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.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
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.
"We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics
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.....
Quentin
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
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.
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.
Jock Ellis Cumming, GA US of A Georgia Association of Railroad Passengers
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.
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
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.