Passenger Trains > Trump talks about Amtrak

Yesterday in Johnstown Pa a local reporter asked Donald Trump about expansion of Amtrak service in Western Pa 

response in this article 

http://www.tribdem.com/news/watch-trump-talks-exclusively-with-the-tribune-democrat-about-issues/article_ed5a63ba-97d3-11e6-ac65-1b8a02ace54a.html



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/22/16 20:02 by amtrakbill.

If the battleground polls are correct the only remaining question is how badly he ends up losing....not if.  Let's hope if HRC is to be our next CEO that her team will prove to be Amtrak friendly.

   Ross Rowland

• Passenger rail development in western Pennsylvania and nationwide
I think that having trains working properly – you know our train system is obsolete – but I think having a modern railroad system is a very important thing for the nation. I'm very much in favor of modern railroads.

SandHouseTalk Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> • Passenger rail development in western
> Pennsylvania and nationwide
> I think that having trains working properly –
> you know our train system is obsolete – but I
> think having a modern railroad system is a very
> important thing for the nation. I'm very much in
> favor of modern railroads.
​Most ordinary educated American people would like to see a big improvement in our passenger rail system as we need a balanced transportation system right now.  Our highways are way too congestive especially here in the east where it's bumper to bumper traffic every day.  But the question is always how do we pay for this?  Will we ever elect anyone who will spend some of the tax money on additional passenger trains instead of just spending on highways?  This is the major problem with most politicians, they spend on highways billions of dollars nationwide and give a stipend to Amtrak.  Will this ever change?  Amtrak has been starved since the beginning in 1971 and continues to beg for funds every year, and too many people in our congress cannot see the forest for the trees.  We truly do need new leadership in America.
John

We need discourse about the true nature of American society. Right wing zealots scream about claims of "socialism"; Amtrak and commuter rail and school busing et al are social programs. And there has to be money to support these programs. NJT has finally hit the wall that the predecessor roads ran into- the erie lackomoney- and is facing rate hikes and service cuts. How can leaders raise needed funds when one side continually spouts I wont raise your taxes or worse yet I'm going to cut your taxes.

Posted from Android



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/22/16 06:48 by elu34ch.

One of the issues with service between Harrisburg and Pittsburgh is the ungodly slow times compared with driving.

Speed is not everything, but slow mountain running combined with a roughly 50 mile longer route makes the 5 and a half hour running time of a train significantly more than the 3 hour drive.

Posted from Android

If you can drive from PGH to HAR is three hours, you are FLYING!   I drive the PA Turnpike with some regularity.  I would call 3.5 hour trip a good day.  I figure on 4 hours with some road work and one short stop. 

But the point that Amtrak/State of PA should speed up their service is well taken.  Yes, it will take significant investment, but it is worth it.  $500M (the cost of one significant freeway bridge or interchange) would do a lot in adding capacity to the 245 miles of railroad.

pennsylvania considered putting taxes on I-80 to capture some of the "lost revenue" from interstate traffic.  That got the rural counties in a huge uproar (tax Philly instead, cut waste, all that nonsense) and the plan died a quick death.

His statement about passenger rail is so general, I would not take derive any specifics from it, like more service west of Harrisburgh.

1. If road users had to pay directly for the use of major highways, that would even things out a lot.    But "we" decided 6o years ago that major highways, for the most part,
should be free of charge per usage.  That they shud be paid for thru a general tax highway fund. Yes, there a few toll roads in the NE and midwest, but that's it.

2. Highway construction makes more jobs than RR construction.  Or at least gives jobs to a stronger union.  Highway construction is partly a big payoff for votes and campaign money.  And as public RR agencies get larger, there has been more money flowing to RR construction.  And in some cases, just as midnlessly as it does for highways.  The CA HSR is as much a jobs payoff project as anything else.

3. Time isnt everything.  Its usable time.  How make ppl would rather drive to HBG to PIT in 3 hours, rather than have 4 hours of useful time  (good wifi, food, etc avbl) on a train ride.
Of course, you've got to have at least 4 RT's a day.  Frequency is important.  The airlines did all this freq analysis work years ago.  Might as well learn from them.  Re-inventing the wheel is kinda stupid.

4. We all know all of this.  Why is it so hard to get info into the thick skulls of Politicians?
 

Highway users DO pay for highways with fuel taxes.

Bill Deaver
Tehachapi, CA

Florida has an increasing number of toll roads.  I was surprised at how extensive the network is.

OH IN PA MD VA GA TX OK CA CO   it's more than just the northeast

 

Not really.  The infrastructure costs far more to maintain, repair, and line pockets of those employed by maintaining them, than the fuel taxes can ever come close to covering.
My state alone has to drop about a billion on a massive viaduct project rebuild that was last tackled when the roadway was built. While smaller than some (5 others, including CA and HI), we don't have small fuel taxes here in the small state of CT. those will cover very little, if any, of just this one project.

Part of it even puts the arm on Amtrak to realign its own ROW and build a new station to replace the one currently being used in Hartford.

-Tom


MojaveBill Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Highway users DO pay for highways with fuel taxes.

co614 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If the battleground polls are correct the only
> remaining question is how badly he ends up
> losing....not if.  Let's hope if HRC is to be our
> next CEO that her team will prove to be Amtrak
> friendly.
>
The problem with Democrat administrations is that during election campaigns, they all mouth wonderful platitudes about Amtrak and passenger service and how great they are and we're going to connect the coasts with 
"high-speed" trains, and then, once they get elected, Amtraks budget, already bare bones, gets cut back a shade more.  Neither Bill Clonton nor Barack Obama have proven to be the slightest bit Amtrak-friendly, where "Amtrak-friendly" is defined as significantly increasing Amtrak's funding.  The only use to which they put Amtrak is as a parking place for friends and hacks to whom they owe favors and whose competence running anything larger than a lemonade stand is highly suspect.  Which makes their electioneering pronunciamentos about Amtrak sweet nothings, with the accent on nothing.  

MojaveBill Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Highway users DO pay for highways with fuel taxes.

Politicians and road people are increasingly concerned about the impact of straight electric vehicles on highways.  As they become 3%, 4% etc of vehicles in use, that will be a significant diversion of funds that would have been in gasoline taxes.

Right now they're about 1% of new car sales, I think.  Much higher in some states, though.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/22/16 10:15 by Lackawanna484.

cabsignaldrop Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> One of the issues with service between Harrisburg
> and Pittsburgh is the ungodly slow times compared
> with driving.
>
"Ungodly?"  I'm not a theologian, but it never occurred to me the many times I've been on the Pennsylvanian between Pittsburgh and points east to think of its relatively leisure pace as consitituting the absence of a higher being. 

MEKoch Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> But the point that Amtrak/State of PA should speed
> up their service is well taken.  Yes, it will
> take significant investment, but it is worth it. 
> $500M (the cost of one significant freeway bridge
> or interchange) would do a lot in adding capacity
> to the 245 miles of railroad.

Not a good cost comparison.  The oil, asphalt and automobile gang would point out that a highway bridge or interchange would be used by many more people than those traveling across Pennsylvania by train.

How did you come up with the $500 million number?  Remember, a study of claimed that $700 million would be needed to operate the Sunset Limited on a daily basis.

billio Wrote:

> The problem with Democrat administrations is that
> during election campaigns, they all mouth
> wonderful platitudes about Amtrak and passenger
> service and how great they are and we're going to
> connect the coasts with 
> "high-speed" trains, and then, once they get
> elected,

Which administration has done more than Obama's to advance high-speed/higher speed rail?  I don't remember Obama ever proposing "coast to coast: high-speed trains, but plans for better passenger rail were stopped by governors in Florida, Ohio and Wisconsin.

Back when Amtrak held the Pennsylvanian hostage, they demanded a king's ransom to keep the train runing west of Harrisburg. And, settled for a lot less.  Subsequently, the state DOT threw out a number which it said would be a baseline funding for another daily train.  NS had offered some thoughts on general numbers.

I don't see that thread, but it should be here somewhere.

Lackawanna484 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> pennsylvania considered putting taxes on I-80 to
> capture some of the "lost revenue" from interstate
> traffic.  That got the rural counties in a huge
> uproar (tax Philly instead, cut waste, all that
> nonsense) and the plan died a quick death.

That proposal did not die a "quick" death.  Governor Rendell developed the proposal, sent it to the feds who killed it after some deliberation.

That said, it's inequitable that users of the Pennsylvania Turnpike are hosed with high charges whereas motorists on I-80 do not have to pay any similar fees.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/22/16 10:32 by RuleG.