Don't let Bu***ake our Trains

[Ham549]

Mr. Bush wants to "reform" Amtrak. He wants to split it up to small state run railways forget getting one ticket to take amtrak through other states try haveing to change trains every time you enter a new state. I don't see people complaing when airlines get billions from Uncle Sam but Amtrak. If you like Amtrak tell Bush no on the Amtrak reform.

[Anonymous]

The president (the executive branch) proposes a budget and the legislative branch (Congress) amends the budget and appropriates the money to various federal programs. Just like you were taught in school -- well, maybe.

So Congress, not the president, appropriates funds for Amtrak. What ever the president's reform plan is, Congress has to approve it and it's unlikely they will.

Frankly, I wi***hey'd ax Amtrak entirely. What a waste of money.

[Anonymous]

who ever wrote that amtrak should be axed entirely and say it is a waste of tax payers money should be hired by transportation secretary norm mineta. you both are a mouth piece for pres.bush who in reply to the above you probably never rode amtrak and never will. you probably own an suv, the gas guzzler car. with gas going up to $3.00 gal and possibly $5.00.gal you had better rephrase you word that amtrak is not a waste of tax payers moneyand is a fuel efficient system. thank you

[Anonymous]

Amtrack has several long distance trains and a Northeast Corridor.

The long distance train service from Little Rock to Washington is like 260- for 34 hours riding in a coach seat, triple for sleeper via Chicago.

I just finished a Southwest Airlines flight for less than that.

There are proposals for high speed rail based on the Japanese Bullet and the French TGV and other European High speed rail. It will take a great deal of years, money, sweat and paperwork to even think about tying the 48 state together with a train service that serves the people nationwide.

I dont know too much about gas prices, I think that belongs in the gas price thread. I fill two cars up three times a month as everything is close to home. So, to me gas prices are irrevelant. My breakpoint is about 3.45 a gallon.

[Anonymous]

Should have voted for Kerry.

[Ham549]

1.) The executive branch and the legislative branch are both run by republicans
2.) Billions are spent of our tax payers $$$ to bail out bankrupt airlines

And Amtrak is not a waste of taxpayer’s money I will e-mail a MS word document with references on why Amtrak needs more money (just ask).

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Ham549

1.) The executive branch and the legislative branch are both run by republicans
2.) Billions are spent of our tax payers $$$ to bail out bankrupt airlines

And Amtrak is not a waste of taxpayer’s money I will e-mail a MS word document with references on why Amtrak needs more money (just ask).

Thanks for the document, Ham. It's interesting reading, but not all that persuasive, to be frank.

So what if both houses of Congress and the White House are controlled by Republicans? Did that destroy Amtrak in the last four years? Look back at the last 34 years of Amtrak's existence and show me where any combination of parties in the White House and Congress failed to fund Amtrak. Maybe Amtrak hasn't gotten all the money it ever asked for, but that's how the federal appropriations game is played. Last time I looked, which was 4/15/05, Amtrak is still running trains, and probably will be a year from now, etc. Too bad.

And no, I don't own an SUV or any gas-guzzling vehicle for that matter. Nor do I agree with government bailing out money-losing airlines, or any money-losing corporate or pseudo-corporate enterprise, any more than I agree with goverment subsidizing a money-loser like Amtrak.

And yes, Skydome, rail transportation is highly fuel efficient. That's not enough of a reason to keep Amtrak. As long as it suckles at the government teat, Amtrak will remain inefficient -- not able to meet its operating expenses and capital investment needs based on a workable, profitable business model. If long-distance and commuter passenger service somehow became an attractive investment to the marketplace and private enterprise, then passenger trains would become efficient and profitable. It's high time for Amtrak to finally become what Conrail became -- a business.

I appreciate everyone's passion to keep Amtrak. But at some point rational thought has to prevail. Amtrak loses too much money. We have bigger needs in this country that $1.2 billion annually could go toward rather than subsidizing passenger trains that aren't full and Acelas that are maintenance headaches.

[Ham549]

No passenger rail service in the world makes a profit (Japan and commuter rail are exceptions). And remember why Amtrak was formed, because no private business wanted to run a passenger rail service. And think do highways make a profit? No unless it is a tollroad and most roads/highways are not toll roads. As for the Northeast corridor (the place Amtrak "runs the whole bloody thing") the trains are full. I took the Acela with my mom from NYC to Boston and we as well as some other people had to sit on the floor, the train was so full. We finally got a seat in Providence. Unfortunately, Amtrak has to run on freight railroad rights of way, where they have low speed limits and put unreasonable restrictions. In Trains Magazine they mention during a storm CSX told Amtrak to go 15mph while passengers were crawling along a 40mph CSX freight train passed them. Who do you think the customers are going to blame for this? Amtrak seems to generate a lot of angry customers but what would you rather amtrak spend it's limited funds on keeping the trains from falling of the tracks or customer service. And you can't compare Amtrak to Conrail. Freight railroads have plenty of business after all almost half of all goods are transported by rail.

[Anonymous]

Ham 549, you're on the right track.
What SP& S fan doesn't mention is the indemnification that all major freight railroads have forced Amtrak to sign on to. Every accident in involving passenger injuries and fatalities has its costs passed on by the likes of CSX and UP to Amtrak. In the vast majority of these rail accidents, the fault lies with poorly maintained track, which is the freight railroads' responsibilty to maintain. These super railroads are rolling in billions of dollars of revenue, yet they force Amtrak to foot the bill for liabilty from its meager resources. The argument goes thusly: Hey, you wanna play on our track? Then you gotta play by our rules." The mega railroads have their armies of lobbyists in Washington that are charged with keeping this status quo. When Amtrak has to ask the government for funds to keep operating, Congress turns a blind eye to this sweetheart deal cooked up by the big freight haulers. Virtually every delay in long distance passenger service can be traced to an Amtrak passsenger train being held up by freight train congestion and freight derailments. One of the biggest cases in liability resulted from the fatal crash of an Amtrak train in North Carolina. Among the dead was a police officer whose widow rightly and properly sued CSX for its shoddy maintenance of the right of way. A judge presiding over the accident investigation lambasted CSX for its incredibly inept track maintenance. After years of fighting in the courts, the widow was awarded $61,000,000 in damages. Her joy in victory eventually was overcome with the ashes of bitterness when she found out that CSX had not paid the fine. Instead, they forced Amtrak to pay it.
We must lift this albatross from around Amtrak's neck. Indemnification ploys by the super freight railroads are nothing more than extortion. It is our obligation to write to our legislators to take action against this insidious behavior on the part of our nation's freight railroads. A nation without a vibrant intercity and long haul passenger rail system is not at the forefront of civilized society. People have a right to efficient mass transportation that doesn't involve being jammed like a sardine into an aluminum cigar that is far less fuel-efficient and that is on an ever-downward spiral in service (unless you have the big bucks to fly first class); that divorces one from the experience of truly seeing the country through which one rides; that deposits the traveler dozens of miles from their destination. The joy of rail travel is that you start from the heart of town and you wind up in the heart of town. No airline can compete with this, especially in the heavily patronized Northeast-Washington corridor. If you're traveling coast-to-coast, what airline affords you the chance to sightsee in downtown Chicago in a 2-hour layover between trains? Oh, sure, if you're in a hurry, a plane will get you there fast. But if you want to travel in civilized style, on a conveyance with plenty of legroom and really decent meals eaten by a picture window, just say "Amtrak, please."

[Anonymous]

I enjoy long distance passenger trains. Both riding them and watching them. However, I do not believe in using the power of the government to force other people to pay for my hobby. I'm sorry, but the long distance passenger train in this country is nothing more than a national hobby. It's time to stop stealing money to pay for our hobby! All of the arguments in favor of continuting this larceny are hollow rationalizations promoted by fans who cannot stand the thought of life without passenger trains. The fact is, only rail fans would notice if all long distance passenger trains stopped running tomorrow.
This is a fact that makes me very sad. It boggles the mind that something so
beautiful is no longer useful but, alas, such is the case and I cannot bring myself to
force my fellow citizens to see what I see. Amtrak must go the way of the stage coach.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Ham549

No passenger rail service in the world makes a profit (Japan and commuter rail are exceptions).

By the exceptions you introduce into your argument, you prove that there is at least the opportunity for Amtrak to be profitable.

QUOTE:
And you can't compare Amtrak to Conrail. Freight railroads have plenty of business after all almost half of all goods are transported by rail.

History: Conrail was government-owned and subsidized, then became part of the private sector and a profitable company. If you had read more closely, you would have seen that my point was not comparing Amtrak to Conrail. Rather, I said it was time for Amtrak to become a business and either sink or swim on its own. If Amtrak becomes a profitable, viable business operating only in the Northeast Corridor, then so be it -- Amtrak would be a regional passenger railroad. (Ditto for Amtrak California.) It's not needed elsewhere in the country. We manage quite well without Amtrak and many in the West resent having their tax dollars spent on subsidizing passenger trains in the Northeast.

MURNGE: Lifting the indemnification costs Amtrak is forced to pay will not swing Amtrak from a money-loser to a viable entity. Not by any stretch of the imagination. Nor is forcing Amtrak to play by the rules of the Class 1 railroads an unreasonable expectation. After all, the Class 1s are subsidizing the Amtrak albatross just like the rest of us.

Note: I see nothing in the U.S. Constitution that implies or guarantees a "right to efficient mass transportation." Or has a court recently found this "phantom right " somewhere?

Again, I appreciate the passion brought to this discussion in favor of Amtrak. However, GRANTSHAW puts it best: Government support of Amtrak is little more than subsidization of a hobby for those who like to watch pretty passenger trains. It's also an anachronistic form of personal transportation exploited by those who want to take a leisurely cross-country journey or high-speed train trip paid in part by the tax dollars of their fellow citizens.

[edbenton]

SP and S fan you say Amtrack should sick or swim on its own Fine a couple of points for you to ponder. Lets make ALL transportaion services pay their own way including airlines. Lets forget the fact that air traffic control is run by the Goverment eliminate that saves 10 BILLION a year next the highway trust fund there goes another 10-15 B a year next make the barge operaters pay to maintain the waterways and canals and put the Army Corp of Enginners back on regular duty save about another 3 billion. Now you complain about 2 Bil a year for Amtrack considering that ridership is up to record levels the past 3 years straight. If they ever had to shut down the air transportaion again like after 9/11 again you can forget about ever being able to take another flight again united is bankrupt American is not far behind Delta is next. Soutwest is barely making a profit right now because of fuel costs. Grayhound is going under agin do to high fuel costs. Now how are we supposed to travel anywere I can not drive de to my medical condition and will not fly or take a bus what are people like me supposed to do!!!![2c][soapbox][soapbox]. I for one keep righting my congressman who is in the majority in congress and tell him to fund amtrack like it needs to be done right now there is a bill to fund amtrack at 2 billioion a year for the next 5 years so they can get caught up on everything needed.

[Ham549]

For trips fewer than 400 miles trains are more efficient than airlines. Amtrak has very little to work with when it comes to bring better service. I am sorry to say as an American unless I travel abroad I won’t get to experience speeding along at 210mph. Even China is getting into the high-speed rail market. Since the government had neglected passenger rail (even before Amtrak) while it went out of its way for highway and airlines the passenger rail service now need to catch up and Uncle Sam like he did with building new highways and airports needs to put in the green. The government should also give tax cuts to railroads that upgrade there tracks that Amtrak runs on to higher speed track.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by edbenton

SP and S fan you say Amtrack should sick or swim on its own Fine a couple of points for you to ponder. Lets make ALL transportaion services pay their own way including airlines. Lets forget the fact that air traffic control is run by the Goverment eliminate that saves 10 BILLION a year next the highway trust fund there goes another 10-15 B a year next make the barge operaters pay to maintain the waterways and canals and put the Army Corp of Enginners back on regular duty save about another 3 billion. Now you complain about 2 Bil a year for Amtrack considering that ridership is up to record levels the past 3 years straight. If they ever had to shut down the air transportaion again like after 9/11 again you can forget about ever being able to take another flight again united is bankrupt American is not far behind Delta is next. Soutwest is barely making a profit right now because of fuel costs. Grayhound is going under agin do to high fuel costs. Now how are we supposed to travel anywere I can not drive de to my medical condition and will not fly or take a bus what are people like me supposed to do!

1) I oppose public subsidies for Amtrak as well as airlines, barging, cross-country busing, and trucking companies.

2) Amtrak ridership is higher than ever. That would tend to indicate that Amtrak's revenue is up, and therefore Amtrak should need less, not more, of taxpayers' money to operate efficiently. There are parts of the country where Amtrak has a fighting chance of being viable as a business -- the NEC with reasonable certainty and maybe California.

3) Want to travel or move a product from Point A to Point B? Then pay for the fare as the market drives the price without sucking at the government teat. I don't pay for your movie tickets, groceries (unless you're on food stamps), mortgage (unless you receive HUD subsidies), or gasoline. So why should I or anyone else pay for you to travel by plane, bus, or train? It's illogical.

4) Sorry to hear about your medical condition and inability to drive because of it. But that's not enough of a reason for me to agree to subsidize a national transportation system -- be it rail, bus, or airline -- for you. Underscore "national". I have no gripe with locally subsidized services that help physically impaired people get around to take care of their necessities. At least I see some value given for my tax money.

[CG9602]

QUOTE: Originally posted by HighIron2003ar

Amtrack has several long distance trains and a Northeast Corridor.

The long distance train service from Little Rock to Washington is like 260- for 34 hours riding in a coach seat, triple for sleeper via Chicago.

I just finished a Southwest Airlines flight for less than that.

Now when you took that flight, did the plane make 25 stops in addition to the end points? If it did, with all of the fuel being consumed with those landings and takeoffs, how much do you think the price of the ticket would then be? did the plane make an effort to serve tha several city pairs of destinations that result from that sort of route? You see, that's the probelm with comparing train outes to airplane routes. It's like comparing apples to oranges. Also, seeing as how amtrak is making every effort to cover its costs, can you blame them for charging what the market will bear for the sleeper price?

QUOTE: There are proposals for high speed rail based on the Japanese Bullet and the French TGV and other European High speed rail. It will take a great deal of years, money, sweat and paperwork to even think about tying the 48 state together with a train service that serves the people nationwide.

You make good points here, howeverm there are also efforts to bring high(er) speed rail to the US. Several markets in the northern Midwest, for example Saint Paul, MN to Chicago, and Chicago to Saint Louis, are candidates for routes. if you take the train between Milwaukee & St. Cloud, you'll notice that it can be very busy, & there is no real "off" season. I've taken this route numerous times, and to me this level of demand represents an underserved market.

QUOTE: I dont know too much about gas prices, I think that belongs in the gas price thread. I fill two cars up three times a month as everything is close to home. So, to me gas prices are irrevelant. My breakpoint is about 3.45 a gallon.

I'm happy to live in a country where my situation is similar. If you've ever seen prices on gas in Asia and Europe, you'll think twice about complaining of the gas prices Stateside. Have you seen the prices on gas overseas?