This Just In
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Bold Prediction: The Hoyas will win at least 1 BE game in 2023.
Posts: 10,584
|
Post by This Just In on May 14, 2015 8:03:47 GMT -5
Amtrak train crash, with 7 people dead, more than 200 injured..is now the time to for the U.S. to invest in its infrastructure?
The Congressional House panel also voted to cut Amtrak budget just hours after the deadly train crash. .
“Starving rail of funding will not enable safer train travel,” Rep. Nita Lowey said.
11 years ago the U.S. was ranked the #1 country in infrastructure, now the U.S. is ranked #12.
|
|
|
Post by HometownHoya on May 14, 2015 10:37:28 GMT -5
US is ranked #12 in the country in infrastructure!! Damn!!
Also, you can't blame it on infrastructure when an engineer takes a 50mph corner at 100mph.
Need to be more creative to push your agenda. Maybe talk about decaying bridges if you want to discuss infrastructure needs.
|
|
|
Post by HometownHoya on May 14, 2015 10:58:03 GMT -5
Also just so you know, various safety stats per billion passenger-miles:
Drivers or passengers in cars or light trucks faced a fatality risk of 7.3 per billion passenger-miles. Motorcycles had a fatality rate of 212 per billion passenger miles, by far the highest of all modes. The fatality rate of train travel is approximately 0.15 per billion passenger miles. The fatality rate per billion passenger-miles for buses is relatively low, 0.11. (excluding victims of crime) Excluding acts of suicide and terrorism, commercial aviation was the safest mode of travel in the United States, with 0.07 fatalities per billion passenger miles
|
|
SirSaxa
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 15,620
|
Post by SirSaxa on May 14, 2015 11:48:25 GMT -5
Also, you can't blame it on infrastructure when an engineer takes a 50mph corner at 100mph. Well... actually, yes indeed you can. “We feel that had such a system been installed in this section of track, this accident would not have occurred,” Robert Sumwalt, a member of the National Transportation Safety Board, said during a news conference on Wednesday. What system would that be? For the second time in two years, a passenger train traveling well above its speed limit has derailed, leaving a trail of death and injuries. And for the second time, existing technology that might have prevented the accident was missing.
Amtrak has installed the technology, known as positive train control, on parts of its rail network in the Northeast Corridor. But the technology, designed to automatically slow or stop a train to prevent accidents, was not available on a critical stretch of track in Philadelphia where Train No. 188 derailed on Tuesday night, killing at least seven and injuring more than 200.www.nytimes.com/2015/05/14/us/technology-that-could-have-prevented-amtrak-derailment-was-absent.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0The USA used to invest in itself aggressively, which is how we got the national highway system, the internet, and so much more. If we want to keep the US at the forefront of science and technology, transportation, communications, water availability, electrical power and so much more, we need to invest. New and well-maintained roads and bridges included. If we want the US Economy to flourish, it takes government investment in basic infrastructure and in scientific research. Of course, if you would prefer to vote for a party that doesn't believe in government, that says government is always the problem, and that thinks a free, unfettered and unregulated market can do everything better than the government - everything except the military - well, then you get what you'd expect. A country with a rapidly deteriorating infrastructure.
|
|
This Just In
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Bold Prediction: The Hoyas will win at least 1 BE game in 2023.
Posts: 10,584
|
Post by This Just In on May 14, 2015 13:16:12 GMT -5
US is ranked #12 in the country in infrastructure!! Damn!! Also, you can't blame it on infrastructure when an engineer takes a 50mph corner at 100mph. Need to be more creative to push your agenda. Maybe talk about decaying bridges if you want to discuss infrastructure needs.Here is a story that kills 2 birds with one stone.
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on May 14, 2015 14:37:50 GMT -5
Also, you can't blame it on infrastructure when an engineer takes a 50mph corner at 100mph. Well... actually, yes indeed you can. “We feel that had such a system been installed in this section of track, this accident would not have occurred,” Robert Sumwalt, a member of the National Transportation Safety Board, said during a news conference on Wednesday. What system would that be? For the second time in two years, a passenger train traveling well above its speed limit has derailed, leaving a trail of death and injuries. And for the second time, existing technology that might have prevented the accident was missing.
Amtrak has installed the technology, known as positive train control, on parts of its rail network in the Northeast Corridor. But the technology, designed to automatically slow or stop a train to prevent accidents, was not available on a critical stretch of track in Philadelphia where Train No. 188 derailed on Tuesday night, killing at least seven and injuring more than 200.www.nytimes.com/2015/05/14/us/technology-that-could-have-prevented-amtrak-derailment-was-absent.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0The USA used to invest in itself aggressively, which is how we got the national highway system, the internet, and so much more. If we want to keep the US at the forefront of science and technology, transportation, communications, water availability, electrical power and so much more, we need to invest. New and well-maintained roads and bridges included. If we want the US Economy to flourish, it takes government investment in basic infrastructure and in scientific research. Of course, if you would prefer to vote for a party that doesn't believe in government, that says government is always the problem, and that thinks a free, unfettered and unregulated market can do everything better than the government - everything except the military - well, then you get what you'd expect. A country with a rapidly deteriorating infrastructure. Bravo SirSaxa. That is a fantastic post, illustrating the importance of not letting a crisis go to waste and fitting all events into a pre-conceived narrative. Let's see if I can do the same: I think this is a clear example of how government unions are ruining the country. Once again, an incompetent worker, protected by the taxpayer funded government unions, has caused a crisis, and one exacerbated by the fact Amtrack has to spend more than 2/3rds it budget on worker and pension costs. Whether its police officers in Baltimore, the prison guard union in California, the teachers unions that waste education money on ever increasing number of "administrators" at the expense of our children or Amtrack, which spends 2/3 of its budget on employees and pensions while spending about a 1/5th of its budget on infrastructure, its no wonder government doesn't work when there's no incentive for the government workers to do anything except what will increase their budgets or power. And its no wonder that Republicans are wary of dumping more money into "infrastructure" when, just like the stimulus, it will mostly be wasted on Democrats pet causes, government union political activities and general waste, fraud and abuse.
|
|
hoyainspirit
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
When life puts that voodoo on me, music is my gris-gris.
Posts: 8,389
|
Post by hoyainspirit on May 14, 2015 14:56:29 GMT -5
Well... actually, yes indeed you can. “We feel that had such a system been installed in this section of track, this accident would not have occurred,” Robert Sumwalt, a member of the National Transportation Safety Board, said during a news conference on Wednesday. What system would that be? For the second time in two years, a passenger train traveling well above its speed limit has derailed, leaving a trail of death and injuries. And for the second time, existing technology that might have prevented the accident was missing.
Amtrak has installed the technology, known as positive train control, on parts of its rail network in the Northeast Corridor. But the technology, designed to automatically slow or stop a train to prevent accidents, was not available on a critical stretch of track in Philadelphia where Train No. 188 derailed on Tuesday night, killing at least seven and injuring more than 200.www.nytimes.com/2015/05/14/us/technology-that-could-have-prevented-amtrak-derailment-was-absent.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0The USA used to invest in itself aggressively, which is how we got the national highway system, the internet, and so much more. If we want to keep the US at the forefront of science and technology, transportation, communications, water availability, electrical power and so much more, we need to invest. New and well-maintained roads and bridges included. If we want the US Economy to flourish, it takes government investment in basic infrastructure and in scientific research. Of course, if you would prefer to vote for a party that doesn't believe in government, that says government is always the problem, and that thinks a free, unfettered and unregulated market can do everything better than the government - everything except the military - well, then you get what you'd expect. A country with a rapidly deteriorating infrastructure. Bravo SirSaxa. That is a fantastic post, illustrating the importance of not letting a crisis go to waste and fitting all events into a pre-conceived narrative. Let's see if I can do the same: I think this is a clear example of how government unions are ruining the country. Once again, an incompetent worker, protected by the taxpayer funded government unions, has caused a crisis, and one exacerbated by the fact Amtrack has to spend more than 2/3rds it budget on worker and pension costs. Whether its police officers in Baltimore, the prison guard union in California, the teachers unions that waste education money on ever increasing number of "administrators" at the expense of our children or Amtrack, which spends 2/3 of its budget on employees and pensions while spending about a 1/5th of its budget on infrastructure, its no wonder government doesn't work when there's no incentive for the government workers to do anything except what will increase their budgets or power. And its no wonder that Republicans are wary of dumping more money into "infrastructure" when, just like the stimulus, it will mostly be wasted on Democrats pet causes, government union political activities and general waste, fraud and abuse. You sound like Fox "News".
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on May 14, 2015 15:16:13 GMT -5
On another front, the death toll is now 8, none of whom will be saved by affixing partisan blame.
Carry on.
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on May 15, 2015 8:12:45 GMT -5
I think it really says something about how both parties are treating our country when the debate about infrastructure isn't whether or not we should be heavily investing in NEW infrastructure, but more whether or not we should even be addressing the old, crumbling infrastructure we already have. A sad state of affairs.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on May 15, 2015 8:28:32 GMT -5
On another front, the death toll is now 8, none of whom will be saved by affixing partisan blame. Carry on. I agree with the spirit of not affixing partisan blame, but it's entirely appropriate to attempt to learn from a tragedy and use its lessons to direct governmental policy. If we can't do that, then we're hopeless. At a minimum, had the automatic speed system been in place here that is on other areas of the track, it would appear this would never have occurred. That may be an issue of funding; it may be an issue of Amtrak mismanagement; it may be that its impractical for a variety of reasons to have that system in place; and it may be that Amtrak was sensibly putting the system in place incrementally and there is no blame at all. As with many issues, it's probably some complicated combination of a number of things. It's certainly possible that the system (or other improvements) cost too much and shouldn't be considered, though I personally have a hard time believing that. Sure, it may be that you can't blame "funding" for the tragedy (at least in primary part) -- not if it turns out there was an engineer with his feet on the gas -- but we'll let the NTSB decide that. Regardless, though, it's not inappropriate to permit the light now shining on railroads to also illuminate other related issues. That's what government should be doing. If those in favor of flat funding, cuts, etc. make a compelling case taking into account all the issues, so be it. And same for the other side.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on May 15, 2015 8:34:50 GMT -5
For me, at least, the larger issue of infrastructure is solved at least in part through some creativity. We spend a fortune on the infrastructure needed at airports, many of which are in rural areas and little used on a percentage basis by the population. We also spend a lot of money on highways and other roads, though arguably not enough.
I think the most sensible approach is to combine the money given by the feds for all these modes of transportation and give states and regions the opportunity to make their own choices (and kick in their own funds as needed). I completely get that Montana residents don't want to pay for some bullet train between New York and DC or NY and Boston. But Connecticut voters (and its economy) may well love a mode of transportation from Hartford to either city in less than an hour -- and providing it may mean that their roads get far, far less use and need less resource.
|
|
hoyainspirit
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
When life puts that voodoo on me, music is my gris-gris.
Posts: 8,389
|
Post by hoyainspirit on May 15, 2015 8:35:04 GMT -5
Instead of cutting, the government should be borrowing at these low rates to invest in infrastructure.
|
|
DallasHoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,625
|
Post by DallasHoya on May 15, 2015 10:02:15 GMT -5
For me, at least, the larger issue of infrastructure is solved at least in part through some creativity. We spend a fortune on the infrastructure needed at airports, many of which are in rural areas and little used on a percentage basis by the population. We also spend a lot of money on highways and other roads, though arguably not enough. I think the most sensible approach is to combine the money given by the feds for all these modes of transportation and give states and regions the opportunity to make their own choices (and kick in their own funds as needed). I completely get that Montana residents don't want to pay for some bullet train between New York and DC or NY and Boston. But Connecticut voters (and its economy) may well love a mode of transportation from Hartford to either city in less than an hour -- and providing it may mean that their roads get far, far less use and need less resource. The money comes from people in the states and regions, so if it's going back there why is the federal government involved?
|
|
DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,734
|
Post by DFW HOYA on May 15, 2015 11:25:04 GMT -5
Both sides are guilty of myopia on the issue. Remember, this line is running on the old Pennsylvania Railroad infrastructure, ranging from 75-100 years old.
Democrats want to spend more on Amtrak under the banner of "infrastructure" because mass transit is a long term spend regardless of deficits and next to no passengers outside the Northeast Corridor.
Republicans want to spend less on Amtrak because it is government largesse with endless deficit spending and the simple fact that their constituents don't ride trains.
Some thoughts: 1. Infrastructure is vital to the nation's rails, roads, runways, etc. Chinese infrastructure projects for 2014-16 top $1 trillion, while US spending for rail will be cut to just 0.1% of that number.
2. Amtrak remains an endless trough of federal spending that, after 45 years, has no plan for profitability.
3. The estimated subsidy for a passenger to ride from Denver to Chicago is $650 (that's before the fare) and features a 21 hour trip with a four hour bus transfer because Amtrak no longer stops regularly in Denver. A ticket on Greyhound is 20 hrs and $89. A ticket on Southwest is two hours and $308.
4. Rail travel is noncompetitive in 80% of the nation.
5. Amtrak does not own the tracks it runs and must rely on right of way from freight lines to plan its schedules.
6. Much like the USPS, Amtrak fights fiercely against privatization and/or focusing on profitable markets instead of staffing far flung places like Raton, NM or Malvern, AR.
Short answer: nothing changes.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on May 15, 2015 11:54:45 GMT -5
Both sides are guilty of myopia on the issue. Remember, this line is running on the old Pennsylvania Railroad infrastructure, ranging from 75-100 years old. Democrats want to spend more on Amtrak under the banner of "infrastructure" because mass transit is a long term spend regardless of deficits and next to no passengers outside the Northeast Corridor. Republicans want to spend less on Amtrak because it is government largesse with endless deficit spending and the simple fact that their constituents don't ride trains. Some thoughts: 1. Infrastructure is vital to the nation's rails, roads, runways, etc. Chinese infrastructure projects for 2014-16 top $1 trillion, while US spending for rail will be cut to just 0.1% of that number. 2. Amtrak remains an endless trough of federal spending that, after 45 years, has no plan for profitability. 3. The estimated subsidy for a passenger to ride from Denver to Chicago is $650 (that's before the fare) and features a 21 hour trip with a four hour bus transfer because Amtrak no longer stops regularly in Denver. A ticket on Greyhound is 20 hrs and $89. A ticket on Southwest is two hours and $308. 4. Rail travel is noncompetitive in 80% of the nation. 5. Amtrak does not own the tracks it runs and must rely on right of way from freight lines to plan its schedules. 6. Much like the USPS, Amtrak fights fiercely against privatization and/or focusing on profitable markets instead of staffing far flung places like Raton, NM or Malvern, AR. Short answer: nothing changes. The challenge with the dollars based arguments is that one needs to compare apples to apples somehow. I don't quite know how to do that, but the simple reality is that Greyhound benefits from enormous government subsidies because it travels on taxpayer funded roads. Similarly, tax dollars pay for airports, air traffic controllers, etc. that are necessary to air travel. Rail travel? Sure, there's a deficit, but whenever equipment or rail improvements are mentioned, the argument is made that Amtrak itself should pay, which is completely different from how other transportation projects are handled. Obviously, the ownership of the rails themselves is a sticky issue without a good solution. Aside from that, I don't disagree that rail travel is noncompetitive nationally. No manner of "bullet train" is likely to change that. A true national network is not really sustainable; there's no compelling reason enough people should want to travel from Chicago to Denver by rail.
|
|
DallasHoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,625
|
Post by DallasHoya on May 15, 2015 12:00:37 GMT -5
Both sides are guilty of myopia on the issue. Remember, this line is running on the old Pennsylvania Railroad infrastructure, ranging from 75-100 years old. Democrats want to spend more on Amtrak under the banner of "infrastructure" because mass transit is a long term spend regardless of deficits and next to no passengers outside the Northeast Corridor. Republicans want to spend less on Amtrak because it is government largesse with endless deficit spending and the simple fact that their constituents don't ride trains. Some thoughts: 1. Infrastructure is vital to the nation's rails, roads, runways, etc. Chinese infrastructure projects for 2014-16 top $1 trillion, while US spending for rail will be cut to just 0.1% of that number. 2. Amtrak remains an endless trough of federal spending that, after 45 years, has no plan for profitability. 3. The estimated subsidy for a passenger to ride from Denver to Chicago is $650 (that's before the fare) and features a 21 hour trip with a four hour bus transfer because Amtrak no longer stops regularly in Denver. A ticket on Greyhound is 20 hrs and $89. A ticket on Southwest is two hours and $308. 4. Rail travel is noncompetitive in 80% of the nation. 5. Amtrak does not own the tracks it runs and must rely on right of way from freight lines to plan its schedules. 6. Much like the USPS, Amtrak fights fiercely against privatization and/or focusing on profitable markets instead of staffing far flung places like Raton, NM or Malvern, AR. Short answer: nothing changes. Well stated. I worked at Amtrak's Legal Department 30 years ago when I was in law school at GULC. And nothing has changed. Amtrak will never be profitable, in large part of the reasons set out above, as well as long-term commitments to union members, many of them retired. When all is said and done, Amtrak operates a lot of its routes for political purposes - it's not exactly a secret that it serves numerous markets only to garner the political support of members of Congress in those districts in order to keep it afloat on government subsidies. Look, I choose to live in a Dallas suburb. I choose to commute on a highway that is fully funded (actually over-funded) by my daily toll charges. Why should my taxes be used to subsidize other people's travel/commuting expenses?
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on May 15, 2015 12:02:24 GMT -5
For me, at least, the larger issue of infrastructure is solved at least in part through some creativity. We spend a fortune on the infrastructure needed at airports, many of which are in rural areas and little used on a percentage basis by the population. We also spend a lot of money on highways and other roads, though arguably not enough. I think the most sensible approach is to combine the money given by the feds for all these modes of transportation and give states and regions the opportunity to make their own choices (and kick in their own funds as needed). I completely get that Montana residents don't want to pay for some bullet train between New York and DC or NY and Boston. But Connecticut voters (and its economy) may well love a mode of transportation from Hartford to either city in less than an hour -- and providing it may mean that their roads get far, far less use and need less resource. The money comes from people in the states and regions, so if it's going back there why is the federal government involved? I'm not quite sure I understand the question, but I'll try to respond anyway. All of our interstate transportation (be it by rail, motor vehicle or air) is essential (literally) to the sustainability of our national economy and to interstate commerce. The 1950s era rationale for the interstate highway system (national defense) may not be entirely true anymore (if it ever really was), but interstate transportation is still an area of spending that indisputably comes within the federal government's purview. And for good reason: As a practical matter it's essential to, say, Wal Mart that its modes of distribution be at least somewhat predictable and uniform. And Wal Mart of course operates everywhere. Left to their own devices, states and localities would spend unpredictably and the harm would inure to us all. If you're asking about rail passenger travel in particular, well, I guess I'm making a slightly more nuanced argument that says that if you assume that the "northeast corridor" is going to get X billion dollars in federal funding related to highways and flying (and, again, that's justified both practically and legally), then why not use a portion of that money to upgrade the trains under the theory that doing so will drive more traffic to trains, reducing the load on roads and air. I don't pretend it's quite that simple -- all modes will probably need to find other funding sources -- but I think it's a good compromise solution to a very real problem. And, of course, I'm not opining on whether overall infrastructure spending needs to increase -- the theory is the same regardless of what "x" is.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on May 15, 2015 12:15:59 GMT -5
Both sides are guilty of myopia on the issue. Remember, this line is running on the old Pennsylvania Railroad infrastructure, ranging from 75-100 years old. Democrats want to spend more on Amtrak under the banner of "infrastructure" because mass transit is a long term spend regardless of deficits and next to no passengers outside the Northeast Corridor. Republicans want to spend less on Amtrak because it is government largesse with endless deficit spending and the simple fact that their constituents don't ride trains. Some thoughts: 1. Infrastructure is vital to the nation's rails, roads, runways, etc. Chinese infrastructure projects for 2014-16 top $1 trillion, while US spending for rail will be cut to just 0.1% of that number. 2. Amtrak remains an endless trough of federal spending that, after 45 years, has no plan for profitability. 3. The estimated subsidy for a passenger to ride from Denver to Chicago is $650 (that's before the fare) and features a 21 hour trip with a four hour bus transfer because Amtrak no longer stops regularly in Denver. A ticket on Greyhound is 20 hrs and $89. A ticket on Southwest is two hours and $308. 4. Rail travel is noncompetitive in 80% of the nation. 5. Amtrak does not own the tracks it runs and must rely on right of way from freight lines to plan its schedules. 6. Much like the USPS, Amtrak fights fiercely against privatization and/or focusing on profitable markets instead of staffing far flung places like Raton, NM or Malvern, AR. Short answer: nothing changes. Well stated. I worked at Amtrak's Legal Department 30 years ago when I was in law school at GULC. And nothing has changed. Amtrak will never be profitable, in large part of the reasons set out above, as well as long-term commitments to union members, many of them retired. When all is said and done, Amtrak operates a lot of its routes for political purposes - it's not exactly a secret that it serves numerous markets only to garner the political support of members of Congress in those districts in order to keep it afloat on government subsidies. Look, I choose to live in a Dallas suburb. I choose to commute on a highway that is fully funded (actually over-funded) by my daily toll charges. Why should my taxes be used to subsidize other people's travel/commuting expenses? I don't disagree with anything in the first paragraph. But as for the second, what if you wanted to or needed to go to Baton Rouge or Fayetteville? I bet you're taking I-20 or I-75. Or maybe you're flying. Either way, all of our collective tax dollars are helping to pay for your trip. If all you did was stay in Texas (something that I'm guessing many northeasterners would prefer of many Texans....and vice-versa....), then I might agree.
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on May 15, 2015 13:54:31 GMT -5
(1) Why does Amtrak need to operate outside of the NE Corridor? Rail is never going to make sense in most areas of the U.S., so why waste tax payer money running routes that will never be cost or time effective when competing against air and car travel?
(2) Assuming there's no reason to run Amtrak in the Midwest/South/West, why do we need a government owned passenger rail service? Why not treat passenger rail in the NE the same way we treat airlines and cargo trains?
(3) If we want infrastructure spending, perhaps we should reform the way we approve infrastructure projects. We don't have shovel ready projects because our process is so long, and has so many appeals/approvals required that it takes years to go from funding to building. Germany has a good model, I think.
|
|
DallasHoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,625
|
Post by DallasHoya on May 15, 2015 18:09:31 GMT -5
Well stated. I worked at Amtrak's Legal Department 30 years ago when I was in law school at GULC. And nothing has changed. Amtrak will never be profitable, in large part of the reasons set out above, as well as long-term commitments to union members, many of them retired. When all is said and done, Amtrak operates a lot of its routes for political purposes - it's not exactly a secret that it serves numerous markets only to garner the political support of members of Congress in those districts in order to keep it afloat on government subsidies. Look, I choose to live in a Dallas suburb. I choose to commute on a highway that is fully funded (actually over-funded) by my daily toll charges. Why should my taxes be used to subsidize other people's travel/commuting expenses? I don't disagree with anything in the first paragraph. But as for the second, what if you wanted to or needed to go to Baton Rouge or Fayetteville? I bet you're taking I-20 or I-75. Or maybe you're flying. Either way, all of our collective tax dollars are helping to pay for your trip. If all you did was stay in Texas (something that I'm guessing many northeasterners would prefer of many Texans....and vice-versa....), then I might agree. I have no problem with the federal government paying for interstate highways. By definition, it's interstate commerce. I should have limited my comment to commuting. That said, having all US taxpayers paying for Senator Joe Biden's commute from DE to DC on Amtrak was ridiculous. Sell off the NE corridor and shut the rest of Amtrak down. Should have been down 30 years ago. BTW, there is no I-75 near Dallas. It's a state highway.
|
|