I love to look at the way politicians use language.
But then again, I've been known to make my own sausage, so I've got a strong stomach.
This morning I was listening to the Sec. Transportation discuss Amtrak. Next year's budget lists zero dollars for Amtrak. He says the Administration is really proposing nothing for Amtrak, that's just a way to force Congress to engage in reform.
What they want to do, he said, was move it to a more private model, where Amtrak lines are paid for from passenger income. What the Gov't is supposed to pay for, according to him is the rail infrastructure; the track, the bridges and the tunnels, sort of like the Interstate Highway System. Of course, that might mean (to apply his example to a concrete location) you couldn't get off the train in Kansas, if the state didn't want to pay for passenger service. The "road" would be there, but no offramps.
Given the way in which Amtrak (which had record income and ridership last year) is working (commuter runs, like DC-NY, and Los Angeles to Santa Barbara have lots of passengers: Long haul. like Los Angeles to Seattle, or Portland to Chicago don't) this will kill long distance rail travel.
This is, however, a subtle dodge, and a bit of subterfuge. Amtrak doesn't own the rails, the tunnels, the bridges. Rather it is forced to use the rails of private companies, not quite at their pleasure. The gov't pays them to allow Amtrak to run passenger rail, but they get to set the speeds, and have priority (which is why a long distance ride is almost never on time).
So the $1 billion they say they are willing to spend on the infrastructure (those rails, tunnels and bridges) would be to pay the frieght haulers, by way of removing the cost of replacing track from Boulder to Kansas City, while no longer demanding that they allow trains to run on the tracks the people are, now, paying for.
Gotta love it.
But then again, I've been known to make my own sausage, so I've got a strong stomach.
This morning I was listening to the Sec. Transportation discuss Amtrak. Next year's budget lists zero dollars for Amtrak. He says the Administration is really proposing nothing for Amtrak, that's just a way to force Congress to engage in reform.
What they want to do, he said, was move it to a more private model, where Amtrak lines are paid for from passenger income. What the Gov't is supposed to pay for, according to him is the rail infrastructure; the track, the bridges and the tunnels, sort of like the Interstate Highway System. Of course, that might mean (to apply his example to a concrete location) you couldn't get off the train in Kansas, if the state didn't want to pay for passenger service. The "road" would be there, but no offramps.
Given the way in which Amtrak (which had record income and ridership last year) is working (commuter runs, like DC-NY, and Los Angeles to Santa Barbara have lots of passengers: Long haul. like Los Angeles to Seattle, or Portland to Chicago don't) this will kill long distance rail travel.
This is, however, a subtle dodge, and a bit of subterfuge. Amtrak doesn't own the rails, the tunnels, the bridges. Rather it is forced to use the rails of private companies, not quite at their pleasure. The gov't pays them to allow Amtrak to run passenger rail, but they get to set the speeds, and have priority (which is why a long distance ride is almost never on time).
So the $1 billion they say they are willing to spend on the infrastructure (those rails, tunnels and bridges) would be to pay the frieght haulers, by way of removing the cost of replacing track from Boulder to Kansas City, while no longer demanding that they allow trains to run on the tracks the people are, now, paying for.
Gotta love it.