President Joe Biden — perhaps the nation’s biggest Amtrak fan — is set to promote new federal investments for trains on the heavily trafficked Northeast Corridor.
The Democratic president is headed to Bear, Delaware, on Monday to announce more than $16 billion in new funding that will go toward 25 passenger rail projects between Boston and Washington, the White House says. Bear is located about 12 miles (20 kilometers) from Biden’s home of Wilmington.
His remarks will be held at the Amtrak Bear Maintenance Shops, where trains are maintained and repaired. The investments, the White House says, will help trains run faster, cut delays and create union jobs.
Why is decent rail service, like basic medical care, a contentious issue in the U.S.? Even this article casts shade by saying ‘Bear is located about 12 miles (20 kilometers) from Biden’s home of Wilmington.’ As if having access to public transportation is some kind of left wing elite privelege that no one else can utilize.
Because of capitalism and the US oil and car industry.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy
Because conservatives have tricked people into believing that spending money for quality of life improvements is bad.
It cuts into the money we give military contractors.
Genuinely millions of people think the government doing stuff is socialism / communism.
I mean, sometimes it is socialism, and that’s not a bad thing.
Thats not what socialism is. Socialism is basically collective ownership of all of the means of production. Its a term used by a variety of egalitarian (classless) political theories.
One part of the problem is that Congress has a rural bias, so there are a lot of rural Congresspersons who don’t see the benefit of better rail service so they won’t vote for it.
deleted by creator
Less not benefit and more that it basically destroys highway based economies, that is to say it destroys all non agrarian rural economies.
Car companies successfully got out ahead of Adam Something and NJB viewers to conspiricize 15 minute cities
Why is decent rail service treated as something only the north east can have? Like, I’m glad they’re getting more, but it can be frustrating how there’s a fair amount in one area and basically none west of the Appalachian mountains.
Because of Republicans.
America is about twice the size of all of Europe. Railroads were controlled by monopoly rich people. Once America became more industrialized, planes became a better cargo transit option. That and the interstate system made trucks an even better economical option. Railroads were not an option as they were expensive and land intensive(which also meant more money for acquiring land)
For medical care, the US government actually spends a bunch on healthcare on par with most other countries. Just that a majority of the monet will go to a bloated medical company into a billionair’s pocket before any of it applies to an individual.
So, extreme capitalism ruined both. Yet we have politicians and people who think we should push further towards a capitalistic way of running things…
Railroads are land intensive but somehow 27 lane highways aren’t? Also wait until you find out how expensive it is to maintain all of those highways…
Railroads have always been business owned. So acquiring land is expensive for them. Highways and interstates are government owned. So they just forced owners to accept the appraised value.
And for whatever reason you think we couldn’t do literally the exact same thing we did with highways to build nationalized rail?
I wish we did. It seems logical that railroads should be government run transit option.
We could call it, let’s see, hmmm …. America’s Track? I wish there was a way to shorten that …. AmeriTrack? … AmRail?
You might be on to something, but I gotta say this all sounds vaguely familiar for some reason 🤔
Do you have even the slightest idea how much land we already have for railroads that already existed but have been abandoned?
No they aren’t. Amtrak is literally a publicly owned company. Basically all passenger rail in the United States is Amtrak in the modern era
California is as densely populated as Spain, which has an excellent high speed rail network, the northeastern US has densities comparable with Central Europe and the rest of the East coast is well within the ranges seen in western Europe.
the u.s. spends up to twice as much on health care, and doesn’t cover ‘as much’ or ‘as many’, as those other nations that have nationalized or ‘socialized’ health care programs.
America is about twice the size
I’m going with “size doesn’t matter” here; it’s all politics. On the one hand we have a political requirement that all these long distance routes be kept running, even if they’ll never be viable, never be funded adequately. But on the other hand most of the population is in urban/suburban areas that could be effectively served by good rail service. We don’t have the political will power to create good rail service where it’s most effective, most needed, but we do waste money on bad rail service where it will never be effective
Railroads were not an option as they were expensive and land intensive
I’m not buying this, since the tracks and right of way used to exist. Yes it’s really expensive to acquire now, and that’s going to happen since centers of population change but you can’t use this as an historical reason, because historically we had a lot more train service.
Yeah I’d love to take a train from Ohio to California if it didn’t take longer than the greyhound for more money than a plane ticket. At our size low speed long distance passenger rail is unwanted. But I think a lot of people would be comfortable with a 1-2 hour ride from Cleveland to Chicago and another hour or two to St. Louis, and so on until they’re in California by the end of the day or so. And it should be subsidized to allow it to compete with the heavily subsidized highway and air systems.
Don’t get me wrong, I’d also love to take long distance train rides and believe it more than worthwhile to build them all up to modern high speed lines. Some services are worth more than immediate profit/loss.
However the reality is long distance lines will never have high ridership, never be profitable, so it is disingenuous to require those lines while claiming rail never makes a profit.
We need to make a decision and stick with it:
— is good train service a societal good that benefits us all over the long term, in which case the long distance lines deserve better funding, along with the entire system ?
— Or do we focus on profit/loss, in which case we need to close the long distance lines, the connectivity to to less populated towns, small cities, counties, entire states, the integration to bring our country together, in favor of greatly increased inter-city rail where it is most needed, most effective and can be profitable by serving half the population in the highest population areas?
I believe it’s a public good and we deserve it regardless of profit. Just like mail. Though I think prioritizing high population areas is worthwhile in part due to the fact that it will help fund the unprofitable bits.
But the current air travel system cannot be sustained long term. Whether by willful decarbonization or by lack of oil in the ground airplanes will have to move towards alternative fuel sources. On one hand there’s hydrogen but I’m a huge supporter of using rail as a more efficient and affordable solution if we build the infrastructure in.
US has an incredible number of railroads. They are freight-only.
The US spends way more per Capita on healthcare than most developed nations. Where are you getting your stats?
For medical care, the US government actually spends a bunch on healthcare on par with most other countries
I think he’s technically correct, by virtue of lying by omission. US government spends money on devices like Medicare and Veterans Services that are much less expensive (although I’m sure still obscene) vs US spends a lot more than anyone else by virtue of privately funded services with Multiple levels of profit-making for most of us. As always the only real answer is that it’s more complicated than anyone expects
– as an employed citizen with a family, my employer and I pay a stupendous amount for my healthcare and everything I spend includes multiple levels of profit taking
– as a retired Veteran, my ex father-in-law pays nothing for medical care. He uses services paid by US Government, with fewer layers and no profit taking. As the largest user of services such as drugs, they can negotiate better rates. Granted, service can be poor but that’s directly related to insufficient funding
Two thumbs up from me. Totally agree.
Maybe North America but Europe is larger than the US and especially the contiguous US. There are also a shit ton of different countries in Europe which all have different laws and standards which are not easy to work with. They seemed to be able to do just fine. Although they did not cater near as much to auto manufacturers and rip up rail line we did in the US.
As for medical care, the US spends significantly more per person (19% of GDP vs 10-11% for most others) and you are correct that the main reason for that is bloated medical companies.
The biggest Amtrak fan? Maybe he can stop fucking them over by refusing to enforce existing law to give right-of-way preference to passenger rail.
If he did that then warren buffet might only earn an extra billion instead of the 1.2 billion he was hoping for. The horror!
He doesn’t seem to be a big fan of commercial rail either as the federal government stepped in to quash workers striking over lax safety shortly before that train derailed and dumped toxic waste all over a city in Ohio.
That’s incorrect. The administration worked with that union to meet their demands after the initial pause of the strike. That part didn’t get nearly as much news traffic as the first part though.
You seen the same non-rail union statement that everyone be posting. Demands were not met, a few unions got less than they planned to strike over. Others got nothing.
Hmmm who should I trust more: the statements released by the unions or some rando pushing a political agenda on the Internet?
No I know the exact statement you’ve seen, from the International Brotherhood of Electricians
You are incorrect. Most demands were not met.
Awesome. The north east corridor should have more trains.
More trains, faster trains, fewer interruptions of service. This is the closest we have to good train service, the most in demand, the most useful. We’ll use everything we can get, rather than bitch and moan
meanwhile in nebraska if you feed a donkey the good oats, he might move a little faster
Puffy vest under suit jacket is my favourite new look.
YAY trains!
Indeed, yay trains, and I unironically also like that look. In the thumbnail I thought it was a sweater at first. It says I’m the President, but I’m here to work. Rail–any rail–would be a significant improvement in American infrastructure in so many places. I don’t live anywhere near the NE, but I know it has to succeed for there to be hope for the rest of us in my lifetime.
The thing is that Acela has been a huge hit in the NorthEast since it opened . It has displaced millions of car trips, has displaced short-haul flights, has improved traffic in some of the most congested areas, improved air traffic in some of the most congested airspace . Imagine what it could do if it were actual high speed rail, if service rose to supply the need!
However Acela is based in the idea that no one will pay for high speed rail. Instead we have literally a century of billion dollar projects before we get there
I live just far enough to be jealous but I think it needs acknowledgement that the north east as a fine train system. He used to take the train to work from Scranton Pennsylvania to Congress. You can’t do shit like that outside of that region. Like imagine taking a train from Milwaukee to Chicago on a regular basis or from flint to Cleveland. But Philly to NYC? Easy and under $20. It’s good that they’re expanding this, but I do wish any other part of the country got that love. New Jersey has a reasonable passenger rail system that takes you to suburbs. Why don’t more states do that
Canada, with its insane metro sprawls and vastly distributed rural and northern populations, is optimistic about good precedents being set as well.
Not normally a big Biden fan, but honestly the patagonia under a jacket is a good look. We should be writing this down.
Maybe for people who wouldn’t burst into flames immediately.
That’s a coat.
Holy based Joe Biden
Yes. Taxpayer money to for-profit corporations that have been posting record profits for years!
‘based’ Joe! Lol.
Rubes.
Amtrack has never once been profitable. Clown
How much do their executives get paid?
Profit can easily be manipulated by just raising salaries. All of a sudden its a business expense and not profit.
But surely you understand this, right? Clown?
Why don’t you look this shit up instead of asking ill-conceived, leading questions?
Amtrack is a public corporation that is for all intents and purposes owned by the federal government. The executives make an average of $250k a year, ranging from ~$50k to $650k. That’s slightly less (from what I can find) that what BNSF pays their executives.
“Record profts every year”
Called out
“Well actually”
Goal post circustry
Okay. Would you rather talk about their overpaid executives?
You’re just trying to avoid admitting that they have the money for these projects, but it’s being funneled to a few people who don’t do any actual work.
Do me a favor and check how much these executives make. Please. Tell me how much free money they have to make massive infrastructure projects.
Next time try to actually know the minimal amount of information about something before you default to your blind talking point spiel. It’s really embarrassing
I’m not going to do your research for you.
If you want to believe that they’re just scraping by and need taxpayer handouts to expand, then I’ve got a bridge to sell you.
Why aren’t these being paid for with the profits from the business?
Passenger rail, in the places it’s successful, is often seen as a service rather than a profitable private business. Similar to the mail, or the billions of dollars that go towards car infrastructure.
The question shouldn’t be “why aren’t the private entities paying for it” but rather “why do private industries own this?”. Look at the UK: they famously privatized their rail network and it’s gone to shit ever since.
That makes way more sense. If it needs government money to stay afloat, it should be owned by the government.
That way the only people getting paid are the ones doing the work, not the ones who ‘own’ the business.
Woah are we getting some PR marketing on Lemmy for politicians lol that was fast
(OK that’s just in reference to “perhaps the nation’s biggest amtrak fan!” Just lol)
To be fair, “Amtrak Joe” sounds a hell of a lot better than “genocide Joe”
Huh
I hope they actually start refurbishing the rails themselves soon, Trains keep getting bigger and heavier but lines stay the same. Another huge derailment happened a few days ago, right?
I kinda feel like the highly profitable railroads should be forced to pay for their own upgrades. Especially since they keep making trains bigger to increase their profits.
That’s kind of dumb, no offence, because if companies are in charge then they’ll intentionally do a bare minimum cut corners hack job. Just tax them and other (arguably worse) industries and use the tax revenue to make a proper improved rail system.
You may actually have a good idea there. I hadn’t even considered that option.
I’ve love it, but want way more than 16b. The entire west needs Acelas or better! And new rail lines for passenger rail in places like CO and the cascadia area.
Yo where that slime mold map at?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_United_States_railroad_labor_dispute
“Of the railways involved in the dispute, six bargained together, forming the National Carriers Conference Committee. These six were Union Pacific, Norfolk Southern, CSX, BNSF, Kansas City Southern, and Canadian National. Amtrak and Canadian Pacific bargained separately.”
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/biden-signs-bill-block-us-railroad-strike-2022-12-02/
https://www.npr.org/2022/12/02/1140265413/rail-workers-biden-unions-freight-railroads-averted-strike
“But at this critical moment for our economy, in the holiday season, we cannot let our strongly held conviction for better outcomes for workers deny workers the benefits of the bargain they reached, and hurl this nation into a devastating rail freight shutdown.”
sounds like someone is protecting their railroad bribes
Terrible plan. from an expert in rails: https://mastodon.social/users/Alon/statuses/111363609554111161
Expert? He says that those are ‘things that go against future high-speed rail’. There’s no future high-speed rail in USA. Not unless he’s talking about year 5000. Stopping investment because it goes against projects that USA is simply unable to build doesn’t make much sense.
Spending way too much money on projects is why we can’t build. The best thing to do is starve the beasts making money of of way too expensive projects. If the return on investment isn’t good then the smart thing to do is not invest. If Biden wants to support rail (high speed or otherwise) he needs to reform the systems that make costs too high, not keep funding them.
What makes the cost too high?
deleted by creator
Alon who I linked to has done a lot of study on that. I suggest you follow them and their studies.
I don’t have a lot of time to dig through someone’s history, so if you could link directly, that would be great. But thanks.
I do agree that lowering useless governmental barriers to rail would be good for rail, but I also think increased funding would be good.
https://pedestrianobservations.com/ is their blog with many articles over more than a decade. https://transitcosts.com/ is their project website (they works for a university studying transit)
