Passenger Trains > $60B for rail infrastructure

The U. S. House of Representatives passed an massive infrastructure bill of more than a Trillion Dollars yesterday.  It included $60B for rail.  I have no idea of any specifics in the bill.  

As you might imagine, it was Democrats for this bill and Republicans against this bill.    I will assume that such a spending bill is utterly dead in the U.S. Senate.   The Democrats wanted to pass such a bill to have it on record for their Fall election campaigns.  

MEKoch Wrote:
> As you might imagine, it was Democrats for this
> bill and Republicans against this bill.    I
> will assume that such a spending bill is utterly
> dead in the U.S. Senate.   

Wait until November, the Reps may very well lose the Senate. 

yea, let's wait until november when i seriously DOUBT people will be voting for senators based on their support of an infrastructure bill.

i would think keeping them SAFE might take precedent over who would support an infrastructure bill.

we shall see............

66

Not sure why this became political.

However, everyone said HIllary would win in 2016, too.  If rail supporters are wating for things to turn in November, I think it might be wise to be prepared for more of the same as well.



4thDistrict Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Senate will be in Democratic control after
> November. There are many more reasons why that
> will happen than rail infrastructure issues. The
> public wants government officials to work for the
> public interest, not for the friends of the
> current administration, so control will
> change. The bill will be in a good position to be
> revived with a much better chance of passing in
> 2021.
>
> goneon66 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > yea, let's wait until november when i seriously
> > DOUBT people will be voting for senators based
> on
> > their support of an infrastructure bill.
> >
> > i would think keeping them SAFE might take
> > precedent over who would support an
> infrastructure
> > bill.
> >
> > we shall see............
> >
> > 66

I think "Infrastructure" is a bi-partisan issue.  Both sides favor it.

Besides, $60 Billion isn't that much -- I believe the Airline bailout in Round 1 (CARES ACT) was $80 Billion.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/02/20 11:42 by ronald321.

Too much pork, not enough accountability. DOA in the Senate. Might have had a slight chance without all the repackaged Green New Deal crap.

ronald321 Wrote:

> Besides, $60 Billion isn't that much -- I believe
> the Airline bailout in Round 1 (CARES ACT) was $80
> Billion.

I am not sure what the airline bill has to do with any of this, but you are incorrect.  

https://www.washingtonpost.com/transportation/2020/04/20/treasury-officials-finalize-agreements-with-airlines-coronavirus-related-relief/

"The funds are part of the Cares Act, a $2 trillion economic stimulus package designed to offset the impact of the novel-coronavirus. The measure, signed by President Trump last month allotted $50 billion for airlines in the form of grants and loans."

And when you include the portion of it that is a loan, it is even less.

"Under the terms of the agreement, airlines must agree to pay back 30 percent of the money they receive."

 

The Senate isn't going to pass anything between now and Nov.

Typhoon

Knit-picking and splitting hairs made you miss the point.  So, here's what the Airline Bill has to do with it. (OK, $50B not $80B)

This $60 Billion is for rail INFRACTURE - i.e., bridges, tunnels, stations, etc. - and BOTH sides want an infracture bill.
The $50 Billion Airline grant was just given to them (not for infracture). They also gave Amtrak $1.2B (no strings)

So, the point being --  looking at the above figures -- the 60B for rail is small enough for the Senate to swallow, 



 



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/02/20 14:00 by ronald321.

ronald321 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Typhoon
>
> Knit-picking and splitting hairs made you miss the
> point.  So, here's what the Airline Bill has to
> do with it. (OK, $50B not $80B)

Being off by 30 Billion is not splitting hairs or nitpicking

> This $60 Billion is for rail INFRACTURE - i.e.,
> bridges, tunnels, stations, etc. - and BOTH sides
> want an infracture bill.
> The $50 Billion Airline grant was just given to
> them (not for infracture). They also gave Amtrak
> $1.2B (no strings)

As pointed out, it was not "just given to them".  30%, or 15 billion is a loan expected to be paid off.  It was also to keep airline employee's employed.  Had it not been given to the airlines, much of that money would have been to the employees via unemployment compensation.  

>
> So, the point being --  looking at the above
> figures -- the 60B for rail is small enough for
> the Senate to swallow, 

Sure, if that somehow makes you feel better....

That however, overlooks the fact the 60 billion for rail is part of an over TRILLION dollar bill...

ronald321 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Typhoon
>
> Knit-picking and splitting hairs made you miss the
> point.  So, here's what the Airline Bill has to
> do with it. (OK, $50B not $80B)
>
> This $60 Billion is for rail INFRACTURE - i.e.,
> bridges, tunnels, stations, etc. - and BOTH sides
> want an infracture bill.
> The $50 Billion Airline grant was just given to
> them (not for infracture). They also gave Amtrak
> $1.2B (no strings)
>
> So, the point being --  looking at the above
> figures -- the 60B for rail is small enough for
> the Senate to swallow,

"infracture(ĭn″frăk′chĕr) [Abbrev. of in(complete) fracture] The removal of nasal bones medially (inward), e.g., to narrow a widened nose."

Rail infracture ???

 

ts1457

Imagine doing all this research over a typo.-- but, not a word about the $60B.  

More proof that Congress are better trainfans -- they're talking real money -- not silly stuff.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/02/20 15:07 by ronald321.

ronald321 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ts1457
>
> Imagine doing all this research over a typo.--
> but, not a word about the $60B.  
>
> More proof that Congress are better trainfans --
> they're talking real money -- not silly stuff.

Did spell check do it? I know that we aren't supposed to point out spelling errors, but if I had done it, I wouldn't have minded the laugh being on me.

Anyhow, here is the info on the whole $ 1.5 trillion:

https://transportation.house.gov/imo/media/doc/BILLS-116HR2-RCP116-54.pdf

I don't know about real money, but it would take a bunch of funny money to pay for it all, and the money would get funnier.

RRBaron Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> MEKoch Wrote:
> > As you might imagine, it was Democrats for this
> > bill and Republicans against this bill.    I
> > will assume that such a spending bill is
> utterly
> > dead in the U.S. Senate.   
>
> Wait until November, the Reps may very well lose
> the Senate. 


Its more like the opposite people are sick and tired of the anarchy out there

Posted from Android

the priorities of this country will become very apparent in this election.  i DOUBT funding for rail infrastructure will be a priority for voters.........

66

It seems that there's a lot of really Conservative Railfans on this forum while most rail workers are probably voting for their jobs via pro-labor Democrats.
Both groups want the trains to to run!   



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/02/20 15:58 by Molino.

Well a strong economy is going to create more jobs than anything. If you want stagnation vote for more regulation.

Posted from Android

goneon66 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> the priorities of this country will become very
> apparent in this election.  i DOUBT funding for
> rail infrastructure will be a priority for
> voters.........
>
> 66

Current administration pushed for an infrastructure bill for several years. House didn't react to him (you can speculate on the reasons quietly), but they are now trying to pass their own version. Plenty of gamesmanship here, so I can't take either side seriously.

Legislators had almost 4 years to get their act together, yet they only reacted (COVID). Anyway, why build anything when it will be torn down anyway. :-)

goduckies Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well a strong economy is going to create more jobs
> than anything. If you want stagnation vote for
> more regulation.
>
> Posted from Android

Yup, because nothing helped the economy of the Great Lakes Region more than unregulated/under regulated pollutants coming into Lake Erie causing massive toxic algae blooms in several years during the past decade.

So you would rather regulate a puddle?

Posted from Android