Amtrak must be overhauled or junked, Secretary Mineta says

[Junctionfan]

I think that if the people truly want Amtrak to work then the people not the government is going to have to put their money where their mouth is. Government isn't the consumer, we are. If we want something to go ahead, we have to work for it. The reason why those crummy airlines still are a green light is because folks really use that and won't stop using it so it makes no sense to get rid of them if consumer usage is really high but with Amtrak, obviously the government isn't satisfied in ridership and it does cost money especially when you make a doeheaded deal with the class 1s to except responsibility for their negligence when an accident occurs.

Use the darn train......use the darn train.....use the darn train......

Is the brain washing kicking in?

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by SteamerFan

I'm really amazed at how people don't understand how the present adminstration is working. Their policy is simple, they don't make the laws, so they are doing public awareness of critical problems that need addressing. this in turn forces those who make the laws "ie congress", to wake up, realize there's a problem and write a law to fix it.

Apparently, like social security, the present (and past administration), have agreed that Amtrak is in need of repairs. The past administration just shoved the problem under the rug, this administraion decided to pull it out from under there and inform the people that the Law makers are slacking in their responisiblities.

You want to save Amtrak, start petitioning your Congressmen to fix the system, only they have the power to save or kill it, and at the rate their going, they're killing it.

While you are quite correct on who makes laws and spends the money, the budget proposal, and all that it implies, does come from the exec branch. Also, the exec branch has never been shy about proposing legislation and finding sponsors. What is new, is that this administration seems to be leaving more details to Conrgress.

Before this battle is over, we'll have Congressional Amtrak supporters battling each other over funding formulae. It could get really noisy.

[Anonymous]

I'm really amazed at how people don't understand how the present adminstration is working. Their policy is simple, they don't make the laws, so they are doing public awareness of critical problems that need addressing. this in turn forces those who make the laws "ie congress", to wake up, realize there's a problem and write a law to fix it.

Apparently, like social security, the present (and past administration), have agreed that Amtrak is in need of repairs. The past administration just shoved the problem under the rug, this administraion decided to pull it out from under there and inform the people that the Law makers are slacking in their responisiblities.

You want to save Amtrak, start petitioning your Congressmen to fix the system, only they have the power to save or kill it, and at the rate their going, they're killing it.

[oltmannd]

The problem with the "state-by-state" method is you'll get lowest common denominator service. For example, if it made sense to put on an Atlanta to the northeast day train, running 12 hours opposed to Crescent, and you got VA, NC and GA all to agree to pay their share, but SC opted out, it would probably kill the idea.

You'd lose a lot of ridership by not including Greenville, Spartanburg and Clemson as stops. The other states could subsidize operation of those stops and it would likely cost them less overall if they did, but they'd be giving SC a free ride - and that wouldn't sit right with the other state legislatures, that's for sure!

Now, if they made SC's 50% match available to the other states without them having to put up SC's state portion, THAT might work.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton

I don't quit get the point. Senator Murray raises the issue of having the NE corridor state help support the NEC just as her state does. I don't think her letter suggests that she has changed in her position on that subject, and quite frankly I don't see how that relates to any of the questions she has presented to the DOT. If she has changed her position, so be it. In my experience, I find that only those with the simplest minds refuse to reconsider their stand on any of their beliefs.

"What's good for the goose is good for the gander."

If one is to suggest that the NEC states take over the majority of NEC funding, why shouldn't the LD states do likewise? Mineta is only taking Murray's original suggestion directed at the NEC states and expanding it to the whole system. So why criticize the Administration for suggesting somethig that she herself was suggesting as well just a few short years ago?

P.S. I don't believe she has "reconsidered" her stand, she's simply playing the politics of reactionarism.

[Anonymous]

<<But the present administration seems not to have much use for people who are inclined to take a train.
Jock Ellis>>

I don't think this administration has much use for PEOPLE.

[jeaton]

I don't quit get the point. Senator Murray raises the issue of having the NE corridor state help support the NEC just as her state does. I don't think her letter suggests that she has changed in her position on that subject, and quite frankly I don't see how that relates to any of the questions she has presented to the DOT. If she has changed her position, so be it. In my experience, I find that only those with the simplest minds refuse to reconsider their stand on any of their beliefs.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Modelcar

....I believe I'm remembering she {Patty}, has been very intrumental in getting state funding for west coast Amtrak trains.....

What is hypocritical about Patty Murray's letter to Mineta is just that: The West Coast states haved ponied up money for the NEC equivalent of Amtrak operations in Cal, Ore, and Wa. Patty Murray herself was critical not to long ago toward the way the NEC states have their corridor entirely funded by the nation's taxpayers. Yet when Bush proposes having the NEC states pay a greater share of Amtrak ops, she acts like she never heard of such a concept. The bottomline: Patty Murray is just playing politics to score points with her Puget Sound idiot voter base, and she knows she'll get away with her hypocrasy because her supporters (like LC) are too dumb to check her present stand with her past stand.

[jeaton]

Here is the thing. Going back to when I started posting, I have been all over this forum argueing for Amtrak. It may seem so, but I am not so closed minded to think that an alternative couldn't somehow be formed that would provide the service. To this point all I have seen from the people who are in power to make changes are very sketchy ideas as to how a "reorganized" service should be structured. It hangs on the idea that the states should be the major provider of the funds for any service they want to have.

It seems to me that the transition from Amtrak to something else would be very complicated and would require extensive and highly detailed plans to cover all the issues that would be involved. To the best of my knowledge, such plans do not exist. I find it hard to believe that anybody, Secretary Mineta and President Bush included, are so simple minded as to think that just dumping the thing in the laps of the states will accomplish a reorganization. In fact, the present administration is fairly adverse to making unfunded mandates that are recognized as such and it is not likely that any law is going to be passed that tells the states that they MUST provide rail passenger service.

So if Amtrak goes into bankruptcy color intercity and regional rail passenger service gone, good by, adios, history, put a fork in it or whatever.

I think that Amtrak has enough congressional support to receive the funds to continue operations. Frankly, I think that the administrations position is nothing more than a political move. It is a the kind of thing that they are doing in many different areas. Propose grand and glorious laws to address moral issues, social issues and all the other conservative positions. When they don't pass, they can spend the entire campaign period for the next election screaming that the Democrats and everybody else that blocked passage of these laws should be voted out of affice and replaced by people who support us. In fact they would probably prefer they didn't pass, because they wouldn't have to explain why their programs didn't work.

Jay

[daveklepper]

Mineta says nobody is riding Amtrak. I think they do quite well considering the problems they face. I think Mineta is a liar.

[Anonymous]

I do think that the NEC states should shoulder much more of the burden, they are the ones who use it for the most part. California pays for Metrolink, Surfliner, San Joaquin, and Capitol Coridiors, because they are the ones who use it. That is only fair. If Amtrak only had to pay opperating costs on the NEC, they would be making a ton of money right now.
Brad

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Modelcar

....I believe I'm remembering she {Patty}, has been very intrumental in getting state funding for west coast Amtrak trains.....

Mod-

You are correct. Don't mind FM. As ususal he gets all bound up when anything stands in the way of his "Open Access" theories. Government run or subsidized passenger trains being one such obstacle...

LC

[jeaton]

Being from one of the states that kicks in some money for a regional operation, having the NE corrider states help might be nice. Given that a bankruptcy trustee would be selling the corrider to the highest bidder, they may wi***hey had.

[Modelcar]

....I believe I'm remembering she {Patty}, has been very intrumental in getting state funding for west coast Amtrak trains.....

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton

For all of you who want Amtrak to be junked or overhauled, take a look at the letter addressed to Secretary Mineta as posted on the web site of Senator Patty Murray (Dem., WA).

http://murray.senate.gov/news.cfm?id=232226

Please note that she quotes the budget document received by the Senate Transportation Apropriations Committee which clearly shows that the Bush Administration knows that the zero budget will put Amtrak into bankruptcy, but that is good because it will force action to be taken to reorganize rail passenger service. The fact that the clowns in the administration have no clue as to the next step in reorganization is irrelevant. Everybody knows that the states are going to rise up in a great spirit of unity and come up with all the cash necessary for a good service. Or not... That is OK because then the blame won't fall on our infallible leader.

The questions posed by Senator Murray suggest that simply letting Amtrak go into bankruptcy as a first move to a reorganization is going to produce such a rat's nest that a next step may never take place. I guess that would work for those of you who oppose any government funding for the service. Happy driving.

BTW, if anyone has good answers for the questions she poses, quick send your resume to the DOT. I am sure they could use your help.

Jay

Senator Murray was also one of the folks suggesting that the Northeast States take over the NEC, lock stock and barrel. I guess she only complains about state funding for Amtrak when it's her state that must pay for it.

[jeaton]

LC

HOW COULD THAT HAPPEN? Everybody knows that Amtrak is the ONLY mode of transportation that has delays. It must have been a conspiracy to punish you for something. Been active in union affairs?

Jay

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd

QUOTE: Originally posted by jwieczorek

Although no one asked, this is my plan for a "new Amtrak". Trains should be ONLY long distance. For example, The Capitol Limited leaves Chicago, stops ONLY at Cleveland, Pittsburgh, and Washington. Wasn't that what "limited" meant, anyhow? All the intermediate stops can be operated by individual states or a consortium of states. Another example, the Empire Builder. Leaves Chicago, stops in Milwaukee, St. Paul, Fargo, Havre, Sandpoint, Spokane, and Seattle. Again, intermediate stops can be operated by teh states they serve. I have ridden both trains quite often, and have noticed that several stops (especially on the Cap. are also served by commuter agencies. This is an unncessary duplication of services.

This may relieve Amtrak of running short distance trains to connect with the LD trains. As of now, all short distance trains are scheduled to meet in chicago for connections to LD trains. The dream is to free up capital to purchase more LD cars, for greater frequency, and esaier connections at more major cities than Chicago. I'm sure there are many, many flaws to this plan, but al that is missing is the political will to do this.

Uh, airplanes do the major city to major city thing a whole lot better and cheaper than Amtrak can. Where the LD trains are sucessful is when they connect those little places you want to skip (what, to save 30 minutes on a 24 hour schedule?) with the big cities. For example, the Crescent does great business between the Northeast (including Alexandria and Manassas) and Charlotteville. You want to skip Alexandria or Manassas?

Speeding up equipment turns is a great idea, but skipping some stops won't do it.

Hmmm. The airlines used to do the job better, perhaps. Now it seems more of a dead heat in the post 9-11 world. For example, not too long ago I saw a friend at an industry meeting in Florida. I was flying home and he was taking Amtrak. His train (Silver Meteor, I think) would land him home by the following morning. My flight was scheduled to be in before midnight (including a change at Atlanta).

As it turned out my flight suffered a 45 minute weather related delay (fog in ATL) resulting in my missing the connection by a few minutes and being consigned to an Atlanta airport area hotel overnight. Given the flight cutbacks post 9-11, the next available flight to my destination did not LEAVE Atlanta until 3pm on that second day, getting me home after 7pm. Who got the better deal that time? Next time I will be on the train to that meeting which I attend annually, provided of course that there still is a train to take...

LC

[jeaton]

For all of you who want Amtrak to be junked or overhauled, take a look at the letter addressed to Secretary Mineta as posted on the web site of Senator Patty Murray (Dem., WA).

http://murray.senate.gov/news.cfm?id=232226

Please note that she quotes the budget document received by the Senate Transportation Apropriations Committee which clearly shows that the Bush Administration knows that the zero budget will put Amtrak into bankruptcy, but that is good because it will force action to be taken to reorganize rail passenger service. The fact that the clowns in the administration have no clue as to the next step in reorganization is irrelevant. Everybody knows that the states are going to rise up in a great spirit of unity and come up with all the cash necessary for a good service. Or not... That is OK because then the blame won't fall on our infallible leader.

The questions posed by Senator Murray suggest that simply letting Amtrak go into bankruptcy as a first move to a reorganization is going to produce such a rat's nest that a next step may never take place. I guess that would work for those of you who oppose any government funding for the service. Happy driving.

BTW, if anyone has good answers for the questions she poses, quick send your resume to the DOT. I am sure they could use your help.

Jay

[jockellis]

Speedy and affordable service? One of the reason you get such good deals on flight is that it is so heavily subsidized by Uncle Sam. Of course, the fact that that airplane can make many flights in a day and have the passengers share the cost of the day's mortgage payment helps considerably. But if the airline had to shoulder all the costs, it would not be near so cheap. If the federal government taxed the airline for the air that surrounded the airplane on its trip like it does the rail the train rides on, the cost would be even higher.
As the first "big business" rail has always been seen as a cash cow for governments. Nothing has changed. In some ways they are still the victim of the bad feelings generated by the robber barons of the 19th century. AMTRAK hauls a fair amount of passengers on its cross country routes. Apparently, not everyone is in such a hurry to reach a destination. But the present administration seems not to have much use for people who are inclined to take a train.
Jock Ellis

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Wdlgln005

The 50/50 split may be too high. I think the road plan gets a 80/20 mix, with locals putting up 20% of the Interstate project. I'd like to see what the split is for other transit projects. Let's face it, the states & cities should spend SOMETHING on the stations. For long distance trains, each state could put up in relation to their route/miles & stations. For example, CUS is 1/2 owned by Amtrak, the other 1/2 by Metra. The city of Chicago pays NOTHING. There ought to be a way for the city to meet some of the co$ts of operating CUS.

In Friday's news, I see there was also a proposal to build 2 new major Interstates in the South. One would go from Knoxville TN along the to Savannah. A western leg would bypass Atlanta and lead to Natchez MS. I say no more highways till we get a few dollars for Amtrak. It's also time for the state DOT's to stop being employers of roadbuilders and forgetting rail & other forms of public transit.

There are too much east to west traffic on the interstates 10,20, 40 and 81 We need to add these interstates to assist and relieve places like Jackson Ms, Nashville, Birmingham, Vicksburg and get the trucks off the smaller state roads that may be somewhat aged to safely support commerce in the south.

I will be in Maryland on the Great scale trainshow at Timonium Fairgrounds in April. I gave Amtrak consideration via Texas Eagle to Chicago and then the Captiol limited to Washington, they want 137- for a coach seat and each train needs a day to complete the trip. To use a sleeper roomette added between 270-400- to the bill one way.

I am flying by air with two stops and perhaps 8 hours to Baltimore for a hell of alot less than what it would cost to go amtrak from Arkansas.

Let them figure out why they cannot get passengers onto the trains and deliver them with speedy and "Affordable" service.

[Modelcar]

...Cities probably should shoulder some of the costs of maintaining a good station...and maybe even take pride in doing so making "their" unit an outstanding one, etc....

[Wdlgln005]

The 50/50 split may be too high. I think the road plan gets a 80/20 mix, with locals putting up 20% of the Interstate project. I'd like to see what the split is for other transit projects. Let's face it, the states & cities should spend SOMETHING on the stations. For long distance trains, each state could put up in relation to their route/miles & stations. For example, CUS is 1/2 owned by Amtrak, the other 1/2 by Metra. The city of Chicago pays NOTHING. There ought to be a way for the city to meet some of the co$ts of operating CUS.
The Memphis TN station has the right idea. It's right next to the police dispatch station, so you park next to the cars of the men in blue. For security,sanitation,etc, why not take the time to keep up the look of their station? have the business chamber of commerce greet visitors to your town. They do it at the welcome centers on the interstates, why not something at the train station?

In Friday's news, I see there was also a proposal to build 2 new major Interstates in the South. One would go from Knoxville TN along the to Savannah. A western leg would bypass Atlanta and lead to Natchez MS. I say no more highways till we get a few dollars for Amtrak. It's also time for the state DOT's to stop being employers of roadbuilders and forgetting rail & other forms of public transit.

[Modelcar]

...Our new Indiana Govenor {M. Daniels}, noted on an Indy TV news broadcast last evening that our first class Amtrak repair and rebuild facility in Beechgrove {in so many words}, is a waste of money being part of Amtrak....because it's time to stop "wasting" money on Amtrak, etc....and that facility employes around 1000 workers.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by RudyRockvilleMD

Secretary Mineta's ideas for reforming Amtrak are seriously flawed.
1. Leaving thru long distance passenger rail service up to the states the trains run through raises the question, what happens if an intermediate state refuses to commit funds for operating the train? You don't stop the train in that state? yeah right.
2. The concept of separating train operations from infrastructure was tried in Great Britain, it was a collossal disaster

Rudy,

You have a point regarding the potential for problems if states are to supplement rail passenger funding. I know that in Idaho the only current Amtrak stop is in Sandpoint at 2 am, not something that draws a lot of travelers from this area. There is currently no Amtrak service to Boise, Canyon County, Kootenai County, Twin Falls, Pocatello, Idaho Falls, Lewiston, Rexburg, or Moscow, all metro areas larger than Sandpoint. Why would Idaho want to fund an Amtrak service that is only accessable at 2 am from one of the smaller out of the way cities? By the same token, if Idaho would be willing to fund a revival of the Pioneer but not the Empire Builder or North Coast Hiawatha, while Montana would rather fund a return of the North Coast Hiawatha but not the Empire Builder, while Utah only wants to fund the Zephyr but not the Pioneer or Desert Wind, etc. you can see where there would be unmitigated conflicts.

The separation of infrastructure from operations in Great Britain started out a bit rocky, and that was due to the fact that the degree of deterioration of the rails prior to transfer was grossly underreported. The proprietors of RailTrak had stated that if they had been made known as to how badly maitenance was deferred on the tracks they took over, they would have requested more initial funding. As it stands now, the British system is finally smoothing out nicely, proof that open access has possibilities here in the U.S., which by the way is the only way passenger rail will have a chance to survive here.

Separation of infrastrucuture from transporter opertations works great for highways, waterways, and air corridors, and it works for railroads overseas, so why wouldn't it work for U.S. rail? The Dukakis statement of "Balkanization" is ludicrous in this context, which shows why he is known as "The Loser".

[Sterling1]

Gov't ought to pry Mineta with some C-4 or TNT or dynamite because of this ridiculous "unfair advantage" given to federal transportaion systems that drain this country's economy . . .

[Anonymous]

oops, I fogot about tha little part of ID that juts up there. And I thought they went throught ND, not SD, my bad. That tells me I need to take that train again!
Brad

[Anonymous]

was good for all .now its only what is good for me .we have become selfish and teh way down is swift

[Anonymous]

what everyone must remember is that the conservatives care about anyone but themselves . this countrybecame great because its people were willing to do that which

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by RudyRockvilleMD

Secretary Mineta's ideas for reforming Amtrak are seriously flawed.
1. Leaving thru long distance passenger rail service up to the states the trains run through raises the question, what happens if an intermediate state refuses to commit funds for operating the train? You don't stop the train in that state? yeah right.
2. The concept of separating train operations from infrastructure was tried in Great Britain, it was a collossal disaster

Did you read Don Phillip's latest column? Apparently, we'd be happy to have the "disaster" of Great Britain!