Passenger Trains > Will the 2020 census weaken Amtrak?

One of the enduring truths of Congressional funding for Amtrak is that it runs through a lot of states, and there are many politicians who oppose it in theory, but vote for it in practice.  With the 2020 census expected to show a significant movement out of higher tax, large government states (NEC + MI + IL + MN + CA etc) to lower tax states (TX FL AZ, etc), the latter group will gain seats in the House.  So, will loss of seats in NY NJ PA CA etc hurt Amtrak?

The change could strengthen the hand of local leaders who favor locally controlled trains running at convenient hours.  Like NC's efforts, or VA's efforts. Or, point to point public-private partnerships like BrightLine / Virgin, and the Texas high speed project.

The Hill, a political observer, looks at the exodus of "blue state" residents to lower tax "red states".

https://thehill.com/opinion/finance/477754-the-blue-state-exodus-gains-momentum

When will the adjustments from the Census take effect? 2022 election?

I don't think the changes will be enough to really affect things much this go round. If the migration trends continues over time, by 2030 it could be a lot different.

ts1457 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> When will the adjustments from the Census take
> effect? 2022 election?
>

More likely the 2024 election cycle since the census has to be completed, seats reapportioned and the states need redistrict their seats.
 

There will be a huge fight for local representative seats in this election so a person on “your team” gets to draw the redistricting for 2022 and 2024. The republican side figured it out before the 2010 census and caught the Dems flat footed. Both sides will be spending obscene amounts of money in the states that will need redrawn.

Posted from iPhone

I live in Ohio and we will lose one congressional seat.   Texas is expected to gain three seats...........

TCnR Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> California is expected to lose at least one
> congressional Seat,  I know which one I'd like to
> see go away.
>
> I do remember back in high School how are
> Political Science Teacher emphasized how
> Gerry-mandering had finally been removed from
> politics. There were a number of things they said
> that didn't quite work out that way.

That's why California took redistricting away from the legislature. We have a Redistricting Commission instead. Worked pretty well the last time around.

MEKoch Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I live in Ohio and we will lose one congressional
> seat.   Texas is expected to gain three
> seats...........

Oregon will probably gain one.

On the other hand, the emptying out of rural areas for urban and suburban areas is continuing.

How that will play out is not such a simple thing.

Brian

Wyoming will keep its one House seat, and its two Senate seats. Its six hundred thousand people get two Senate seats.

That made more sense when the legislatures elected senators. Not now.

They don't even have regular Amtrak service.

Posted from Android

Lackawanna484 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Wyoming will keep its one House seat, and its two
> Senate seats. Its six hundred thousand people get
> two Senate seats.
>
> That made more sense when the legislatures elected
> senators. Not now.

It makes as much sense as Vermont and Delaware having two senators. Why is Wyoming always getting picked on?

Maybe the real problem is ridiculously large states like California or New York staying as a single state instead of being forcibly shattered in a dozen more managable pieces.

abyler Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Lackawanna484 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Wyoming will keep its one House seat, and its
> two
> > Senate seats. Its six hundred thousand people
> get
> > two Senate seats.
> >
> > That made more sense when the legislatures
> elected
> > senators. Not now.
>
> It makes as much sense as Vermont and Delaware
> having two senators. Why is Wyoming always getting
> picked on?
>
> Maybe the real problem is ridiculously large
> states like California or New York staying as a
> single state instead of being forcibly shattered
> in a dozen more managable pieces.

Wyoming is the smallest state by population, that's why I selected it.  And it doesn't have regular Amtrak service. Unlike Vermont and Delaware.

AP on redistricting:
https://www.abqjournal.com/1408969/redistricting-power-at-stake-in-2020-legislative-elections.html

What a silly & superficial article.  Eight of the ten losing states are all in cold-weather regions.  Why are not large numbers of people moving into low-tax non-sunbelt states such as Kansas, New Hampshire & South Dakota?

I also recently read that Florida requires all companies selling automobile insurance in the state to also offer home insurance.  Why is that?  If Florida truly seeks to be a state with limited regulation of business, it would repeal that law.

Additionally, recent large-scale teachers' strikes in several low-tax states suggest that taxes can be too low.

RuleG Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I also recently read that Florida requires all
> companies selling automobile insurance in the
> state to also offer home insurance.  Why is
> that?  If Florida truly seeks to be a state with
> limited regulation of business, it would repeal
> that law.

At least in part it has to do with hurricanes and a concern that insurance companies would simply pull out of the homeowner insurance market and exclusively sell (less risky) automobile insurance.

Gordon

RuleG Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> I also recently read that Florida requires all
> companies selling automobile insurance in the
> state to also offer home insurance.  Why is
> that?  If Florida truly seeks to be a state with
> limited regulation of business, it would repeal
> that law.

At least in the part of Florida where I live, this is not true. I have Allstate Auto Insurance, but Allstate will not sell a Homeowners Insurance here. That I have from a different local Florida company though arranged through the same agent that did my Auto and Umbrella Insurance at Allstate. Most national insurance companies will not sell a Homeowners Insurance in designated Hurricane prone counties in Florida.

Florida has convoluted property insurance laws involving a state trust fund in order to provide insurance in areas that national insurance companies will not touch. Of course, all Flood insurance is still underwritten by FEMA.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/12/20 08:55 by Jishnu.

Much of CSX / Amtrak /FEC in Georgia Florida and South Carolina is only a few feet above sea level. And above rivers that occasionally flood.

There's been a lot of discussion about writing 30 year mortgages in places where the ground is sinking (corrected) an inch per year. Storm surge waves in the rivers, etc.

If you can't get property insurance, some mortgages can be terminated.

Posted from Android



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/12/20 13:06 by Lackawanna484.

RuleG Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What a silly & superficial article.  Eight of the
> ten losing states are all in cold-weather
> regions.  Why are not large numbers of people
> moving into low-tax non-sunbelt states such as
> Kansas, New Hampshire & South Dakota?

People in the US are voluntarily moving to areas that are 15 degrees warmer on average but we are being told we are all going to die if the world warms up by 4 degree.

abyler Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> RuleG Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > What a silly & superficial article.  Eight of
> the
> > ten losing states are all in cold-weather
> > regions.  Why are not large numbers of people
> > moving into low-tax non-sunbelt states such as
> > Kansas, New Hampshire & South Dakota?
>
> People in the US are voluntarily moving to areas
> that are 15 degrees warmer on average but we are
> being told we are all going to die if the world
> warms up by 4 degree.

That’s a surprisingly silly comment from a smart guy like you.  I’m sure you realize that people’s preference for warm weather, especially as they get older, has no relevance to the economic and social calamity that is likely to occur with rapidly rising sea levels as the polar ice caps melt.  

Dave

DavidP Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That’s a surprisingly silly comment from a smart
> guy like you.  I’m sure you realize that
> people’s preference for warm weather, especially
> as they get older, has no relevance to the
> economic and social calamity that is likely to
> occur with rapidly rising sea levels as the polar
> ice caps melt.  

Wake me up when beachfront property is affordable because of this calamity.

abyler Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> DavidP Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > That’s a surprisingly silly comment from a
> smart
> > guy like you.  I’m sure you realize that
> > people’s preference for warm weather,
> especially
> > as they get older, has no relevance to the
> > economic and social calamity that is likely to
> > occur with rapidly rising sea levels as the
> polar
> > ice caps melt.  
>
> Wake me up when beachfront property is affordable
> because of this calamity.

By the year 2000 it will happen.  I was told that in the 70's.