuts in funding to both Amtrak and any HSR projects out there.
On an unrelated topic that is a good example; many of the writers in this blog call "Obama Care" socialized medicine. Yet, to those on the far left, it is nothing of the sort and represents and example of how Obama caved in to big Pharma and Hospital Corporations. (Fact: the term "Socialized Medicine" actually refers to complete Government control of all aspects of a health care system, "Obama Care" fails that test). Like Amtrak and the Repubs, the idea of middle ground and compromise is fast becoming extinct as each side engages in political posturing.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/05/10 12:34 by ATSF3751.

ATSF3751.

Ah, you have pointed out the fatal flaw of the Tea Bag/Conservative view. They want America governed by the "Original Documents".

Great, except the Original Documents date from the 1700's. This means that in this cut-throat competitive world of 2010, we should offer a 1700's America. In what way is today's America anything like that little, unimportant, "original" country of the 1700's?

No thanks. This kind of thinking will never build HSR, or anything else.

Joe



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/05/10 12:18 by floridajoe2001.

I doubt if even the most rabid right-winger REALLY wants to go back to 1789 (when the Constitution went into effect), especially in the realm of technology. We wouldn't have any trains of any speed to worry about; just keeping the Post Road passable for stagecoaches would be hard enough. No need for an FCC when the hooves of a horse or the hull of a sailing ship were the fastest means of communication. No concerns about regulating automatic weapons when all we had were muzzle-loading flintlocks. No need for an EPA when chemists were just getting away from the "phlogistion" theory. And as far as elections were concerned, if you weren't a white, male property owner, you were on the sidelines. Perhaps you could read about it in the newspaper, assuming you'd been taught how to read somewhere along the way, and not been sent out to work in the fields as a small child. No matter what your political orientation: "Be careful what you wish for. It may come true."

And this thought: Protect your griping rights! Vote next month. If you don't vote, don't complain!

Unfortunately, HSR is caught in the thicket of diminished expectations. Few Americans really believe their government can or wants to make good choices with their tax dollars. The TARP bailed out some of the same banks that caused the problem, and then went on to bail out several politically connected banks that immediately went belly up.

Ray LaHood said it best when he said that the HSR allocations weren't about transportation, they were about jobs. He had proven that in the 1990s with a hundred million dollars on Illinois higher speed railroads that never made an impact at all. No trace of any real speed increase in the schedules.

If people believed their money would be well spent, I'm sure HSR for selected corridors would be cheered by everyone. Nobody enjoys flying, and roads are awful. If people believed their school taxes would be well spent, they'd vote to increase them. Instead, in both cases, the likelihood is the money will be siphoned off by consultants, bureaucrats, government flunkies, investment bankers, and corrupt unions.

Doesn't matter which political party is involved, that just determines which intermediaries get to steal the money.

It's our money. They should prove they'll spend it well before we let them have it. This bs about about "allowing" a tax cut avoids discussing how they're spending / stealing it.

Bandito Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> hsr_fan Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
>
> > I can't see how anyone can say the Dems are no
> > better for passenger rail than the Republicans.
>
>
> Actually, the Dems are very bad for legitimate
> passenger rail (as opposed to the boondogle
> type).
>
> Legitimate intercity services can only be
> supported by highly concentrated cities, which
> furthermore are dense enough to support a good
> transit system.
>
> If you want to have intercity service between
> Chicago and St. Louis, you need to have more
> people living in the inner city of Chicago, as
> opposed to the suburbs and "ex-urbs." More people
> living in the ripe for development wastelands
> surrounding Douglas Park than those fleeing to
> Aurora and Hoffman Estates (or even Paducah).
>
> And why do most people in the greater Chicago
> metropolis prefer to live in the suburbs (much
> preferably one outside of Crook County)?
> Government! And when it comes to big cities,
> "government" means Democrats, not Republicans.
>
> I will go even further and say that the best thing
> that could be done to promote intercity passenger
> rail would be to abolish public schools and all
> government funding of schools. (Or do 100%
> vouchers and limit public school districts to a
> VERY small size).
>
> Think about it...the crappy government
> indoctrination centers (aka "schools") are either
> the top 1 or 2 reason people flee the cities or
> never consider moving there in the first place.
> And if you live in Naperville vs near Douglas Park
> in Chicago, you simply are never going to use a
> train to St. Louis or Milwaukee.
>
> Thus, if one wants more passenger rail, you need
> more people living within dense cities who can
> actually support the services. To have more
> people living there, you need to reduce/eliminate
> public "schools" and the high levels of taxation
> and regulation that is the hallmark of big-city
> government.

I don't know what Chicago you're talking about. Last few times I've visited Chicago, I've seen new high-rise residential construction all over the Loop (the part of Chicago closest to the train stations. Try renting and apartment or buying a home in the loop or north of the loop - the rents and housing prices don't suggest a limited demand for such residences.

There are crowds on North and South Michigan Avenues, on the L, in the Art Institute and many other places.

Perhaps you'd also like to explain why there are so many people going to and from Midway and O'Hare airports, both within the City of Chicago. Obviously both draw plenty of suburban and city residents as well as visitors to the City.

When I travel to cities for business or pleasure, I only go out to suburban areas when I'm checking out commuter trains. Most museums, sports arenas, historic places and other attractions are in cities or older inner ring suburbs. Thus, a train taking visitors to downtown Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Louis or the cores of most American cities is taking me exactly where I want to go.

But who says high-speed trains cannot have suburban stops. There are suburban stops for the Washington, Baltimore, New York and Boston metro areas along the Northeast Corridor. Why couldn't new high-speed lines have them?

Go to a library and crack open a book about the history of America's cities or check out John Stilgoe's book Metropolitan Corridor. You will find that Americans have been opting to live in fringe areas of cities and older suburbs as transportation technology (steam railroads, electric urban lines and later highways) for reasons having little to do with public schools from the mid 1800s through the 1950s.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/06/10 15:37 by RuleG.