From RailwayAge:
In a letter to United Transportation Union President Mike Futhey, presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Senator Barack Obama (D-Ill.) has pledged to "push for Amtrak, commuter rail, and public transit system funding, ensuring strong employment levels well into the future." He also promised to "preserve the sanctity of the Railroad Retirement and Federal Employers Liability Act (FELA)," The UTU, which originally backed Senator Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) for the nomination, was quick to make its peace with Obama and earn the prized "personal letter," which is dated July 5.
In the letter, Obama reaffirms his previously stated support for Amtrak -- he is a co-sponsor of the Passenger Rail Investment and Innovation Act of 2007 -- and adds transit rail funding to the list. His broader statement on railroads, part of a background paper called "Strengthening America's Transportation," also supports the development of high-speed passenger rail and a strengthening of rail freight capacity "because our demand for rail transportation has never been greater, leaving many transportation hubs stretched to capacity."
Chuck Norris on Copenhagen
The U.S.-India climate ‘partnership’
Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success
Comments
View as Flat
Delay And Deny Posted 4:07 am
11 Jul 2008
Any President will have some level of funding. Saying he will "push for it" is meaningless (but, oh yes, it's Barack Obama talking). What does he mean? What levels of funding and what programs and how much for each?
Why does Grist scrutinize some politicians and then let their favorite son get away with such fluff?
Permalink
Jay Alt Posted 4:20 am
11 Jul 2008
Sen. Obama's interest in expanding high speed and commuter rail links through the midwest has been discussed here. Lobbing softheaded questions doesn't raise the level of discussion.
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 4:24 am
11 Jul 2008
Really? At what point will it become a private profit making enterprise? Didn't it used to be? Didn't robber barons make fortunes on railroads? If they are so popular why can't they pay for themselves?
Hint: Time marches on...
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 4:52 am
11 Jul 2008
Do we need to spend some tax dollars to get the rail system, especially the passenger part, up and running?
Most likely.
Am I happy about having some of my tax money spent kick-starting high speed passenger rail?
Absolutely!
Cheaper than invading Saudi Arabia or Mexico to steal their oil.
Permalink
Laurence Aurbach Posted 5:00 am
11 Jul 2008
GM's descent into pointlessness has occurred despite its status as one of the U.S.' -- and the world's -- most heavily subsidized companies. Those who doubt this need only reference the highway bills of the multi-hundred-billion-dollar variety that Congress routinely passes that make cars in the world's largest car market a necessity.
Other automakers are singing the blues:
Sales were down 28 percent at the Ford Motor Company, 21 percent at Toyota and 18 percent at General Motors and Nissan. ... Hardest hit was Chrysler, whose U.S. sales fell 36 percent after it discontinued some models in a bid to increase profit margins. ...
Ford sold 55 percent fewer SUV's in June and 40.5 percent fewer of its F-series pickup truck, which has been the best-selling vehicle in the United States on an annual basis for 26 consecutive years. The company's chief sales analyst, George Pipas, said SUV sales are "not likely to rebound really at any point," and its marketing chief, James Farley, said, "We think it's going to persist for many months to come, possibly longer." ...
Record-high gasoline prices, a housing slump and weak consumer confidence have led to a sharp decline in sales of many vehicles, particularly the largest and most profitable ones.
Ped Shed Blog
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 5:30 am
11 Jul 2008
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 6:03 am
11 Jul 2008
"a national organization or organizations that will push Obama once in office"
Gee...what about every miscreant group of America haters worldwide...that's who is supporting him now.
Permalink
GreenEngineer Posted 6:17 am
11 Jul 2008
Permalink
PermieWriter Posted 6:23 am
11 Jul 2008
Eat what you grow, grow what you eat
Permalink
Des Emery Posted 12:20 pm
11 Jul 2008
An un-popular President, like Bush, has to actively undermine public enterprise in order to impose his view. On the other hand, he has to actually be quite secretive, hiding the truth from the voters, to bring the government into line with his private purposes.
Des Emery
Permalink
Jay Alt Posted 2:12 pm
11 Jul 2008
Perhaps to the accounting and history impaired. Decades of US presidents and lawmakers subsidized the rail tycoons with pet loans and huge land grants. (Conservatives call these 'handouts', unless they're giving them to favored corporations). This bought time for the business to grow.
Airline prices will double in the next 3 years. Travelers will look for alternate transportation and switch to more efficient forms. Our passenger rail system needs to be improved and expanded.
Permalink
archigeek Posted 12:33 am
12 Jul 2008
The mellotron is your friend.
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 3:39 am
12 Jul 2008
Yes, good point and thank you for reminding me. Having recently read a biography of Andrew Carnegie I should have remembered that!
But, that then raises a new question. If transportation systems are subsidized (and yes, I admit, we subsidize the automobile mass transit system), then there is nothing Holy about "rail" any more than cars, trucks or airplanes.
Quite frankly, I'm amazed that environmentalists like rail so much, since to me, an airport, with it's limited land use is much more environmentally friendly than laying miles of steel rails all over the countryside.
More importantly though -- these are manmade, not technological -- decisions. And so, they have to be treated with a different 'tude than some holier than thou diatribe about how "the system" won't let us have choo-choo trains..
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 3:41 am
12 Jul 2008
What truth? What hiding? In this day and age of the Omnipresent Blogger, can anything be "hidden"? At the very least, any opinion that can be expressed, pretty much is expressed somewhere on the Internet.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 10:35 am
12 Jul 2008
Why transportation always needs to be subsidized is an interesting question, and seems to indicate that you can't capture the returns to society. For instance, if the city center was only open to bikes and walking, the health care costs, for instance, would go down, because people would be healthier and there would be less deaths from accidents. But you couldn't capture that by charging the users of the city center.
Permalink
Jay Alt Posted 3:47 pm
12 Jul 2008
Car culture has stubborn roots in Southern California. The vast majority of Southern Californians are holding tenaciously to the privacy and convenience of their own cars, over the crush of humanity on the region's trains and buses.
But longtime riders notice more professionals aboard a system that has mostly served low-income workers who don't have the option to drive.
Now the parking structure at the Willow Street stop in Long Beach is full by 8:30 a.m. -- and spaces used to go empty all day. Some of the riders are not so much new to the system as they are nagged by gas prices to take it more often.
Permalink