Transportation secretary says states will have to

« on: Dec 10th, 2004, 4:37pm » Quick-Jump Reply w/Quote Modify

Mineta gives the Democratic Party a bad name. His ideas are ludicrous. It's interesting how the article didn't even deal with the subject of the long-haul trains. Once Mineta has created civil war on the east and west coasts, he will, no doubt, deliver the final blow to the long hauls.

The enemies of Amtrak harp on the $30 billion dollar figure like it's breaking the country's back. Trains only account for less than 1% of the overall transportation budget.

The logic that the administration (that includes Mineta) is using to destroy Amtrak is really sickening. One point they constantly point out is that the Federal government might as well give a Jetblue ticket to everybody who chooses to climb aboard Amtrak. How do you fight that sort of logic.

This is how I approach it. I believe that subsidies generally benefit a small group of private interests. Amtrak is subsidized, true, but it has the potential to benefit anybody who wants to climb aboard. Rich, poor, everybody is welcome to indulge.

It's not up to the federal government to tell us how we should travel. I can't jump on Jetblue and there are plenty of people terrified to get on an airplane. Our reasons for taking the train are perfectly legitimate and should not be scoffed at. Meanwhile, Greyhound (God forbid I should ever have to travel by Greyhound), has cut over 260 stops in the West during the last year alone. Travel options are becoming more scarce and more expensive.

One could rightfully ask, why does the Government want to shut down Amtrak? My take is that Amtrak takes away business from the airlines and since this administration is firmly logged in the pockets of the airlines, it makes sense that they should want to shut the trains down.

Jesse, forget about mail and freight. It's been tried before and Amtrak just stopped doing it, in the last year. They lost money. They also created enemies among the freight companies: The people who provide the tracks on which most of Amtrak runs. That's called a conflict of interest.

He is whining about Amtrak's $30 Billion over about 35 years and totally ignores the YEARLY $34 billion subsidy for the national highway system. And that $34 billion is over and above the taxes received from the gas tax!

quote:

---

Originally posted by mikesmith:
Mineta ticks me off....

He is whining about Amtrak's $30 Billion over about 35 years and totally ignores the YEARLY $34 billion subsidy for the national highway system. And that $34 billion is over and above the taxes received from the gas tax!

I wonder when he will address the $34 billion shortfall for roads and the $14 billion shortfall for air transportation and the $6 billion shortfall for the waterways?

---

Mineta is the worst Transportation Secretary we have had. EVER.

Mineta is merely a "Yes Boss Hatchet Man".

Mineta is the token Democrat who Bush placed on his Cabinet to demonstrate his willingness to put together a 'bipartisan' team. Mineta didn't even get the call in 2000 until after Jim Hunt, North Carolina's former Democratic Governor turned down an invitation to be Secretary of Education. (Hunt said that he could not be effective in the position because he believed his Democratic leanings were too ingrained for him to be sufficiently respected by other members of the Bush administration.)

That the token Democrat on the Cabinet is the Transportation Secretary speaks of how comparitively unimportant transportation issues are to this White House.

That Mineta would even suggest running, say the 'Sunset Limited' across, say, Texas without making any passenger stops if Texas doesn't pay it's share of the cost just shows how out of touch with reality he is.

The train couldn't make it across the state without stopping to refuel. Imagine a gang of nicotine addicts becoming violently hostile if denied a smoke stop in Texas....particularly as the train keeps going into the hole for an hour at a time to meet UP freights. I'd like to send those folks to visit Mr. Mineta. Don't scoff: When I lived nearer to Raleigh and Charlotte I was a volunteer train host for the NCDOT. One of my worst trips was when a lady in Business Class vented on me for "taking the smoking car off this train." Four or five more like her and the entire crew might have been taken hostage!

My guess is that railroad executives inwardly roll their eyes when Mineta lays out his plans for 'private contractors' to operate passenger trains over their lines in a post Amtrak environment. Kind of like "This guy doesn't have a clue and who is he to think he can tell us what we're going to do with our railroad."

Those who are more attuned to what is being spent where could correct me if I'm wrong BUT it seems to me that the total dollar amount Amtrak has spent since it's inception in 1971 is in it's entirity still less than what the airline industry has received in Federal 'Loans' since 9/11/2001.

The term 'loan' here should be applied loosely. With a number of major airlines which include (but is not limited to) United, Delta, and US Air STILL on the verge of bankruptcy, that 'loan' money is never going to be repaid. The Feds should be honest with us and call it what it is....a "bailout". But then doing that would mean having to admit that the airline industry is more heavily subsidized than Amtrak. That's not going to happen because that would be inconvienent in the pursuit of their real political objective....terminate Amtrak. That's been the plan all along but not something this administration had the nerve to try until after being re-elected.

That members of the administration are still saying to the press that "No other form of transportation receives a federal subsidy" REALLY, REALLY bothers me.

That they would be so dishonest in trying to accomplish their objectives vis a vis Amtrak (an admittedly small issue for many Americans) suggests that they wouldn't hesitate to be blatantly dishonest about something big....like starting a war.

OK..........rant off. Thanks. I can breathe again.

------------------
David Pressley

The Chair is simply considered a "reward'job; prior to creation of the DOT and when the Post Office was Federal agency reportng to the President, Postmaster General was usually such.

With Bush, reward has been "broadened' to include a 'bipartisan' approach. In short, Norm is not there and evidently survived into the second Administration, because of the industry credentials he brings to the table, he simply "looks good' (a Democrat, a Japanese American, not aware of him being associated with any scandal).

There has really only been one Secretary that has brought industry credentials to the table, that was Alan S. Boyd, the first Secretary appointed by LBJ. He subsequently became Amtrak's third CEO.

Somehow, I thought Gerald Grinstein, Delta Airlines CEO, might have been looking to pull the ripcord over there, but I guess either he had not paid enough 'dues' or maybe someone thinks he can still pull Delta out of its tailspin.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gilbert B Norman:
I can't think of when there has EVER been a SecTrans that has brought solid industry credentials to the Chair, Mr. Presley.

[]

---

I cannot agree with you more Mr. Norman. Thanks for pointing this out to me!

Amtrak tried the "freight thing" with bulk express. It slowed the trains down and did not make a significant contribution to the overall revenue picture. This was mainly because the cost of leasing, buying and/ or maintaining the equipment was more than it was worth.

I think Mr Minetta is in for a rude awakening.

Cheers!

quote:

---

"If a train goes through a state and that state is not willing to pony up the state's share, then we would run the train through that state, not stopping and keeping the doors closed," Mineta said.

---

What an idiot! The Bush administration wants Amtrak run in a more businesslike manner, and that is all well and good. But this statement would never have been made by a businessman. Only a career government bureaucrat could have thought that one up. If a train didn't stop in one state, the potential for sales would be greatly reduced, and the need for subsidies would increase dramatically. How counterproductive (and unbusinesslike) can you get?

A year or so ago I watched a congressional hearing on C-SPAN which discussed the subject of Bush's plan for Amtrak. Claudia Howells, then head of Oregon's DOT rail division, testified that multi-state funding compacts, as proposed by Bush/Mineta, are very easy to conceive, but extremely difficult to implement.

Sec Defense William Cohen, former US Senator (R-ME).

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gilbert B Norman:
...while I can't be sure, I would not be the least surprised if the relatively successful and casualty free offensive against the Taliban government in Afghanistan was likely formulated during the Clinton/Cohen tenure.

---

This is going off topic, but since you brought it up, from what I have read it is my understanding that this was indeed the case. Towards the end of his term Clinton did have plans to invade Afghanistan, but didn't carry them out because he didn't think it was wise to start a war then immmediately hand it off to his newly elected sucessor. Plus, at the time an invasion would have been difficult to sell to the masses. But the plans were in place for Bush to take advantage of (and take credit for), after 9/11, when the need was clear to all.

Now to make a weak attempt to steer this back on topic, I think this illustrates Bush's shortcomings. Programs he has thought up on his own, including his plan for Amtrak, haven't met with nearly as much success.

Mr. Norman, what about John Volpe, the first SecDOT? He was a highway builder, and I think that counts. They've named a transportation research center in Cambridge, MA for him.

What about William Coleman, Jimmy Carter's SecDOT? He was a Philadelphia lawyer who had been involved in the Penn Central bankruptcy, and his department's publication, "National Transportation Trends and Choices" is still a useful reference work (Clinton staff all proudly carried it while attempting to formulate coherent transportation policy in the 1990s).

The Republicans have been less successful. I can't even remember Ronald Regan's SecDOT.

quote:

---

Originally posted by rresor:
the fundamental point to make here is that Amtrak has limped along now for nearly 35 years. We need to try something different. There are states now putting money into passenger (and freight) rail improvements without ANY assistance from USDOT. This doesn't seem to me to be an altogether ridiculous approach (and I've been in the railroad business for 28 years).

---

It would be difficult to imagine a different model for delivering intercity (and interstate) passenger rail service at this point.......simply because this is the one we have had for 35 years.

Imagine the possibilities (both good and bad) had a different model for subsidized rail passenger service been established at the beginning......for instance, what if it had been decided that the DOT would establish an 'essential' basic national route system......probably very similar to the original Amtrak route map.

Then, rather than Amtrak, the freight railroads would have continued to operate their own passenger trains which had been designated 'essential' over their own systems. For their trouble they would have received a proportionate (but meager) federal subsidy (ie: x $ per passenger mile or some such factor) combined with a generous package of tax breaks.

Imagine that. Would what has survived until now been better or worse had a model like I've suggested been implemented? How would mergers in the freight industry have affected what we now have?

Just curious. No negativity...no cynacism...just wondering.

------------------
David Pressley