Post by Clipper on Feb 15, 2018 11:58:41 GMT -5
wibx950.com/brindisi-trump-budget-would-derail-utica-and-rome-amtrak-service/
I have to sincerely ask why the budget would specifically affect Utica and Rome specifically if the Northeast corridor passenger rail service is to remain available. If the trains will still pass through the area on their way to Buffalo and points West, why would there be such a costly impact on Utica and Rome? Why would it be a major expense to simply stop in Utica or Rome to pick up or discharge passengers? Is this a valid concern or simply political hogwash and a slap at the trump budget?
I have never been a fan of the money being spent to prop up Amtrak, but the same sort of subsidies propped up the intercity bus service when I worked for CNY Coach Lines. My only thought is that funding simple intercity bus service would service a much wider area and would certainly be less expensive that supporting rail service. They could buy and fuel a lot of buses for the cost of acquiring and operating a passenger train.
Mr. Brindisi speaks later in the article about the trending transition of costs and responsibilities back to the state levels. As a county level leader and a taxpaying New Yorker I can see him raising the issue of state vs federal responsibility for funding infrastructure maintenance and improvement. NY state already has rather high state taxes so I would imagine that any threat that hints at a necessity to further raise NY's state taxes can throw a person into a panic, but what difference does it make if you pay for the item through your federal taxes or state taxes? That is something that I guess I may not have a handle on.
I for one am in favor of the return of a certain level of control and responsibility back to state level government. I believe that state governments should have the ability to control their own spending and the right to allocate funding wherever it is their opinion that it is most needed, without regulation and control by the federal government. States should be especially be allowed to control and regulate their own education systems, and land management within their borders. Let our federal tax dollars and federal budget address items that need to be addressed and funded at a federal level, such as issues with the power grid, interstate highway system, immigration, and other things that affect ALL Americans.
Am I wrong or selfish in my desire to see my taxes spent on things that benefit or affect me and my area of the country, rather than having the federal government spending my money in California, or NY, or Texas? We have roads and infrastructure right here near home that need attention. It is my opinion that they should not have to compete with projects in more densely populated states and metropolitan areas for funding and priority. Other than federal infrastructure such as the interstates, I believe that you should pay for maintenance and improvement of YOUR roads and WE will pay for the improvements and maintenance of OURS. I know that with the harsher weather in the North that roads see much more wear and tear, but I selfishly would rather pay to fill the pothole in front of MY house rather than funding repairs to a bridge over the Mohawk or paying to extend sewer service to outlying areas as an example.
God knows that some of you have a much more analytical mind than I do. Maybe someone might point out where my take on the issues is too simple or impractical.
I have to sincerely ask why the budget would specifically affect Utica and Rome specifically if the Northeast corridor passenger rail service is to remain available. If the trains will still pass through the area on their way to Buffalo and points West, why would there be such a costly impact on Utica and Rome? Why would it be a major expense to simply stop in Utica or Rome to pick up or discharge passengers? Is this a valid concern or simply political hogwash and a slap at the trump budget?
I have never been a fan of the money being spent to prop up Amtrak, but the same sort of subsidies propped up the intercity bus service when I worked for CNY Coach Lines. My only thought is that funding simple intercity bus service would service a much wider area and would certainly be less expensive that supporting rail service. They could buy and fuel a lot of buses for the cost of acquiring and operating a passenger train.
Mr. Brindisi speaks later in the article about the trending transition of costs and responsibilities back to the state levels. As a county level leader and a taxpaying New Yorker I can see him raising the issue of state vs federal responsibility for funding infrastructure maintenance and improvement. NY state already has rather high state taxes so I would imagine that any threat that hints at a necessity to further raise NY's state taxes can throw a person into a panic, but what difference does it make if you pay for the item through your federal taxes or state taxes? That is something that I guess I may not have a handle on.
I for one am in favor of the return of a certain level of control and responsibility back to state level government. I believe that state governments should have the ability to control their own spending and the right to allocate funding wherever it is their opinion that it is most needed, without regulation and control by the federal government. States should be especially be allowed to control and regulate their own education systems, and land management within their borders. Let our federal tax dollars and federal budget address items that need to be addressed and funded at a federal level, such as issues with the power grid, interstate highway system, immigration, and other things that affect ALL Americans.
Am I wrong or selfish in my desire to see my taxes spent on things that benefit or affect me and my area of the country, rather than having the federal government spending my money in California, or NY, or Texas? We have roads and infrastructure right here near home that need attention. It is my opinion that they should not have to compete with projects in more densely populated states and metropolitan areas for funding and priority. Other than federal infrastructure such as the interstates, I believe that you should pay for maintenance and improvement of YOUR roads and WE will pay for the improvements and maintenance of OURS. I know that with the harsher weather in the North that roads see much more wear and tear, but I selfishly would rather pay to fill the pothole in front of MY house rather than funding repairs to a bridge over the Mohawk or paying to extend sewer service to outlying areas as an example.
God knows that some of you have a much more analytical mind than I do. Maybe someone might point out where my take on the issues is too simple or impractical.
