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.

[Ham549]

For trips over 400 miles a train is not efficient. Also Amtrak could have grate service except Uncle Sam helped other travel industries stay ahead of Amtrak instead of letting the industry deal with it’s self. If the government left things alone the airlines, bus lines, and train lines would all be able to compete on an equal bases. But by destroying the competitive atmosphere by giving airlines and such money and leaving railroads to fend for them self’s it got so bad that railroads didn’t want to run passenger trains. This led to the formation of Amtrak a railroad given old crappy equipment to start with (while the competition had the newest stuff) made to run on mostly other railroads lines with low speed limits and told to make money. It was set up to fail. Unlike other countries that stuck to there railroads and have something to brag about Germany, Sweden, France, Japan, and even to some extent Canada.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by ndbprr

Let's see. I think I'll take the train on my next business trip from Chicago to Milwaukee or Detroit. All I have to do is find some way from the 'burbs into downtown Chicago (1-2 hours), get a train and find some way (probably a cab) to get to the customer who is now in the 'burbs of either city. Then I need to reverse the whole process to get home. In the two hours it takes me to get into CHicago I could be in Milwaukee at my customer or 1/3 of the way to Detroit. What you have all missed is that without good access to the train station it ain't never gonna fly. When people lived in the city and could jump on a bus, streetcar or subway it was easy. It would cost me a minimum of four times driving time and probably reduce my efficiency by at least a factor of two. Take the train? Sorry guys it is an early 20th century mode of transportation whose time has come and gone. Luxurious - could be. Efficient - nope. you want an efficient system then find a way for the business man to load his car on some type of rail vehicle, have access to internet, e mail and computer service and get to milwaukee in 20 minutes, St. Louis in and hour and a half or Detroit in two hours. We are probably talking some type of mag lev sled that would be preprogrammed to a certain route. That I would ride and the cost would justfy itself becasue of the productivity increase not decrease and you don't need to go through security and wonder if the Middle Eastern guy tarveling with you is up to no good..

I have to agree in general, but take my case, which is worse because of the miles that I travel. I live on the west coast and 90% of my meetings are in Washington DC. Any single day meeting takes three days now, One for travel to DC, one for the meeting and one to travel back. I would love to take a train, but no one in their right mind would allow nine days for this.

To be fair, it was the 20th Century mode of travel for about sixty years and really dropped off after 1960 or so. Remember the 707. I rode the Mopac from St. Louis to Texas in 1962, and it was still great to get on a train and travel, but again, the jets were taking over and the Interstate highway system was not done yet . After Amtrak in 1971, the freight railroads have made sure no one really wants to travel again on their railroad tracks. In the corridors where they own the track, I know it is better. The airlines get the benefit of money being subsidized today and even they are broke.

[ndbprr]

Let's see. I think I'll take the train on my next business trip from Chicago to Milwaukee or Detroit. All I have to do is find some way from the 'burbs into downtown Chicago (1-2 hours), get a train and find some way (probably a cab) to get to the customer who is now in the 'burbs of either city. Then I need to reverse the whole process to get home. In the two hours it takes me to get into CHicago I could be in Milwaukee at my customer or 1/3 of the way to Detroit. What you have all missed is that without good access to the train station it ain't never gonna fly. When people lived in the city and could jump on a bus, streetcar or subway it was easy. It would cost me a minimum of four times driving time and probably reduce my efficiency by at least a factor of two. Take the train? Sorry guys it is an early 20th century mode of transportation whose time has come and gone. Luxurious - could be. Efficient - nope. you want an efficient system then find a way for the business man to load his car on some type of rail vehicle, have access to internet, e mail and computer service and get to milwaukee in 20 minutes, St. Louis in and hour and a half or Detroit in two hours. We are probably talking some type of mag lev sled that would be preprogrammed to a certain route. That I would ride and the cost would justfy itself becasue of the productivity increase not decrease and you don't need to go through security and wonder if the Middle Eastern guy tarveling with you is up to no good..

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by trainjumper

America is behind, in my view, on mass transit partly because of big business, like automobile and oil corporations, cutting back on trains and trams in America in favor of everyone being forced into having cars. In Europe, where I have family and have lived, almost nobody really needs a car. Trains are everywhere. What's going on in America?! As long as big business runs our governmnet, and Bush represents big business not the working class majority, then train construction, I believe, will suffer. Anyone have anything to add on this?

Trainjumper

We could demand a three dollar tax on gasoline to raise our prices per gallon to the same as Europe if you want public transportation. That is why fuel cost so much in all of Europe and why trains and small cars are used. Also if you want to fly from London to Birmingham, you have to make a stop on the airlines and it is easy to use the train. I flew to London from LA and took the train up to Birmingham, which only took about 1 hour and runs every fifteen minutes or so at the speed of close to 100 mph. Most of Europe and UK especially is very small compared to this large nation and long distance train travel accross this country is not practical for people on business. Only the family vacation and sight seeing traveler uses our rails for long distance.

The NY to DC runs really should be used instead of airplane travel. We have lost our trains about thirty years ago when the railroads no longer had passengers and Amtrak took over, and that was many years before our president was in office. Don't blame the whole thing on today, it happened many years ago when the jet plane was introduced in our country.

You cannot blame big business for making our standards and choices high in this country. I have traveled Europe on business and have rode the trains in the UK also and enjoyed it, but the fuel prices is what drives the transportation mode.
When our prices per gallon hit $2.60 recently in California, I expected to see less Expeditions and crew cab trucks doing 75 to 80 mph on the freeways, but the prices of fuel did not slow down anyone, at least in California.

By the way , Bush does not want my trains I am sure.

[Anonymous]

America is behind, in my view, on mass transit partly because of big business, like automobile and oil corporations, cutting back on trains and trams in America in favor of everyone being forced into having cars. In Europe, where I have family and have lived, almost nobody really needs a car. Trains are everywhere. What's going on in America?! As long as big business runs our governmnet, and Bush represents big business not the working class majority, then train construction, I believe, will suffer. Anyone have anything to add on this?

Trainjumper

[Anonymous]

Think lot of people in the USA are not aware that Amtrak trains offer a good service. Using last year Amtrak from New Orleans to Chicago (arriving 9 minutes to early!). From Chicago to Salt Lake City (our CZ was arriving nearly 4 hours late) and from Oakland to Albany,OR (beeing happy to be on the first Coast Starligt getting trough that burned tunnel!). We had very good service on all this trains.
Trains over here in Europe may be faster (and are on the NEW lines) but THAT kind of service is missed over here.
A while ago somebody wrote, dont let get our (in the USA) trains the way of those like in South Amerika. Do you really want a service like in the 3rd World???.
The argument that there are sometimes only 3 trains a week is not a reason to shut down the train, but rather to "upgrade" the train to more runs in the week.
Is there somebody who tells: We have to shut down XXmiles of country roads because of the small traffic on those roads??.
I only can agree to those writing if you stop funding Amtrak, then also please stop funding roads and airlines and how about waterways?.
A last note to the one who wants less stops. The big adventage of trains are, they can stop "everywhere" (at least where is some kind of a platform). So why not think about more stops "in the woods", IFneeded. Since most trains are reserved anyhow, they stop only where passengers have a reservation. The flipside of this idea however is, that those "Flagstops" (at least most of'em) cannot be manned.
Over here in Europe, lot of lines which the gouverment owned railroad wanted to shut down, are now served by private railroads. They are ADDING stops to catch more passengers!
Hope all the best for Amtrak

[whipperpup]

But, folks, all of us Railroaders of the United States, know that with in 10 to 15 years there will be no railroad as we know it! And, plus, i like the idea of railroads going back to individual passenger service. It may help boost freight roads such as CSX, Norfolf Southern, and Southern Pacific to actually carry passengers again.

[Ham549]

There is a demand for quality rail servise but uncle Sam won't help out Amtrak was set up to fail.

[Anonymous]

Ladies and gentlemen-- --LADIES AND GNETLEMEN! Please, if you chose to understand "supply and demand" economics for any enterprise, please inform yourself! If you wi***o make political statements, please first "inform yourself." If you wi***o enjoy a hobby of creative thought, not destructive slang: "inform yourself." But for heavens sake, buy a new model and "enjoy yourslef."

[DSchmitt]

More from

http://www.rppi.org/transportation/ps235.html

"The U.S. population in 1970, the year Congress created Amtrak, was 203.3 million. The Census Bureau estimates the September 1, 1997, population at 268 million. In 1972, Amtrak’s first full year of operation, it carried 16.6 million passengers. In comparing 1997 with 1972, Amtrak carried only 3.1 million more passengers despite a national population growth of about 60 million. This reflects the worst U.S. market penetration of any mode of passenger transport.

Travel on Amtrak-style overnight trains is declining worldwide (China is an exception). In Europe, passenger rail’s market share dropped by nearly 20 percent in the 1980s, while the airline market share increased by 60 percent. The decline would have been more startling except that high-speed and commuter train systems registered gains that masked long-distance declines. Railway Gazette International editorialized that most European overnight routes "face an uncertain future." The London & Continental Railways recently abandoned plans to operate sleeping car trains from Scotland and England to Paris via the Channel Tunnel, with chief executive Adam Mills stating, "a night service from the regions is simply not viable." The sleeping cars ordered in 1992 are being sent into long-term storage, a good example for the United States to follow. Amtrak-style conventional trains are being discontinued in countries as dissimilar as Argentina and the Czech Republic, whose 1998 timetable will show 5,889 trains, down from 6,258. The Czech Railway is curtailing passenger train service despite strident objections by labor unions. "

[ndbprr]

The above referenced Amtrak stats include the corridor traffic which is an anomoly. My personal opinion is anyone who wants long distance trains feel free to send a contribution to Washington. I don't want to pay for it anymore than subsidsidizing sugar cane farmers or growers of angora goats.

[DSchmitt]

QUOTE: Originally posted by joseph2

I will guess that most Amtrak users are the young,the poor,the old, and people who live in cities.In other words,Democrats.Here in Indiana our republican governer was Bush's budget director.He wants to close the Amtrak repair shops at Beech Grove,Indiana. Me,I don't care for either party.

"Rider Demographics. Amtrak claims to provide mobility to all social classes. It is useful to consider a Cato Institute policy analysis, which relied on data from the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Nationwide Personal Transportation Survey and Amtrak itself. It concluded:

The poor are not especially heavy users of Amtrak. Three-fourths of Amtrak passengers have incomes above the national average. Travel on Amtrak by persons with incomes above $40,000 is the highest of any mode—3.5 times higher than on buses and nearly 1.5 times higher than on airlines. Nearly one-third of Amtrak passengers have household incomes of $75,000 or more, and 20 percent have incomes of $100,000 or more. Amtrak’s clientele is much more skewed toward higher incomes than the general population."

The above quote is from this website:

http://www.rppi.org/transportation/ps235.html

[joseph2]

I will guess that most Amtrak users are the young,the poor,the old, and people who live in cities.In other words,Democrats.Here in Indiana our republican governer was Bush's budget director.He wants to close the Amtrak repair shops at Beech Grove,Indiana. Me,I don't care for either party.

[Anonymous]

I don't think he wants mine.