Passenger Trains > Elaine Chao - New Secretary of Transportation

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/elaine-chao-transportation-secretary-231925

 

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/29/politics/trump-picks-elaine-chao-for-transportation-secretary/index.html

Reminds me of the Elizabeth Dole situation.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/29/16 08:06 by joemvcnj.

Excellent choice, she has the savy to fashion great improvements and will certainly receive the necessary support.  Many construction contracts will result with a lot less restrictions.

At least it wasn't Mica.

For a guy that sez he doesn't want 'Washington insiders' he sure picked one here. But what would you expect? Very smart for Wick to head AMTK for only one year. I predict elimination of long haul trains, let the State's keep what they want without Federal support, and an attempt to privitize the NEC. I do not think any wise investor would want the later since it requires such a huge investment in infrastrucre improvement if they do their homework. Ride your favorite trains now and 'Chow' down in the remaining diners while you can.

PennPlat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Excellent choice, she has the savy to fashion
> great improvements and will certainly receive the
> necessary support.  Many construction contracts
> will result with a lot less restrictions.

I'd agree with this.  One of the President-elect's planks was to cut restrictions and layers of Beltway reviews.  Chao is an insider, and definitely knows how to do that sort of thing.

The smell of federal dam, highway, air, and rail construction money is also a potent way to get everyone (senators and reps) on the same page. The feds have an ambitious plan already underway to modernize the Mississippi, Ohio, Tennessee, and other river networks. And a similar plan for the major airports.

It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if Mr Moorman has already requested a financial break down of Amtrak routes outside the NEC and California.

1) Likely can survive / thrive with minimal federal assistance.  May include routes to be contracted out, or are important to states (Downeaster, Hoosier, etc).

2) Probably won't survive with minimal federal assistance (Silver Service south of North Carolina, for example).

3) Definitely won't survive without federal assistance, and not likely to get much state assistance. (Several candidates)

Disagree. Federal support of roads, waterways (esp inland) and airports is no different than what has happened in the last appx 60 years. Roads and waterways take traffic from railroads on the freight side. I'm well invested there and want to see the freight railroads survive. Airports and AMTK are for passengers who do not want to drive for many reasons. No airline or busline could make any money without Government support, and neither can AMTK. I'm not a big AMTK supporter; but I know enuf about RR economics to know it cannot survive as a private enterprise because it's infrastructure is shot with years of inadequate funding for improvements. Health care, and passenger transport, should not be 'for profit' enterprises; they require Government support. About everything else can be free market, including freight transportation, etc etc, and I support that with my investments. Unfortunately the American public that voted in the states that swung this election by electoral votes and not popular votes may eventually see that. I'm sure most of them don't care about losing their few passenger trains if they have any, but when they have a serious health problem and cannot afford the care needed for it they might think again. I think social responsibility for health care and passenger trains seem to fall in the same arena as something that needs financial support beyond what the financial institutions are willing to provide.

That's a thoughtful and well laid out argument.  But there are two flaws, as I see the issue.

One is that government investment, either cash or tax credits, distorts the markets. So airlines get pension holidays, repeated trips to bankruptcy court to rip up contracts, etc. And, heavily subsidized use of tax free property, government financed weather, etc.  Not to mention the commotion that happens when Podunk is about to lose its only airline connection.

Flowing directly from that is the huge amount of investment going into the airports. Investing even a small share of the LaGuardia expansion in the NEC would dramatically reduce the need for air flights. I don't see it as the government's job to make travel from LGA to airline hubs more efficient, or even lower cost.

(The same sort of holds for medical. Allowing one person to get a "free" benefit from their employer while the guy who delivers pizza on his bike has to pay $$ for inferior coverage is a poor foundation for national health policy. Similar arguments hold for higher education, etc.)

I suspect the same coming from the new Administration.

​I was surprised at the Amtrak employees, I know, who planned to vote for Trump. Sort of burning their own bridge as losing long haul trains would affect many Amtrak employees nationwide and woule not do Railroad Retirement any good either.


JLinDE Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> For a guy that sez he doesn't want 'Washington
> insiders' he sure picked one here. But what would
> you expect? Very smart for Wick to head AMTK for
> only one year. I predict elimination of long haul
> trains, let the State's keep what they want
> without Federal support, and an attempt to
> privitize the NEC. I do not think any wise
> investor would want the later since it requires
> such a huge investment in infrastrucre improvement
> if they do their homework. Ride your favorite
> trains now and 'Chow' down in the remaining diners
> while you can.

Lackawanna484 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That's a thoughtful and well laid out argument. 
> But there are two flaws, as I see the issue.
>
> One is that government investment, either cash or
> tax credits, distorts the markets. So airlines get
> pension holidays, repeated trips to bankruptcy
> court to rip up contracts, etc. And, heavily
> subsidized use of tax free property, government
> financed weather, etc.  Not to mention the
> commotion that happens when Podunk is about to
> lose its only airline connection.
>
> Flowing directly from that is the huge amount of
> investment going into the airports. Investing even
> a small share of the LaGuardia expansion in the
> NEC would dramatically reduce the need for air
> flights. I don't see it as the government's job to
> make travel from LGA to airline hubs more
> efficient, or even lower cost.
>
> (The same sort of holds for medical. Allowing one
> person to get a "free" benefit from their employer
> while the guy who delivers pizza on his bike has
> to pay $$ for inferior coverage is a poor
> foundation for national health policy. Similar
> arguments hold for higher education, etc.)

Once again it seems the discussion is devolving into, "It's not fair, the big bad airlines and airports get all this support and Amtrak gets squat."  I honestly don't think that's helping matters.

Case in point, poor, neglected LaGuardia.  The number of flights from LGA to points on the NEC common with Amtrak is a fraction of total daily departures.  A quick glance at the Delta, American, jetBlue and Southwest schedules confirms that.  So no, diverting money from LGA to the NEC isn't going to make a major dent in demand for flights.  Actually, reduce the number of short-haul flights and the airlines will simply lobby harder to kill the perimeter rule at LGA so they can fly to Los Angeles, San Francisco, Phoenix, Vegas, etc.

No federal funding has been identified in the redevelopment plan for the terminals at LGA.  The project almost certainly will be financed just as all major US airports finance their major capital programs:  1. revenue bonds issued and backed by the airport's governing authority and 2. user fees, including Passenger Facility Charges, landing fees and other fees charged to the airlines, rental cars, parking, hotels, concessions, etc, etc, etc.  There is limited federal support for projects such as adding an additional runway here and there but that amount pales in comparison to the other financing and revenue streams that support airport operation and growth.

But this isn't airliners.net, and we are here to obstensibly talk about passenger trains.  One of the biggest issues I see is that in 45+ years of existence, Amtrak still basically doesn't know what it wants to be when it grows up.  And absent any sort of reasonable plan for the development and maintenance of a national passenger rail network we get the present situation, a company that seems to limp along from year to year, hauling a few more people than the year before, but with an ever-increasing backlog of capital needs.  Actually, it's worse than that.  We have a hodge-podge network with a heavily-used intercity corridor (falling apart at the seams due to the aforementioned capital needs), a series of state-funded short and medium-distance corridors scattered about the country, and a skeletal long-distance network obstensibly tying the whole thing together (but not really).  In all honesty, I have no idea how you "fix" this or even start addressing it.  If Mr. Moorman can do nothing else in his brief tenure, maybe he can at least help Amtrak start to put such a grand plan together, something that could be sold to a skeptical government (and public) as part of a request for long-term increased financial support.

niagara484

Not sure I disagree that much, except my son my be in the pizza delivery boy circumstance even tho he does significant work teaching mostly minorities in Chicago, and some of that involves railroads. Health care aside; how do you think the Federal Government, under this new administration, and to what extent, should invest in the NEC? Forget about the other AMTK issues. Let's get down to basics. What, under a Republican Administration, Presidency, House and Senate, should the Government do with it? Your points about the side effects of government involvement in such things may well be true. The more Government involvement in an issue, the more chance private investment and possible corruption; this has been true and proven for many years.

so the New Admin has to, as far as the new Secretary of Transportation is concerned, decide:
1.  Should AMTK survive as now structured? if not;
2.  What should the services be, and is the NEC is one of them?
3.  If the NEC survives, which implies it is worthy of capital investment, then who supplies that, private or government?
4.  If private investment is not forthcoming, what does Government do?
5.  If the Government has to invest in infrastructure improvements, (which Trump sez he wants) is the NEC included?

Guess time will tell us the outcome.............. 
   

Niagara 484...............your response was ahead of mine. After reading it; I'm not sure where you are coming from or why you have an interest in passenger trains. Are you an airline lobbyist? Sure sounds like it. As I said, I'm no big AMTK defender, but your post implies what little you may know about the politics surrounding AMTK's survival over the years. You can check many posts on here for that. I predict that you are probably not from one of those many Mid-America decent sized cities that have no other public passenger services than AMTK. I bet these elections districts went for the electoral winner. I can only hope they are happy when their only connection with the outside world (other than their huge pickup with a gun rack) is no longer available.

It's an awfully narrow viewpoint to think someone who holds a different perspective than yours must be a nefarious paid lobbyist.

I like trains. Watching them, riding them. I also think the federal government funding long distance passenger trains is a pointless waste of money. I'm able to to recognize that there can be separation between my hobby interests and sound public policy.

JLinDE Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Niagara 484...............your response was ahead
> of mine. After reading it; I'm not sure where you
> are coming from or why you have an interest in
> passenger trains. Are you an airline lobbyist?
> Sure sounds like it.

Posted from Android

Perhaps the new admin's plan for Amtrak will be like that of the Affordable Care Act? They don't have one but they "know" they have to get rid of it or cut spending drastically. My emphasis is they don't have a clue...

​Has anyone a clue of what Mr. Ryan's pencil sharpening has on Amtrak? He's supposed to be the ultra conservative, finance and budget wizzard. He sucked up the Trump so he could get his long awaited agenda worked out to really cut spending. And with a VP from a state with a balanced budge this could be interesting. I predict we are in for more government funding shutdowns.

​Victor A. Baird
​http://www.erstwhilepublications.com



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 11/29/16 22:32 by wabash2800.

JLinDE Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Niagara 484...............your response was ahead
> of mine. After reading it; I'm not sure where you
> are coming from or why you have an interest in
> passenger trains. Are you an airline lobbyist?
> Sure sounds like it. As I said, I'm no big AMTK
> defender, but your post implies what little you
> may know about the politics surrounding AMTK's
> survival over the years. You can check many posts
> on here for that. I predict that you are
> probably not from one of those many Mid-America
> decent sized cities that have no other public
> passenger services than AMTK. I bet these
> elections districts went for the electoral winner.
> I can only hope they are happy when their only
> connection with the outside world (other than
> their huge pickup with a gun rack) is no longer
> available.

Wow! So you think all of middle America are hicks with big pick up trucks with a gun rack? I bet these hicks can at least spell "says", unlike you, who on more than one occasion spelled it "sez". It's
difficult to argue with an uneducated moron that gets off on criticizing people who feel they don't want to waste tax money on a crappy passenger train so some basement dwelling foamer can ride a train.
See, now that criticism is more realistic!

wabash2800 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Perhaps the new admin's plan for Amtrak will be
> like that of the Affordable Care Act? They don't
> have one but they "know" they have to get rid of
> it or cut spending drastically. My emphasis is
> they don't have a clue...
>
> ​Has anyone a clue of what Mr. Ryan's pencil
> sharpening has on Amtrak? He's supposed to be the
> ultra conservative, finance and budget wizzard. He
> sucked up the Trump so he could get his long
> awaited agenda worked out to really cut spending.
> And with a VP from a state with a balanced budge
> this could be interesting. I predict we are in for
> more government funding shutdowns.
>
> ​Victor A. Baird
> ​http://www.erstwhilepublications.com

The Republicans have proposed several options to replace "Affordable Care Act", the corrupt media just doesn't report on them. The main one is to deregulate the health insurance industry, let insurance
companies sell across state lines to bring on competition. That happened with the automobile insurance industry in the '80's, and premiums dropped 30 to 50 percent. With Amtrak, contracting out LD trains
to a private operator would considerably bring down the cost of operating those trains(this has been proven).

Incentivizing various means of transportation to compete against each other in the same markets seems like a bad idea. Extending LGA runways into the bay, requiring slots be set aside for Albany or Syracuse flights seems like poor policy.

Posted from Android

JLinDE Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Niagara 484...............your response was ahead
> of mine. After reading it; I'm not sure where you
> are coming from or why you have an interest in
> passenger trains. Are you an airline lobbyist?
> Sure sounds like it. As I said, I'm no big AMTK
> defender, but your post implies what little you
> may know about the politics surrounding AMTK's
> survival over the years. You can check many posts
> on here for that. I predict that you are
> probably not from one of those many Mid-America
> decent sized cities that have no other public
> passenger services than AMTK. I bet these
> elections districts went for the electoral winner.
> I can only hope they are happy when their only
> connection with the outside world (other than
> their huge pickup with a gun rack) is no longer
> available.

A shill for the airlines?!  I wish!! 

No, JLinDE, I like transportation.  I like riding trains.  I also like flying in airplanes.  My vacation this year was to ride the Canadian from Vancouver to Toronto.  BTW, if you haven't done it, do it.  It's a great trip.  As a life-long train enthusiast now in his mid-40s, I have followed the Amtrak story extensively for years so I know the politics.  I simply tire of the "train good, airplane bad" black-and-white statements.  Each mode has its place and each has its challenges.

So, that out of the way, let's get down to the next step.  I have lived in Denver, CO for over 20 years.  I have ridden the California Zephyr twice in that time, once to Grand Junction and once to Salt Lake City in a private car coupled up on the rear (also an inredible way to go).  For me, there just isn't much need for that train to exist.  I didn't need to make those trips, I did them because they sounded like a fun thing to do.  Both times I used alternate transportation to return to Denver.  Conversely, I will and do make use of RTD's regional rail network, even the much-maligned airport line.  So if you were asking me which I would support if I had to choose one, I would put the commuter trains and light rail (RTD) over the intercity train.

Those "many Mid-America decent sized cities" have always been at a disadvantage compared to larger metro areas when it comes to intercity transportation options.  But you don't need fancy sleepers, dining cars, and Sightseer lounges if the only goal for an intercity passenger rail network is to provide connectivity to what I'll call "forgotten America."  There has to be much more than that one little piece to justify the existence of the long-distance passenger train.

But note what just happened in this exchange.  Once again we're diving into one of the separate business units that Amtrak operates (NEC, state corridors, LDT). It is extremely difficult to be able to talk about Amtrak in the aggregate because each line of business seems to be significantly different from the others.  I think that's a real challenge Amtrak has struggled with its entire existence.  Where should the focus be and where can Amtrak get the best bang for the buck?

niagara484

niagara484 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------


> Those "many Mid-America decent sized cities" have always been at a disadvantage compared to larger
> metro areas when it comes to intercity transportation options.  But you don't need fancy
> sleepers, dining cars, and Sightseer lounges if the only goal for an intercity passenger rail
> network is to provide connectivity to what I'll call "forgotten America."  There has to be much
> more than that one little piece to justify the existence of the long-distance passenger train.
>

> niagara484

Then I suggest that this winter you take the Empire Builder(Tr 7/8), and look at the myriad of small towns/cities that have no airline connection in an area where winter highway travel is problematic if not downright hazardous.  Last time I rode it, I shared a table in a diner with a woman who was returning to St. Paul from a funeral in Seattle. When I asked her why she didn't fly, she replied that during the Easter season there were no flights available. 
IMO Amtrak provides a realnecessary  service to the northern tier of US....and of course, it is the National Railroad Passenger Corporation. 

BTW, niagara, are you a native of Colorado or just another "come here"?

JLinDE Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
 I bet these
> elections districts went for the electoral winner.
> I can only hope they are happy when their only
> connection with the outside world (other than
> their huge pickup with a gun rack) is no longer
> available.

For large portions of the pickup truck world, the only train to the outside world
goes through town in the middle of the night (often hours behind schedule).  
Hardly an inviting mode of transport.  After 40+ years of this treatment the passenger train has
become irrelevant to this pool of potential passengers.