Amtrak is always the caboose

[Anonymous]

Cite this Article:

http://www.ble.org/pr/news/headline.asp?id=9491

I don't understand why Bush is only giving Amtrack about half of what they are requesting in funding. It seems to me like Amtrak is just now getting back on it's feet with a move to more profitable routes, and a less money loosing business model. I do believe that Amtrack will never be possible without government funding, but it seems to me that it will never even be able to survive unless it can at least get enough funding to keep the trains on the tracks.

It bothers me that so much money is now being spent on the highway improvements and infastructure, when just a small small fraction of that money can be put into Amtrak to help improve and create more passenger services in the urban areas to help cut back on the traffic congestion.

It seems to me that just as Amtrak seems to be winning back riders, it will soon be leaving them out in the cold with insufficient funs to keep it's services alive.

[Modelcar]

....Use the voting booth to change that.

[AntonioFP45]

I must admit that it is frustrating. I am conservative by nature, morals, etc, but I must admit that it seems that the "Dems" are more pro-Amtrak, and pro transit than the Reps.

In spite of all the controversy, I still feel that the President is trying to do his best. I wish he would really re-think his attitude on the need for improving passenger rail. All we need to do is remember 911.

[CG9602]

Concur with Modelcar: if you want to see Amtrak, or any railroad related issue, get any sort of attention, you need to make your presnce and interest known. Write or fax or phone your member of Congress, and let that individual know your thoughts on rail-related issues. One of the things that many people forget is that it is Congress, *not* the President, who have the final say on the Federal budget. Specifically, it is the House Of Representatives. "The President proposes, while Congress disposes." it isn't enough just to get one of our esteemed leaders involved, you have to go directly to the group that controls the Federal wallet. That means writing regular mial letters, or sending faxes.

QUOTE: Originally posted by Modelcar

....Use the voting booth to change that.

[Anonymous]

What do you people think?
(though this board my be slightly bias)

Do you honestly think that a well funded and run Amtrak would be a viable alternative to car and bus transport? Is Amtrak worth saving? Or would we all be better off to see the improvement of mass highway transportation in regards to passenger service and just ditch Amtrak?

Does anyone on this board use trains (Amtrak or LRT) to commute, or do you have the option to take a train but opt for the car? If so Why?

[Anonymous]

BUSH IS A DUCK HE ONLY CARES ABOUT THE WAR ON TERRORISM AND $ 87 BILLION FOR IRAQ COME OUT DO A 25 YR RAIL PLAN WITH THAT

[Willy2]

QUOTE: Originally posted by macguy


Does anyone on this board use trains (Amtrak or LRT) to commute, or do you have the option to take a train but opt for the car? If so Why?

Even if Amtrak did go by my school I would rather ride a car because about 75% of the time (at least in Omaha) Amtrak is more than 2 hours late. I would definitely rather ride Amtrak to go on vacation, but when there are 8:15 A.M. bells to beat, Amtrak wouldn't make the cut.

Willy

[JoeKoh]

Amtrak would be good but in Fostoria you need to get on at 4 am.Bryan to Chicago would be nice. Maybe this summer.
stay safe
joe

[Anonymous]

Actually its the House that spends less on Amtrak than the Senate. Keep emailing Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson, she supports Amtrak, and keep emailing Senator John McCain, he opposes Amtrak.

I tell them with my inner ear condition I can't fly, and driving the distance on a long vacation wears me out. I support Amtrak because when I take the train on a long trip I get a lot of rest and relaxation.....

[kenneo]

QUOTE: Originally posted by macguy

What do you people think?
(though this board my be slightly bias)

Do you honestly think that a well funded and run Amtrak would be a viable alternative to car and bus transport? Is Amtrak worth saving? Or would we all be better off to see the improvement of mass highway transportation in regards to passenger service and just ditch Amtrak?

Does anyone on this board use trains (Amtrak or LRT) to commute, or do you have the option to take a train but opt for the car? If so Why?

Viable option? Absolutely. In some service areas much mor so than in others, but if AMTK is permitted to operate OT with adequate funding to maintain and purchase in a rational manner and operate where service is desired, then it will definately be viable.

Just look at the two camlifornia "local" corridors - Sacramento-Bay Area and the Los Angeles area from San Diego to San Barnardino and San Louis. That should answer your question.

[RudyRockvilleMD]

There are some corridors where Intercity passenger rail service is presently viable, and in most cases they can be, and they are supported by the state. Amtrak will get something, but in a reply I posted to Oregon Loves Amtrak it won't get everything nor should it especially with a looming $500 + billion deficit. Let's face facts. in spite of Amtrak's highest level of ridership ever it is still a niche mode of public transportation compared to air and even the intercity bus.

[Mookie]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Willy2

QUOTE: Originally posted by macguy


Does anyone on this board use trains (Amtrak or LRT) to commute, or do you have the option to take a train but opt for the car? If so Why?

Even if Amtrak did go by my school I would rather ride a car because about 75% of the time (at least in Omaha) Amtrak is more than 2 hours late. I would definitely rather ride Amtrak to go on vacation, but when there are 8:15 A.M. bells to beat, Amtrak wouldn't make the cut.

Willy

Willy - FYI - I woke up the other morning at 3:05 am and heard Amtrak - wasn't sure if it was the the late westbound (around 1 am) or an early eastbound (5 am). Probably wasn't an early eastbound.....

Mookie

[rrnut282]

If you don't think rail transport is viable and important, just hit the highway at the next transit worker's strike. (There may not be a next one, as the judges have realized what would happen and won't let them.) You end up with near gridlock. A trip that used to take 20 minutes now takes 50 with all the extra cars on the road. For that matter, drive around a city with a lot of rail like New York, Philly, Chicago, etc. at rush hour and visualize another 10-15% of the cars already on the road at the same time. The bottom line is, we can't build enough roads fast enough to handle it. The smart money is invested in mass (rail) transit.

[daveklepper]

If anyone wants to know why the $1.7billion George Bush wants to hand GM and its consultants for fuel cell Hydrogen research for automobiles is a complete waste of money, since the technology for energy independence has been around for years (what Toyota and Honda have been doing is a cruder version of what could be done by substituting batteries for dynamic brake resistors on diesel electrics), drop your real name and real mailing address to my Enail address, and I'll mail you the abstract of an important technical paper. You can then read the entire paper in your local library, and then contact your elected representatives. I think the $1.7billion should go to Amtrak! By the way, I don't think Kerry is any better. He lobbied for the terribly expensive Boston Big Dig, which went way over budget and should have included the rail South Station to North Station connector but didn't. George Bush at least is honest about his oil connections. Maybe they will end up doing us some good, and I have not given up hope about convincing about the desirability of intercity and long distance rail passenger service. Maybe you all can help!
My Email:

[e-mail]

[Rick Gates]

My opinion, in general, is for the most part, Republicans are pro private enterprise. They may consider our Amtrak venture as chasing good money after bad. Democrats, on the other hand are largely pro on social issues or that which is good for the genaral public. Our highway infastructure is used by more of us and supplies more tax revenue returns for the buck. They (Congress) need to hear from us personally, and by mail so that our RR gets more of our bucks for our bang! They know RR are more efficient. Our base has been thrown into highways since RR for public transportation was given up in the late forties in favor of our driving priviledges/luxury. Each party wants our votes. We all use the highways. They will spend accordingly.

[Mookie]

ok - I will admit to living in a small city - (230,000) in the middle of just about nowhere (Nebraska). But you take average John and Jane Q Public - would they really ride mass transit or Amtrak?

We are in the habit here of getting off work and going to our big SUV - 1 person, to go to the local market, pick up the kids from school and daycare, stop at the cleaners, etc etc.

Maybe it is very different in the big cities, but people have a tendency (especially women) to not go from point A to point B. They don't want the confinements of just traveling to and from work. Granted, they drive that same SUV to the station to catch that train, but do you really think the rest of the population would follow suit if there was a lot of public transit that was on time and inexpensive?

We have gotten to the point everything is supersized and and everything, including people are getting bigger and more expensive. So the mind-set is not to share driving (car pool) or take public transportation. Drive yourself and you are at least separated from the rest of the population by some metal that you can control.

Vacation by train would be nice for a forum member - but most of the population doesn't want to take that kind of time. I don't care if they run one past your neighborhood 3 times a day - it is still to slow compared to airplanes. We now live in a world of bigger & faster, and really a lot more disposible income to afford to do it the way we want to do it.

I used to ride the bus - 1/2 block from our house and free - my work pays the buslines to transport me (provided I buy a parking sticker for a year) go figure.

Driver uses parking sticker, comes to work at same time I do, drives one block off his route to deliver me to the door. The bus that is 1/2 block from my house, left me in the rain, sleet, snow - because they had to get a driver out of bed, so shortened the route for the first trip - mine - was on time if you had a decent driver, or never made a connection downtown to the next bus if the driver was lousy - which always outnumbered the good drivers.

I have been late to work - but not because I wasn't on the corner at the correct time. I have been darn near thrown to the floor several times and bruised and banged. Had to wait one day for 30 min while the driver had an argument with a passenger and called police.

I sat next to drunks, rowdy school kids (8-10 at a time) and people who thought soap and water was something for dishes only. Been let off in snowbanks and in mud rather than pull up or back a couple of feet to dry pavement.

I can't believe trains or mass transit wouldn't be just the same.

Driver takes me - on time - to the door, lets me out on dry pavement and picks me up again same way. Which would you prefer?

Mookie

[Anonymous]

If Amtrak goes any where near where I want to go, I'm riding the rails.

[Mookie]

Pop - I agree with you - I would ride the train - but we aren't the general public. Unfortunately.