Over at the Boston Globe, columnist Derrick Z. Jackson does an excellent job of highlighting John McCain's beef with Amtrak:
For years, McCain, in the comfort of cheap gasoline for autos and airplanes, made Amtrak a personal whipping boy. Despite the fact that governments in Western Europe and Asia zoomed far ahead of the United States by supporting high-speed trains to relieve congestion, promote tourism and now as we are coming to know, save the planet, McCain has spent considerable capital in denying the passenger rail system the capital to modernize.
Among his Amtrak transgressions: Halting $10 billion in capital funding for Amtrak as chair of the Senate Science, Commerce and Transportation Committee in 2000, calling it an example of government waste. In 2006 he voted against a measure that would have restored $550 million in funding for Amtrak for the 2007 budget.
In fact, he's long said he'd like to abolish Amtrak and turn passenger rail entirely over to the private sector. He's actually promised that if he's elected president, shutting down Amtrak would be "a non-negotiable issue." Without being able to abolish it altogether, over the years, he's settled for doing all he can to make sure that Amtrak is underfunded enough to remain "the albatross blocking the development of a program that actually meets the needs of the traveling public," as Jackson points out.
There's a whole section on his website titled "Taking Action Now To Break Our Dependency On Foreign Oil By Reforming Our Transportation Sector" -- without a single mention of public transit. As gas prices soar and citizens flock to mass transit, McCain might find some trouble with this positioning.
Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success
For McCain, it’s really all about the fake snow
Comments
View as Threaded
Jon Rynn Posted 4:39 am
02 Jul 2008
By the way, one of the long-distance Amtrak trains travels from Chicago to LA, and passes through Arizona...although not through Phoenix, for some reason.
Permalink
Kenny B Posted 4:43 am
02 Jul 2008
Seriously, he uses energy policy like an accessory to his candidacy. Just little doodads he picked up here and there: "A bajillion dollars to make a better battery," "A new holiday figure: the gas-tax bunny," "Let's drill holes in the ocean and see what comes out."
I mean, really? Can voters not see that these "ideas" border on retardation? Of all McCain's policy platforms, energy is by far his least thought out, least cohesive and least understood.
Permalink
BILL HANNAHAN Posted 6:14 am
02 Jul 2008
If government should be in the train business should it not be in every business, as in the former Soviet Union?
Why should tax payers all over the country provide artificially low ticket prices for a tiny fraction of the population living near an Amtrak line?
Trains are efficient and growing in popularity. This is the perfect time for the government to get out of the train business.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 6:55 am
02 Jul 2008
So basically, at this point the passenger rail system is at a severe disadvantage, in terms of capital, to cars and airlines; the car and airline companies are taking full advantage, gaining huge profits because of this public investment.
They're in trouble right now because oil will no longer be the magic elixir it has been. The market hasn't caught up yet; and unless you want to strand millions of people, you have to let the government intervene. In other words, the market gained for decades because of the government, and now the government has to bail out the transportation system by rebuilding rail. Then, maybe, it could go private -- although there are inherent problems with rail and competition, because routes tend to be monopolistic.
Basically, it works well in Europe and Japan; like health insurance, it's just not being done here for ideological/institutional reasons.
Permalink
BILL HANNAHAN Posted 7:46 am
02 Jul 2008
If everybody stopped driving their cars, the cost of roads and highways would be borne entirely by the trucking industry. The cost of food and clothing and the other things we buy would rise substantially. People who drive subsidize the lifestyle of people who don't.
Please answer my questions.
Why should the federal government be in the passenger train business?
If government should be in the train business should it not be in every business, as in the former Soviet Union?
Why should tax payers all over the country provide artificially low ticket prices for a tiny fraction of the population living near an Amtrak station?
Permalink
BILL HANNAHAN Posted 7:47 am
02 Jul 2008
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 8:12 am
02 Jul 2008
grist.org
Permalink
JMG Posted 8:18 am
02 Jul 2008
The 5% Project
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 8:29 am
02 Jul 2008
grist.org
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 8:51 am
02 Jul 2008
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 10:22 am
02 Jul 2008
"Why should the federal government be in the passenger train business?
If government should be in the train business should it not be in every business, as in the former Soviet Union?"
Did you really think this through before you posted it Bill?
Or did your knee just jerk and hit the keyboard?
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 11:03 am
02 Jul 2008
Permalink
Des Emery Posted 11:33 am
02 Jul 2008
Why is the government involved in maintaining the country's borders? What 'good' is served by the FBI and the CIA? Should the government be involved in the people's everyday life only to the extent that it endorses delivery of goods and services for the benefit of the private enterprise which may or may not choose to be the agent for that delivery?
Finally, Bill, who pays your bills? Are you just against Government involvement on general political principles, or would you benefit financially from government dis-engagement from Amtrak?
Des Emery
Permalink
Kup Posted 11:36 am
02 Jul 2008
the car and airline companies are taking full advantage, gaining huge profits because of this public investment.
Let me cite you some information to remove your ignorance on this subject.
1st Quarter Results for the 3 Biggest Airlines
Southwest did stellar with a $34 million profit.
American not so good at a loss of $328 million.
Delta not so good with a reported loss of $6.4 billion.
Well, maybe the car industry did better. Let's see.
Ford had a profit of $100 million but GM had a loss of $3.3 billion.
So if you add this all up you have results somewhere near a $10 billion loss for the first quarter of this year. My guess is that the second quarter was even worse but the numbers are obviously not out yet.
My point being we are never going to get the public to come around on the issue of Peak Oil/AGW if we speak or write ignorantly. We need everyday conservatives/Republicans to start becoming aware that this isn't the same old liberal BS. We need to end the left/right blame game. We need more education and more facts.
The people on this site and others have an obligation to be well read and post informatively, not just spout non-sense because it ultimately hurts the cause, which, is neither a liberal nor conservative cause.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 1:33 pm
02 Jul 2008
So basically what we now have is a situation where federal and local governments spent hundreds of billions of dollars over the post-WWII period creating a huge infrastructure that is dependent on oil, that won't work properly (if at all) without oil, and that should be converted as quickly as possible to a rail-centered system that can be electrified.
My basic attitude toward conservatives/Republicans is to treat them with the same respect as everyone else and make logical arguments about what is needed to build a more prosperous society. It doesn't help to stick one's head in the sand, talk exclusively about speculation, claim that all we need to do is drill, etc., etc., when we have to face up squarely to what is coming down the pike and move to electric forms of transport.
Permalink
racc Posted 2:31 pm
02 Jul 2008
Time to stop wasting money trying to patch together a crumbling transportation system based on cheap oil. Rail is the future. It is time to start laying tracks.
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 3:31 pm
02 Jul 2008
Permalink
Zephaniah Posted 4:01 pm
02 Jul 2008
If we value SUSTAINABILITY of the biosphere, i.e. making sure that all the plants and creatures on Earth survive through our generation and indefinitely into the future;
AND if we value EQUAL RIGHTS among human beings to share in the resources of the Earth to meet their needs;
THEN we must REGULATE AND LIMIT the human drive to acquire power and money when it blocks the exercise of those values.
Most people agree that we should not let the living Earth be destroyed or allow some populations to starve while others feast. These are the end results of turning all decision making over to market forces.
How can we stop dollar-seeking from becoming a bloodthirsty idol? The protection of the common good through sustainability and human rights must be a constant reference point in the creation and administration of laws.
Make sure you have plenty of vegetables on the barbecue, and put Rover on a leash.
Permalink
BILL HANNAHAN Posted 4:44 pm
02 Jul 2008
Why should the federal government be in the passenger train business?
If government should be in the train business should it not be in every business, as in the former Soviet Union?
Why should tax payers all over the country provide artificially low ticket prices for a tiny fraction of the population living near an Amtrak station?
To know if an industry is being subsidized you must subtract government payouts from the fees and taxes generated by the industry. We are still waiting for that table.
"
...they're in favor of privatization of the rail lines, but when the DOTs begin to build to many privately built toll-roads, then all of a sudden they're worried 'bout the impact of privatization on transit. "
People don't like paying for the road twice. Eliminate the taxes and people could pay a reasonable toll and probably come out ahead.
" why should the government be in the mail delivery business, door-to-door? Why in the vehicle restriction business (via licensing preventing vehicle use by certain groups)? .... Why indeed in the military business (Oh, I forgot about Blackwater, sorry)? Why is the government involved in maintaining the country's borders? What 'good' is served by the FBI and the CIA? ....Finally, Bill, who pays your bills? Are you just against Government involvement on general political principles, or would you benefit financially from government dis-engagement from Amtrak? "
I would eliminate the government's monopoly on mail delivery.
The railroads have been private and regulated for over a hundred years. Amtrak was private before the government took over, and it was supposed to be only for a short time.
I assume your questions about the military are a joke.
I pay my bills.
If the government unloads Amtrak, Amtrak will start paying taxes instead of absorbing them. The deficit will be a bit smaller, that benefits all of us financially.
" Did you really think this through before you posted it Bill?"
Yes, what's your point?
" It doesn't help to stick one's head in the sand,.... when we have to face up squarely to what is coming down the pike and move to electric forms of transport. "
We agree on this. Since rail is much easier to convert it has a big advantage, so why can't it make it in the private sector?
" Every industry that's a natural monopoly, like trains, should be run by the government. "
Why? Most electric power companies are privately owned yet we enjoy some of the lowest electric rates on the planet. The rail industry has performed well and paid huge tax revenues over the last hundred years, what's the problem?
" Most people agree that we should not let the living Earth be destroyed or allow some populations to starve while others feast. These are the end results of turning all decision making over to market forces. "
The soviet government ran everything, look at their human rights and environmental record.
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 6:35 pm
02 Jul 2008
grist.org
Permalink
hapa Posted 8:01 pm
02 Jul 2008
so since most people's states come out basically even, why doesn't everybody just compare expenses to income and say, "i pay my taxes for the things my area gets," and then shut up? i think it's because it really bugs some people that people over there spend their money on the wrong thing.
like welfare, for instance. why are people in rural areas so angry about the social safety nets in cities? the cities are paying for them. it's not coming out of the countryside's (relatively empty) pocket. and it's not like white people in the countryside aren't on the dole, for really good reasons.
same thing with amtrak. don't want to pay for amtrak? pretend you're not. it's not a lot of money.
Permalink
KenG Posted 11:30 pm
02 Jul 2008
Permalink
javaearth Posted 12:58 am
03 Jul 2008
This country is screwed, if we vote McCain.
I only have this one life, so I am going to try my very best to make a positive change.
--- The Happy & Healthy Vegan ---
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 1:26 am
03 Jul 2008
They received their rights of ways in the 19th century from the Federal Government, a giveaway
They were responsible for a huge amount of suffering of the farmers, who made up the bulk of the population; it got so bad that the Populist movement was based partly on the raw deal they were getting from the railroads
The railroads were the archetypal "robber barons" of yore, and they managed to plunge the country into many depressions. One of the reasons for this was that they overbuilt the rail systems, because if two companies wanted to compete for one route, they had to build two rail systems. Very inefficient.
They were so hated, that I think one of the reasons rail was ignored after WWII was because everybody was sick of the railroad companies. "You wanna deal with that?", I think was the attitude, and in a way, I might ask the same question now, which leads finally to
They let the rails deteriorate, they didn't pay attention to the automobile or figure out a good way to compete, they probably just took their capital, milked the railroads, and went somewhere else with it.
So, I would say that we had a pretty good one hundred year history of private rail with which to understand the pitfalls of private ownership. That's probably why the world over you see government-run rails...and government-run utilities...and government-run oil companies...and government-run health care industries...
That's not to say that everything should be run by the government, of course not. At this point in industrial civilization, we have a pretty good idea of what should be run, and what should not be run, by the government. Most stuff should not be, but the basic infrastructure -- education, health, much of transportation, much of energy -- should, because those are society-wide systems, that are used throughout society, in innumerable and hard to predict ways, and societies thrive when those basic systems thrive. Markets are not good at providing system-wide services; governments are better, particularly when you have a democracy so that the citizens can oversee the government.
Permalink
BILL HANNAHAN Posted 3:15 am
03 Jul 2008
Right. Private companies competing within the framework of a set of regulations. It's not perfect, just better then the other options.
" why doesn't everybody just compare expenses to income and say, "i pay my taxes for the things my area gets," and then shut up? "
So if you paid several thousand dollars in taxes and the government builds a $20million bridge to nowhere near you, just shut up? Most people spend their own hard earned money on themselves more wisely than the government spends it on others.
" Other countries are investing so much into renewable and here we are messing up everything we touch! This country is screwed, if we vote McCain.
"
Ah yes, we need more corn ethanol and windmills. Let's compete with Denmark for most expensive electricity in the world.
" don't want to pay for amtrak? pretend you're not. it's not a lot of money. "
$10 billion, not a lot of money? It could pay for the prototype cellulosic ethanol plant that is going to save us.
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 3:17 am
03 Jul 2008
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_populat ...
Permalink
BILL HANNAHAN Posted 4:21 am
03 Jul 2008
Education is the key to everything.
A recent study showed that U.S. children placed 29 in math and science, behind Croatia, Iceland and Latvia, see page 23 of the pdf.
http://www.pisa.oecd.org/dataoecd/15/13/39725224.pdf
Our kids graduate from school without really understanding how the world works. That makes them vulnerable to bad advice, like Amory Lovins' snake oil.
My recommendation for education.
Test the students at the end of each year. When we test students we're really testing the teacher. The teacher should get a grade based on how much their students' knowledge has improved.
Publish a report of the end of year that contains a list of all schools. Each teacher would be listed along with the grades that they receive for each class that they taught.
Allow parents to send their children the school of their choice. There would be no cherry picking. When applications exceed capacity a lottery would determine who gets in.
The money goes with the child. Parents can choose between public or private schools.
This system would point out which schools have the most effective teachers. The best teachers would command much higher salaries in a competitive marketplace, and the ineffective teachers would have to find work elsewhere. Public schools would compete with private schools on a level playing field.
The worst thing that could happen under this system is that there would be no change because the public schools are doing such a great job.
A similar system of competition within a framework of regulation can be created for the other markets you list.
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 4:45 am
03 Jul 2008
Some Amtrak trains are consistently very late, such as the Coast Starlight that runs from Seattle to Los Angeles and back. The reason is a gross underfunding, not the subsidies that Americans constantly whine about. (And BTW, you should go to Europe and try your whining about subsidies there. They'd probably enroll you in kindergarten or place you in a home for the mentally deficient.)
One thing caused by the gross underfunding of our railroads is that freight and passenger trains must share the same tracks. This is ludicrous and does not at all work for passenger rail. Despite the fact that freight trains are supposed to yield right-of-way, having to share tracks with freight trains causes massive delays to passenger trains. This is not the only reason for delays, but a separate track system for passenger trains would greatly reduce the delays and would even eliminate some of them. Additionally, freight trains weigh more than passenger trains and that extra weight causes the need for more maintenance, which is another reason passenger and freight tracks should be separate as they are in Europe and Japan, to name two places I know about.
Private companies, such as Southern Pacific and Union Pacific, own the tracks and don't spend adequate amounts on maintenance. This causes more delays. If the tracks were government-owned and properly maintained, many delays would be eliminated. Private companies have will obviously not adequately fund track maintenance.
Another reason for delays is that at ships have priority at train trestles. I was on a train going from Oakland to Sacramento, California, a trip of 80 miles, that was delayed about 45 minutes waiting for a ship. While there are logistical reasons for prioritizing ship traffic, such as the difficulty of stopping a large ship, the entire system is wrongly geared toward prioritizing business interests over people. If I had had to be in Sacramento at a certain time, I would would have been late, even if I had left myself some leeway. This is not an acceptable way to run a train system. Instead, shipping companies should have to schedule the ships so that they do not interfere with trains.
Some trains, like the commuter one from the San Francisco Bay Area to Sacramento and back (Capitol) are almost always on time.
In conclusion, it's easy to see why a government owned and run railroad is far preferable to a privately owned and run one. If you want an efficient railroad where trains run on time, the former is the only way to go! And funding for it should come from owners and operators of private motor vehicles, because those people are causing massive environmental and ecological harms by their driving.
Permalink
JMG Posted 5:26 am
03 Jul 2008
The 5% Project
Permalink
JMG Posted 5:30 am
03 Jul 2008
The 5% Project
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 5:56 am
03 Jul 2008
In which case, my education plan contains the following:
universal preschool, from 6 months or one year up, with full maternity leave protection;
all schools through high school have no more than 15 students, and coupled with the Feds matching, say, 50% of the salary for teachers, would mean a much larger, well-paid teacher workforce
Science teachers and art teachers for every, say, 100 students
High school basically disappears, people go to college at 16, where
state college is free, and as in Denmark, everyone gets a stipend for room/board/books, and also as in Denmark, that means all the way up through Ph.D.
Permalink
BILL HANNAHAN Posted 5:58 am
03 Jul 2008
" Some Amtrak trains are consistently very late,.... it's easy to see why a government owned and run railroad is far preferable to a privately owned and run one. If you want an efficient railroad where trains run on time, the former is the only way to go! "
Amtrak is government owned.
" A word about environmental benefits of the train. I suggest that they will not be anywhere near as great as claimed. Comparing "the train of the future" with the automobiles of the present is unfair. Planes and cars in the future will be more ecologically friendly. "
http://venturebeat.com/2008/04/11/why-the-california-high ...
http://www.publicpurpose.com/n-hsrfra.htm
" And do you propose moving the schools to serve the students when the parents in the poor neighborhoods want to select the good school? "
Since the dollars per student would be the same, schools in poor neighborhoods would have lower overhead costs and could bid higher salaries for the best teachers.
Wealthy parents would have to drive their kids to the poor neighborhoods to get the best schools, but after a generation or two of top notch education there would be no poor neighborhoods.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 6:19 am
03 Jul 2008
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 6:58 am
03 Jul 2008
Private trains with only a few cars for corporatye clioents, like corporate jets are used now. Executive high speed trains.
More of an airline like model would be good, a lot of high s[eed trains that "fly" in these tubes. Maybe airports could be transitioned into high speed rail hubs? Eventually air traffic reduced to a miniumum.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 7:00 am
03 Jul 2008
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
BILL HANNAHAN Posted 7:10 am
03 Jul 2008
Testing, freedom of choice, equality, competition.
" as oil prices rise, airline travel will become more and more expensive, as will intercity car travel. "
Washington to Boston on the Acela train costs $170 - $250 plus a taxpayer subsidy of perhaps twice that. Greyhound makes the trip for $80 with no subsidy and they pay taxes.
With all the advantages of rail you point out why isn't it the reverse?
We could save a lot of tax dollars by buying the train passengers a free ticket on Grayhound.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 7:50 am
03 Jul 2008
In fact, private schools often don't even give out grades. Different children learn differently -- so yes, there might be a good reason to have choice, which can operate just fine within a public school system -- assuming the transportation is feasible.
Interesting question about rail vs. car paying revenues -- what about all of those car imports? You'd get revenue if there were tariffs, but noooooo, can't have tariffs.
The Acela is a much nicer experience than Greyhound, so you're partially paying for higher quality. I don't know how Greyhound will do as oil prices rise either. But the trains, say from Chicago to the east coast are often cheaper than flying. So it depends, and I'm not an expert on transportation pricing -- but again, clearly nonelectricity transportation is going to be more and more problematic.
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 8:46 am
03 Jul 2008
grist.org
Permalink
BILL HANNAHAN Posted 3:47 pm
03 Jul 2008
" If by testing you mean some sort of standardized national testing, no. Teaching to the test is bad, "
Only if it's a bad test. For example, have every world history teacher submit every test question they asked on world history. Delete the duplicates and put them on a DVD, say 20,000 questions with answers on every aspect of world history.
Give a copy of the DVD to each teacher and student. Tell them the test questions will be taken from the DVD. How would you teach to the test Jon?
Any student who can memorize all those questions and answers has a very good start on world history.
" In fact, private schools often don't even give out grades. "
How do you measure the quality of the teachers without a standardized test?
" They are much more flexible because they don't have all of these mandates and requirements, they can do better exactly because nobody trying to force something down their throats. In addition, they usually have small class sizes -- often with several teachers. "
Good point. The system I propose would have no mandates. A schools success or failure would be based entirely on performance.
My school would have large classes taught by star teachers with a proven track record of inspiring students to excel. There would be lower cost teaching assistants to give individual attention, and a lot of computer assisted learning.
So your school is much different than mine. At best only one of us has found the best possible way to educate children, and most likely neither of us has the best possible system.
That is why I propose a structure that will allow testing of new ideas. Ideas that improve performance will be kept, evolving the best possible education system. The worst that can happen is that we will find that the public schools cannot be improved upon, and I think that is unlikely.
" The Acela is a much nicer experience than Greyhound, so you're partially paying for higher quality. "
I would rather let the customer pay for the higher quality. Add the subsidy to the ticket price and see what happens.
" Can you explain how competition works in the U.S. electricity sector, which you site as an aspirational model? "
It varies. Generally there is a public service commission that has to approve rate hikes. The utility has to show the commission that it is providing service at the lowest cost and needs the hike.
Stockholders want a return on their investment. If the utility is mismanaged they get a new CEO, the CEO gets some new VP's, the VP's get new plant managers etc.
So running the utility efficiently and reliably provides job security. In a government monopoly who you know is more important than the quality of your work. You have to screw up pretty bad to get fired. Look at the former Soviet Union, West Germany and North Korea for examples.
Permalink