Amtrak after New York Tragedy

[Anonymous]

The recent tragedy in New York has shown everyone that relying on highway and air transportation alone can be a shaky proposition. How does everybody think the tragedy will effect Amtrak in the long run? Will it possibly have any effect on their 2003 "self-sufficiency" mandate?

[thirdrail1]

It will probably hasten the demise of Amtrak as the money for Amtrak's operations and capital improvements will be needed to "bail out" the darned airlines.

[Anonymous]

Common sense, and the fact that Amtrak honoured airline tickets, should demonstrate to the powers-at-be why a country needs it's rail system. But, of course, common sense and politicans are often enemies!
Maybe, though, people will see how overly-dependent they were on airlines. Also, it is easier to stop and search a train - the National Guard or Police could board at the next station.
I understand, though, that some of the passengers on the 4th flight have been awarded the Medal of Freedom (or something similar) Is that correct?

[mnwestern]

It is my hope that one result of the terrorist attack on New York will be a re-examination by Congress of the need for a national rail system to build a more secure tripod of transportation options — air, rail and road (car, truck and bus).
It should be clear how important the rail system was during this time of airline troubles. If security concerns continue to drag out departure and arrival times at airports, rail travel will only gain. In our area, riding the train from the Twin Cities to Chicago takes not all that much more time than flying now, and is certainly more assuring.
I also hope Congress final wakes up to what everyone else has long known — that Amtrak, nor any national rail system anywhere, can't make a profit on operations but that it still has a role to play in the transportation network. Highway and travel have long benefitted from subsidies. Highways would almost never have to be replaced except that trucks pound them to ruin and don't begin to cover the costs of new construction with gas taxes, etc. And airports are built and payed for with taxpayer dollars that the airlines don't begin to replace with departure fees.
My fear is that Congress will funnel all the money to airlines, which were already in trouble before Sept. 11. Airlines had already done a good job of mismanaging their businesses while paying top executives fat bonuses for poor performance.

[Anonymous]

I live in New York City.
I work near the Trade Center.
I've seen things I want to forget but just can't stop them from running over and over again in my mind.
I must be crazy. I actualy thought increased ridership would help boost Amtrak. How could I have forgotten about bailing out the airlines.
My heart goes out to all those people too. I'm in no mood to be bitter towards them.
John

[Anonymous]

I think the tragedy of Sept. 11 has shown the importance of infrastructure in the USA. The railroads are an important transportation link and without them things could be a whole lot worse. I believe ridership will increase on Amtrak in the next few months. I also think that the 15 Billion proposed to the airlines will definitely put a dent in Amtrak's future to be "self sufficent" by 2003. I still support Amtrak because I believe it to be an important cog in our transit network.

[jsanchez]

I think it definitely proved Amtrak is needed, it also showed that that this is a weak link in our transportation system due to under funding and having to survive on a starvation budget. I think it's pretty upsetting that the man who has been trying the hardest to kill Amtrak, John McCain was the first one to call for bailing out the airlines!!The airline business is already way over subsidized. Everyone who believes in a a national rail system really needs to let their congressman and Senators know how they feel on this issue, its time to make noise. The mandate to make a profit by 2003 is a joke, the argument should be for dedicated funding, just a half cent of the federal gas tax would more than cover Amtrak's cost and allow for expansion. If you as a railfan say nothing, the highway and airline lobby will, and it won't be pro-rail.

James

[markffisch]

I was scheduled to go from Boston to Washington on Sunday 9/16 taking the USAir shuttle. I am a 100,000 mile flier but I wasn't thrilled with flying so soon after the tragedy in NY and DC. I changed my booking to the Acela express. Some observations: the ride is far superior to a plane. I'm only 5' 11" but I need more leg room than the airlines give. I also appreciated the seat room. Although the train was full, I didn't get that crowded feeling you get on a plane, middle seat or not. The train was much quieter. I did not miss the roar of the engines. The food was better. There is a power bar next to the seat to plug in a laptop -- makes it much easier to work. The seat tables are big enough to hold a laptop and let you open the screen even if the person in front is reclining. Your cell phone is available the whole way (except under Penn Station in NY). Rest room access is easier, the aisles are wider, there is much more storage space for luggage.
There are some down sides as well. The trip is long 6 and a half hours on the schedule, 7 on the clock (coming home). Station amenities are a problem. Car rental counters close before the last train comes in. The waiting room at Union station is a disgrace -- Greyhound does better. Scheduling is an issue -- it was strange to get passed by a local commuter train coming out of Stamford CT.
My two cents -- Amtrak is a good alternative. They need money and they need cooperation in coordinating schedules and traveler support services.

[Anonymous]

To everyone who reads this----Support Amtrak..
the future of passenger rail in the USA depends on all of us and that is no bull. Do you think the airlines deserve another 15 billion dollar bail-out yet again another gift from the government. We need to keep Amtrak going. It is still the safest transportation out there. A derailment at 65 mph is still safer than a automobile crash at 65 mph.I'll stick to it knowing that my two feet are closer to good ole' terra cotta. The reason stations like Penn Station are such holes like they are is because people haven't given a hoot about rail travel since the 1960's. If we support Amtrak we will ensure future generations that traveling by rail can be as normal as going to the local supermarket. I guess I also need to sound off on those people now "just trying out" the train travel alternative. Where have you all been the past thirty years ??

[Anonymous]

PENN STATION IS A HOLE????????????
HELLO?????????????????????????????
WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME YOU WERE THERE???????
IT'S HAD A PRETTY DECENT RENOVATION.
IT AIN'T PARADISE BUT IT SURE IS BETTER THAN IT WAS.
BY THE WAY, I HAVE TO CATCH A TRAIN TO LONG ISLAND OUT OF THERE TOMORROW MORNING!
AND I'M GOING TO A GREENBERG TRAIN SHOW TOO!
JOHN

[PaulWWoodring]

I too fear that the airline bailout could come out of Amtrak's hide and that Sen. McCain is a hypocrit for asking for an airline bailout while calling Amtrak funding a wasteful subsidy. It would seem to be obvious that NARP should be pushing for more money for passenger rail in the wake of the terrorist attacks, but the senior staff and most of the board are unwilling to to seize the moment becuase it might look unseemly to be asking for money because of this tragedy. Looking unseemly has not stopped some unrelated inudustries (such as steel) from pulling up to the federal trough to feed. Politics is hardball, and if those who support rail passenger most visibly do not speak out, then the biggest money grubbers will win and Amtrak will miss it's best opportunity to become part of the transportation mainstream it may ever have.