Future of the American Passenger Train

[METRO]

I'll tell you one thing though: Amtrak will never give up the NEC. They are the kings, queens and aces of intercity transit in the northeast and I don't think the government would allow them to stop.

I think that Amtrak will eventually move over to more localized or regional service, like Amtrak California, NEC and Northeast Service. Corridors will probably be set up in more areas (say Florida and a Chicago-Detroit line) but eventually the less profitable and more difficult long haul lines will go the way of the steamer.

I think that carriers like UP would be much happier if Amtrak became a regional carrier, they'd only have to deal with them in high-density corridors. As a compromise the passenger should be givien priority in these corridors, while this would probably irk large carriers to no end when they try to ship into major cities, it would also force them to decentralize their yard structure and make frieght moving more efficient.

[AntonioFP45]

Tomtrain,

I drove charter buses part time for 10 years at Gray LIne. Our coaches were identical to what Greyhound was using (MC9s and MCI 102A3). As much as I enjoyed meeting people, I would never like to take a long trip on a bus, or a trip that lasts over 2 hours.

You only have so much height and width on a bus interior. There was a CH 13 news editor a few years back in Tampa who made the comment that an Amtrak coach is a bus on rails. Apparently he'd never ridden the rails. I've commented on how incredibly ignorant he was!

There is just no comparison to the freedom you have onboard the train. After 45 minutes, I like to be able to stand up and stretch. Restroom facilities on trains are much roomier. Families with babies appreciate that. Hungry? Walk to the lounge car and get a snack. Got kids or friends with you?--Sit in the lounge car and play a board game or cards. [:)][8D][:D][swg][tup]

No , I would likely not use the bus. This may sound a little corny, but I absolutely hate having to look at the scenery offered by our concrete interstates. [V][B)]

BowlerP is right on target. [;)]
It is a complex issue. Train speed was a big advantage and to a small degree it is in some areas, but with the railroads going with single track mainlining since the 1970s, Amtrak is often pinched by dispatchers giving hotshot freights preferences. Passenger rail will never succeed in this country until our mentality changes. As much as I dislike rising fuel costs, the positive outcome could be that Congress may start getting more earfuls of citizens demanding better support for passenger rail. [:)]

We're forced to support federal funding of abortions for the poor, our tax money is consistently wasted on projects that the majority of citizens don't support, yet what Amtrak needs is a drop in the bucket by comparison. I would love to see my tax dollars support a rail service that is viable and speedy. Our leaders, so far, are trying to make sure that this does not happen.

Mr. Bush, you're a nice guy but please sir, rethink your transportation policies!

10-4

[AntonioFP45]

Tomtrain,

I drove charter buses part time for 10 years at Gray LIne. Our coaches were identical to what Greyhound was using (MC9s and MCI 102A3). As much as I enjoyed meeting people, I would never like to take a long trip on a bus, or a trip that lasts over 2 hours.

You only have so much height and width on a bus interior. There was a CH 13 news editor a few years back in Tampa who made the comment that an Amtrak coach is a bus on rails. Apparently he'd never ridden the rails. I've commented on how incredibly ignorant he was!

There is just no comparison to the freedom you have onboard the train. After 45 minutes, I like to be able to stand up and stretch. Restroom facilities on trains are much roomier. Families with babies appreciate that. Hungry? Walk to the lounge car and get a snack. Got kids or friends with you?--Sit in the lounge car and play a board game or cards. [:)][8D][:D][swg][tup]

No , I would likely not use the bus. This may sound a little corny, but I absolutely hate having to look at the scenery offered by our concrete interstates. [V][B)]

BowlerP is right on target. [;)]
It is a complex issue. Train speed was a big advantage and to a small degree it is in some areas, but with the railroads going with single track mainlining since the 1970s, Amtrak is often pinched by dispatchers giving hotshot freights preferences. Passenger rail will never succeed in this country until our mentality changes. As much as I dislike rising fuel costs, the positive outcome could be that Congress may start getting more earfuls of citizens demanding better support for passenger rail. [:)]

We're forced to support federal funding of abortions for the poor, our tax money is consistently wasted on projects that the majority of citizens don't support, yet what Amtrak needs is a drop in the bucket by comparison. I would love to see my tax dollars support a rail service that is viable and speedy. Our leaders, so far, are trying to make sure that this does not happen.

Mr. Bush, you're a nice guy but please sir, rethink your transportation policies!

10-4

[philnrunt]

I 've flown United from Indy to Seattle,(delayed, crowded, the airports are asylums,but plenty fast) I've rode Greyhound from Colo Sprgs to Seattle(met and got to know some unique folks really, really , no I mean REALLY well, my baggage went to L.A., six days on the road and I'm a gonna find my gun tonight!) and I've taken Amtrak from Indy to Chicago and Denver. If I have the opportunity to do any again, it will be the civilized, scenic and (relative to the others) reliable train. You can stretch your legs, relax and let the world go past, and with the natural rocking of the cars, that one overpriced Tequilla Sunrise makes you feel like you got hammered on one drink!

[philnrunt]

I 've flown United from Indy to Seattle,(delayed, crowded, the airports are asylums,but plenty fast) I've rode Greyhound from Colo Sprgs to Seattle(met and got to know some unique folks really, really , no I mean REALLY well, my baggage went to L.A., six days on the road and I'm a gonna find my gun tonight!) and I've taken Amtrak from Indy to Chicago and Denver. If I have the opportunity to do any again, it will be the civilized, scenic and (relative to the others) reliable train. You can stretch your legs, relax and let the world go past, and with the natural rocking of the cars, that one overpriced Tequilla Sunrise makes you feel like you got hammered on one drink!

[AntonioFP45]

SlotRacer, [;)]

With all due respect, I agree with some of your points but you've left out one thing. There are too MANY people that WILL NOT STEP ABOARD AN AIRPLANE! [B)][:0] I had to fly from Texas to Tampa, Florida on a Southwest Airlines 737. WHAT A CATTLE CAR! I'm not that big (6ft tall). The seat was cramped and the 2 1/2 hour ride was incredibly bumpy! I had a big headache when I arrived in Tampa. The 737 was far less roomier than an Amfleet coach. I sincerely wi***hat our government would change its atttitude towards passenger rail. I drive to Georgia quite a bit, hating the traffic on I-75, saying repeatedly that if only Amtrak had a train going this way.............[sigh][sigh]

The reason national service is sparse is because the combination of the Class 1 railroads and government bueracrats like Norm Mineta and John McCain (please retire) want to make sure that long distance trains remain an obsolete form of travel, citing "inefficiences". True before, but now there is finally a COMPETENT president onboard , David Gunn, who is doing what he can with little or nothing. Yet, the politicians still won't meet him halfway. (Sorry, but privitization won't work! - failed in Europe!) The good thing about Gunn is that his attitude is that Amtrak is "a package deal", local and long distance service. HIs two predecessors seemed mainly focused on the Northeast Corridor.

It's been suggested that Uncle Sam give railroads tax breaks on double tracking mainlines and upgrading for 90mph operation. Why isn't this happening since our Republican administration is good about passing tax cuts? (of which I'm not against as long as it has a positive impact on the economy, which to a degree it has.)

I'm conservative, but if Kery does get into the white house I hope that he supports passenger rail like most of his constituents. Norm MIneta definetly needs to go!

[AntonioFP45]

SlotRacer, [;)]

With all due respect, I agree with some of your points but you've left out one thing. There are too MANY people that WILL NOT STEP ABOARD AN AIRPLANE! [B)][:0] I had to fly from Texas to Tampa, Florida on a Southwest Airlines 737. WHAT A CATTLE CAR! I'm not that big (6ft tall). The seat was cramped and the 2 1/2 hour ride was incredibly bumpy! I had a big headache when I arrived in Tampa. The 737 was far less roomier than an Amfleet coach. I sincerely wi***hat our government would change its atttitude towards passenger rail. I drive to Georgia quite a bit, hating the traffic on I-75, saying repeatedly that if only Amtrak had a train going this way.............[sigh][sigh]

The reason national service is sparse is because the combination of the Class 1 railroads and government bueracrats like Norm Mineta and John McCain (please retire) want to make sure that long distance trains remain an obsolete form of travel, citing "inefficiences". True before, but now there is finally a COMPETENT president onboard , David Gunn, who is doing what he can with little or nothing. Yet, the politicians still won't meet him halfway. (Sorry, but privitization won't work! - failed in Europe!) The good thing about Gunn is that his attitude is that Amtrak is "a package deal", local and long distance service. HIs two predecessors seemed mainly focused on the Northeast Corridor.

It's been suggested that Uncle Sam give railroads tax breaks on double tracking mainlines and upgrading for 90mph operation. Why isn't this happening since our Republican administration is good about passing tax cuts? (of which I'm not against as long as it has a positive impact on the economy, which to a degree it has.)

I'm conservative, but if Kery does get into the white house I hope that he supports passenger rail like most of his constituents. Norm MIneta definetly needs to go!

[TH&B]

I just want to say that I refused to put in a vote on this topic I just looked at today because the choices were not complete. I do not believe private companys like UP should be forced to deal with it <like incinutated> if there was anything in it they, would do it automaticaly. The F Gov should only be involved as long as none else is interested, such as these times but should always be trying to find a private solution..... but CAN NOT dump it on our PRIVATE freight railroads!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[TH&B]

I just want to say that I refused to put in a vote on this topic I just looked at today because the choices were not complete. I do not believe private companys like UP should be forced to deal with it <like incinutated> if there was anything in it they, would do it automaticaly. The F Gov should only be involved as long as none else is interested, such as these times but should always be trying to find a private solution..... but CAN NOT dump it on our PRIVATE freight railroads!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Anonymous]

When railroads were owned by private companies passenger train service was once excellent. In the late 50's and early sixties you could still ride the Burlington Zephyr from Denver to Chicago for as low as a $6.00 fare and the ride took 13 hours from 5AM to 6PM . So what forced private railroad companies out of business?- our government did.
When airplane travel started to become popular in the late 50's and early 60's they started with a distinct advantage that continues today.. Airlines land at government built and owned facilities for a very nominal fee- the municipal airports. The government also maintains these facilities.. The railroads on the other hand not only had to own and maintain millions of miles of track but had to pay real estate taxes on every station, signal, yard, switching tower, right of way and terminal. Being saddled with this high maintenace and tax burden is it any wonder why the railroads could not compete ? Provide tax free right of ways for the railroads ( as the airlines enjoy) and I predict that private rail service will come back.
When you consider the traveling time to the airport, the time you must arrive to park and get through security, the time to check and pick up your baggage it is far more efficent ( and comfortable) to take a 200- 300 mile trip by rail to the major cities. . I've taken many trips to Washington DC, Boston and Baltimore from NJ , both by rail and by train and have always found that the TOTAL traveling time is always far less by rail.
Case in point- trip to Baltimore by air. .
Travel time to Newark Airport from my home 1:15
Time needed to check in, clear security and park 1:15- 2:00
TIme to get your baggage from check in :30
Flight time to Baltimore, (if the plane takes off on time) 1:00
Total time of trip via air 4:00 to 4:30 hours
Now lets take the same trip via Amtrak
Travel time to Princton RR station :30
Time to park and check in ( bags carrried on) 15
Time of RR trip 2:10
Total time 2 hours 55 minutes - a minimum of 1 hours savings. AND the seats and legroom are much wider, you can use your cell phone all along the trip, you can walk to the dining car to purchase a variety of food and drink, you can plug in your laptop, stretch your legs and arrive feeling relaxed and refreshed.
The reason why we don't have private railroads running passenger service is that our government does not and did not make it profitable for this business to prosper. Excessive taxation is the reason why we lost the the Reading, Pennsylvania, NYC, Lackawanna, C&O, B&O, Erie, B&M, Rutland, Jersey Central, and others.

[Anonymous]

When railroads were owned by private companies passenger train service was once excellent. In the late 50's and early sixties you could still ride the Burlington Zephyr from Denver to Chicago for as low as a $6.00 fare and the ride took 13 hours from 5AM to 6PM . So what forced private railroad companies out of business?- our government did.
When airplane travel started to become popular in the late 50's and early 60's they started with a distinct advantage that continues today.. Airlines land at government built and owned facilities for a very nominal fee- the municipal airports. The government also maintains these facilities.. The railroads on the other hand not only had to own and maintain millions of miles of track but had to pay real estate taxes on every station, signal, yard, switching tower, right of way and terminal. Being saddled with this high maintenace and tax burden is it any wonder why the railroads could not compete ? Provide tax free right of ways for the railroads ( as the airlines enjoy) and I predict that private rail service will come back.
When you consider the traveling time to the airport, the time you must arrive to park and get through security, the time to check and pick up your baggage it is far more efficent ( and comfortable) to take a 200- 300 mile trip by rail to the major cities. . I've taken many trips to Washington DC, Boston and Baltimore from NJ , both by rail and by train and have always found that the TOTAL traveling time is always far less by rail.
Case in point- trip to Baltimore by air. .
Travel time to Newark Airport from my home 1:15
Time needed to check in, clear security and park 1:15- 2:00
TIme to get your baggage from check in :30
Flight time to Baltimore, (if the plane takes off on time) 1:00
Total time of trip via air 4:00 to 4:30 hours
Now lets take the same trip via Amtrak
Travel time to Princton RR station :30
Time to park and check in ( bags carrried on) 15
Time of RR trip 2:10
Total time 2 hours 55 minutes - a minimum of 1 hours savings. AND the seats and legroom are much wider, you can use your cell phone all along the trip, you can walk to the dining car to purchase a variety of food and drink, you can plug in your laptop, stretch your legs and arrive feeling relaxed and refreshed.
The reason why we don't have private railroads running passenger service is that our government does not and did not make it profitable for this business to prosper. Excessive taxation is the reason why we lost the the Reading, Pennsylvania, NYC, Lackawanna, C&O, B&O, Erie, B&M, Rutland, Jersey Central, and others.

[bowlerp]

I think the question is not the correct one to ask, for I am not of the opinion that the Class One RR's can or will successfully be forced to re-start their own passenger service. The Bush Administration has once again (in the last week or two) asked for information on the dissolution of AMTRAK for intercity.

It is a thinly veiled tactic to achieve the strategy of completely abandoning long distance passenger travel. Ask yourself how one can reasonably expect an entity like AMTRAK to survive with such a minimal subsidy? New Jersey transit alone has access to nearly $45 Billion in capital and operating funds for commuter operations (Railway Age, May 2004) in their corridors. AMTRAK, by contrast, currently has only slightly over $1 billion in operating funds for the entire 22,000 mile "system".

Every behavior of this Administration points to the strategy of dissolution. Their public statements are more subtle, for they want to achieve this quietly, with little public debate and without riling up the silent minority. This is my analysis through observation and should not be attributed to any other unless by coincidence. The Administration believes that a slow death by starvation will achieve their goal. The tactic is to deteriorate service by starvation to the extent that even rabid supporters of AMTRAk will lose patience and give up. Perhaps this administration has read and taken Joe Vrannich too closely to heart.

Recall your history and you will realize that the strategy is not new or creative. It is an almost direct copy of the strategy of abandonement that Class One RRs assumed in the 1950s and 1960s, when they had to appeal to the ICC for each individual passenger train abandonement. This version is simply a speeded up one, on a more wholesale scale.

The key question to ask is: what is the motivation of the Bush Administration to achieve this objective? I cannot answer, but certainly it is not for the cost savings reasons that they publicly pitch to you and I. The dollars, +- 1Billion, are simply too trivial to bother over in the big picture. Compare to how much we spend to kill people all over the world. Compare to the amount of money we spend to re-build the same highways and bridges over and over again, usually shoddily. Compare to how much money we spend to subsidize air terminals on behalf that private business. Let me qualify these by telling you that I am NOT a liberal, a socialist, or a communist. I do object strongly to having someone else's socio-political agenda imposed upon me when it does not make sense for the country in the long run.

The entire world should be thinking about ways to convert to sustainable economies, to protect our global diminishing resources of clean air, clean water, and raw materials. A key transition technology, already realized in most developed countries and in many underdeveloped ones, is rail transit and rail long distance. The reason is simple - though its capital costs are high, its energy efficiency is undeniable compared to individual, private travel. Even in a sustainable economy, people must have jobs and earn a living, thus we must continue to refine the ways and efficiencies of doing that. I would argue that continuing to spread ever increasing private car travel and truck hauling throughout the world is not the way to achieve our benficial goals. Can you imagine how polluted our air will become when China has 300-400 million cars, etc. India and Africa? And where will the fuel for them be coming from?

No, abandoning rail travel is not the logical choice of a right thinking society.

End of editorial. It is yours to respond to, but please keep your comments limited to good arguments and moderate tone, though your opinions may differ. My tone is always reasonable. Thank you.

[bowlerp]

I think the question is not the correct one to ask, for I am not of the opinion that the Class One RR's can or will successfully be forced to re-start their own passenger service. The Bush Administration has once again (in the last week or two) asked for information on the dissolution of AMTRAK for intercity.

It is a thinly veiled tactic to achieve the strategy of completely abandoning long distance passenger travel. Ask yourself how one can reasonably expect an entity like AMTRAK to survive with such a minimal subsidy? New Jersey transit alone has access to nearly $45 Billion in capital and operating funds for commuter operations (Railway Age, May 2004) in their corridors. AMTRAK, by contrast, currently has only slightly over $1 billion in operating funds for the entire 22,000 mile "system".

Every behavior of this Administration points to the strategy of dissolution. Their public statements are more subtle, for they want to achieve this quietly, with little public debate and without riling up the silent minority. This is my analysis through observation and should not be attributed to any other unless by coincidence. The Administration believes that a slow death by starvation will achieve their goal. The tactic is to deteriorate service by starvation to the extent that even rabid supporters of AMTRAk will lose patience and give up. Perhaps this administration has read and taken Joe Vrannich too closely to heart.

Recall your history and you will realize that the strategy is not new or creative. It is an almost direct copy of the strategy of abandonement that Class One RRs assumed in the 1950s and 1960s, when they had to appeal to the ICC for each individual passenger train abandonement. This version is simply a speeded up one, on a more wholesale scale.

The key question to ask is: what is the motivation of the Bush Administration to achieve this objective? I cannot answer, but certainly it is not for the cost savings reasons that they publicly pitch to you and I. The dollars, +- 1Billion, are simply too trivial to bother over in the big picture. Compare to how much we spend to kill people all over the world. Compare to the amount of money we spend to re-build the same highways and bridges over and over again, usually shoddily. Compare to how much money we spend to subsidize air terminals on behalf that private business. Let me qualify these by telling you that I am NOT a liberal, a socialist, or a communist. I do object strongly to having someone else's socio-political agenda imposed upon me when it does not make sense for the country in the long run.

The entire world should be thinking about ways to convert to sustainable economies, to protect our global diminishing resources of clean air, clean water, and raw materials. A key transition technology, already realized in most developed countries and in many underdeveloped ones, is rail transit and rail long distance. The reason is simple - though its capital costs are high, its energy efficiency is undeniable compared to individual, private travel. Even in a sustainable economy, people must have jobs and earn a living, thus we must continue to refine the ways and efficiencies of doing that. I would argue that continuing to spread ever increasing private car travel and truck hauling throughout the world is not the way to achieve our benficial goals. Can you imagine how polluted our air will become when China has 300-400 million cars, etc. India and Africa? And where will the fuel for them be coming from?

No, abandoning rail travel is not the logical choice of a right thinking society.

End of editorial. It is yours to respond to, but please keep your comments limited to good arguments and moderate tone, though your opinions may differ. My tone is always reasonable. Thank you.

[wallyworld]

Unless there is an enormously catastrophic crisis leading to a shortage in the world oil supplies, you will see modest improvements in short haul trains primarily funded by state rather than federal sources. There will be increased use of diesel powered multiple unit equipment patterned on the original concept of RDC’s, some scattered and again modest increases in track speed following the past pattern of improvement which has been primarily due to technological advances in equipment design rather than any national program of track realignments or electrification. Amtrak will continue to sputter and fitfully continue its status quo in terms of being a token alternative to highway surface transportation and suffer politically weak support for funding. The trend of a de facto takeover of Amtrak by the more urbanized states will continue and Amtrak itself will gradually fade away unnoticed. I think leisurely paced luxury travel trains operated by private companies will continue to hold their own. The number of long distance passenger trains will shrink on a route by route basis beginning in the West but will survive largely East of the Mississippi on state funded programs like that of my own state, North Carolina. Light rail programs and construction will really start to take off in total mileage due to the trend already in place of existing systems being expanded and new ones in development now that will be expanded later in the future. You will see interurban like routes of light rail feeding
City owned heavy rail systems. As GPS systems for tracking and more “intelligent” software based applications appear, these will be automated operationally.

[wallyworld]

Unless there is an enormously catastrophic crisis leading to a shortage in the world oil supplies, you will see modest improvements in short haul trains primarily funded by state rather than federal sources. There will be increased use of diesel powered multiple unit equipment patterned on the original concept of RDC’s, some scattered and again modest increases in track speed following the past pattern of improvement which has been primarily due to technological advances in equipment design rather than any national program of track realignments or electrification. Amtrak will continue to sputter and fitfully continue its status quo in terms of being a token alternative to highway surface transportation and suffer politically weak support for funding. The trend of a de facto takeover of Amtrak by the more urbanized states will continue and Amtrak itself will gradually fade away unnoticed. I think leisurely paced luxury travel trains operated by private companies will continue to hold their own. The number of long distance passenger trains will shrink on a route by route basis beginning in the West but will survive largely East of the Mississippi on state funded programs like that of my own state, North Carolina. Light rail programs and construction will really start to take off in total mileage due to the trend already in place of existing systems being expanded and new ones in development now that will be expanded later in the future. You will see interurban like routes of light rail feeding
City owned heavy rail systems. As GPS systems for tracking and more “intelligent” software based applications appear, these will be automated operationally.

[Anonymous]

I think the railroads should be forced to run passenger service. I am no expert ( only 12 yrs. old ) but I think that with the proper management, passenger service can be quite successeful. here are things that I think are needed.

1) faster trains
2) better looking trains ( I don't know about you, but looks say alot to me )
3) more routs
4) competition

I think if the railroads would provide : clean trains, affordable service, and apealing trains. the passanger train industry could be quite succesful. Look at the Alaska Railroad. Then agin the Alaska railroad has i good tourist market. just my opinion

[Anonymous]

I think the railroads should be forced to run passenger service. I am no expert ( only 12 yrs. old ) but I think that with the proper management, passenger service can be quite successeful. here are things that I think are needed.

1) faster trains
2) better looking trains ( I don't know about you, but looks say alot to me )
3) more routs
4) competition

I think if the railroads would provide : clean trains, affordable service, and apealing trains. the passanger train industry could be quite succesful. Look at the Alaska Railroad. Then agin the Alaska railroad has i good tourist market. just my opinion

[Anonymous]

I want Passenger trains to stay until the end of the world

[Anonymous]

I want Passenger trains to stay until the end of the world

[cpbloom]

Unforunately we railfans don't speak for all of America and I have heard what some of them had to say about Amtrak in non-railroad messageboards; it is not favorable. So regardless of what I say or what we say, what can be done to convince the non-railfan, average and time-sensitive traveler, to use Amtrak?

[cpbloom]

Unforunately we railfans don't speak for all of America and I have heard what some of them had to say about Amtrak in non-railroad messageboards; it is not favorable. So regardless of what I say or what we say, what can be done to convince the non-railfan, average and time-sensitive traveler, to use Amtrak?

[Anonymous]

Sorry. Above should have been for Ironrooster.

[Anonymous]

Sorry. Above should have been for Ironrooster.

[Anonymous]

Amen trainrooster.

What airline pays for the FAA? How many airports do they own?

What barge line pays for dredging and dams done by the Army Corps of Engineers?

Which of the above pay property taxes for their right of way?

I think everybody knows the answer is NONE! We have an incohrerent transportation polcy in this country which subsidizes certain types of transportaion and then expects Amtrak and freight railroads to cover all of their own costs.

[Anonymous]

Amen trainrooster.

What airline pays for the FAA? How many airports do they own?

What barge line pays for dredging and dams done by the Army Corps of Engineers?

Which of the above pay property taxes for their right of way?

I think everybody knows the answer is NONE! We have an incohrerent transportation polcy in this country which subsidizes certain types of transportaion and then expects Amtrak and freight railroads to cover all of their own costs.

[IRONROOSTER]

I think passenger service will have to continue to be funded in part by the Federal government. This is no different than the governent funding other transportation modes. Condsidering how much is spent on highways, rural roads, city streets etc. rail isn't too expensive. The high density routes in the northeast corridor will always do well, but just as the post office delivers everywhere, so should the railroads.

As the population increases in this country I think that the roads and airways are going to become overloaded and rail will provide a vital part of the tranportation needs.

Enjoy
Paul

[IRONROOSTER]

I think passenger service will have to continue to be funded in part by the Federal government. This is no different than the governent funding other transportation modes. Condsidering how much is spent on highways, rural roads, city streets etc. rail isn't too expensive. The high density routes in the northeast corridor will always do well, but just as the post office delivers everywhere, so should the railroads.

As the population increases in this country I think that the roads and airways are going to become overloaded and rail will provide a vital part of the tranportation needs.

Enjoy
Paul

[Anonymous]

Make the freight railroads take back passenger service [:o]???? this is a joke,right ?[(-D]

I think if your going to do something, don't do it half-a[censored]. Amtrak needs to be properly funded or eliminated all together, not run the way it has ben.
I personaly think Amtrak is a nessasary alternative and needs to have the money takes
to operate it. If that means more taxes so be it. But I realise not everyone thinks so, and probably won't till it's too late. [X-)]
[#oops]

[Anonymous]

Make the freight railroads take back passenger service [:o]???? this is a joke,right ?[(-D]

I think if your going to do something, don't do it half-a[censored]. Amtrak needs to be properly funded or eliminated all together, not run the way it has ben.
I personaly think Amtrak is a nessasary alternative and needs to have the money takes
to operate it. If that means more taxes so be it. But I realise not everyone thinks so, and probably won't till it's too late. [X-)]
[#oops]

[Anonymous]

I f there,s a market for rail travel, than you shouldn't have to force the railroads to take on passenger service . It's real simple, if it can't sustain the revenue through it services than it is no longer a viable business . Forcing legitimate corporations to take on this service is simply un-American. I love riding on passenger trains myself, but think it is absurd to tell a company that they have to take on a losing venture wether they want to or not.