https://digitaledition.chicagotribune.com/html5/mobile/production/default.aspx?pubid=6209f5b6-9511-458d-b890-3de8c188cdc8&modal=login&smtrctid=
Annoyingly paywalled for me. Can you summarize or synopsize what they say?
OvermodAnnoyingly paywalled for me. Can you summarize or synopsize what they say?
I understand the need to get paid for content. However if you publish on a public website like Yahoo or some other area that is otherwise free, it really ticks me off to be asked to pay to read an article via a paywall. Almost to the point I feel the author or employer is unusually greedy. I think the solution is to publish some content for public sphere that is free with links to the pay stuff. That way at least the article can be read and if the reader likes the sample content they can subscribe. I don't like the metered free reads approach either. Free press should be partially free and not charge for everything.
The reason they won't do that is most newspapers publish superficial crap for most of their articles and they have an occasional well research article but for the most part is garbage. So the garbage can be placed out of sight behind the paywall. Heck I still remember the days when the Milwaukee Journal referred to the Soo Line in their business section as "the unusually profitable Soo Line" as if there was something nefarious going on and usually railroads lost money. They did that for at least 2 decades. Not sure if they still refer to the Soo Line or CP that way.
CMStPnP Overmod Annoyingly paywalled for me. Can you summarize or synopsize what they say? I understand the need to get paid for content. However if you publish on a public website like Yahoo or some other area that is otherwise free, it really ticks me off to be asked to pay to read an article via a paywall. Almost to the point I feel the author or employer is unusually greedy. I think the solution is to publish some content for public sphere that is free with links to the pay stuff. That way at least the article can be read and if the reader likes the sample content they can subscribe. I don't like the metered free reads approach either. Free press should be partially free and not charge for everything. The reason they won't do that is most newspapers publish superficial crap for most of their articles and they have an occasional well research article but for the most part is garbage. So the garbage can be placed out of sight behind the paywall. Heck I still remember the days when the Milwaukee Journal referred to the Soo Line in their business section as "the unusually profitable Soo Line" as if there was something nefarious going on and usually railroads lost money. They did that for at least 2 decades. Not sure if they still refer to the Soo Line or CP that way.
Overmod Annoyingly paywalled for me. Can you summarize or synopsize what they say?
Paywall or not - I doubt we will ever hear 'unusually profitable' stated about Amtrak.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Annoyingly duplicated post. Ignore, please.
Sorry. The fight overtheGulf Coast route has implications for whether or not Amtrak can add new routes on freight lines. The price (extortion)? Amtrak will be required to pay the private rails to upgrade existing freight routes for "additional capacity" for passenger trains.
Try this
CMStPnP Free press should be partially free and not charge for everything.
Neither the term "free press" nor the name of a Detroit newspaper has anything to do with $. Read the Bill of Rights and some articles explaining the background.
Electroliner 1935Try this https://digitaledition.chicagotribune.com/html5/mobile/production/default.aspx?pubid=6209f5b6-9511-458d-b890-3de8c188cdc8&modal=login&smtrctid=
I consider "free press" to be analogous to "free inhabitant" in the Articles of Confederation -- the former relating to 'freedom of the press to say and print what it wants'; the latter relating to 'free' as distinguished from slave or indentured, and possibly in the sense of property ownership, NOT free from adherence to subsequent law or policy...
Where I think the gathering storm over the Mobile, and other, extensions might be is in the original Amtrak legislation, where Amtrak asserts priority over freight as a 'quid pro quo' for relieving the railroads of the statutory necessity to provide passenger service. The recent testimony by... was it an undersecretary of transportation?... uses precisely that argument, with what I thought was clear intent to implement it to the greatest possible extent. I don't recall anything in that rhetorical argument indicating that capital improvements by the Government were "required" to re-establish service, either. (Will someone here post the link from the other thread so I can refresh my memory if defective?)
Where increases in operating frequency, and chronic schedulekeeping problems, occur over the next couple of years, I suspect the Government response may be similarly firm, although I wonder if this is DOT playing 'bad cop' so Amtrak itself doesn't have to compromise its delicate web of understandings...
If Amtrak does get all this (inflationary) money, why can't they put it toward improving service they already provide?
GrampIf Amtrak does get all this (inflationary) money, why can't they put it toward improving service they already provide?
Editor Emeritus, This Week at Amtrak
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.