Amtrak - are you helping to keep it

[Anonymous]

I am disappointed that I don't hear more about keeping a national rail transportation system from those of us who love trains. I scan the listings of articles in th online editions of newspapers for the story on the Amtrak fight. Then I check the Letters to the Editor.

There are articles, a few responses.

I hope we have made an effort to fight for continuing passenger train in America.

What have you done? Let's hear.

[Anonymous]

To start this off...
I wrote to both U.S. Sentors and my Representative. Not once, but several times. each time adding details learned and being calm but insistant.

I write a Letter to the Editor each time an article appears in an online newspaer edition I find. I praise and support those that are pro-rail. I respectfully disagree with those that are not pro rail passenger.

If we don't care enough to act, who will?

Walter
Brooklyn NY

[Anonymous]

There is only one way to support a national passenger rail system, buy a ticket. How many trips has anyone taken that could have been by train but decided a car was more convienent or an airline quicker?

I have taken 4 trips on Amtrak in the month of March. 3 from PDX to SEA and 1 Empire Builder to Chicago and back.

Passenger numbers will support it!

[Anonymous]

I am a college student at Rider University near Trenton, NJ, and Amtrak is the only way I travel to NYC. Like everyone in this forum, I am a railfan, and would love to see Amtrak succeed. However, for Amtrak to get the overhaul and capital funding it needs, the issue needs to be brought to center stage in the media. Chances are that's not going to happen. And unless lots of people are making LOTS of noise about this, the politicians in Washington probably won't do much more than they have for the past thirty years: try to forget that passenger rail is a feasible and effective mode of transportation.

[Anonymous]

Dear Walter

I am not doing a thing to help Amtrak. It is and always has been a political boondogle. It serves no economic or social purpose. It is a large hidden tax on the freight railroads.

If you read the Reform Councils report carefully you will see a statement to the effect that because non Amtrak passenger trains are carried at marginal cost, Amtrak is subsidizing the commuter operators to the tune of 4 of 5 Hundred Million dollars. This is why the ARC wants to separate infrastructure from train operations.

The ARC, nor anyone else, has addressed the subsidy the freight railroads give Amtrak for the same reason, that is marginal costing vs full costing.

The best we can hope for is that congress will kill this albatross.

Mac

[Anonymous]

I been folowing it just like the rest you guys. I
personaly do not want to see the passenger service dropped either.But I don't think it will.
But It does need fixed badly. The best solution is get some one else that can manage it better even it means privatizing most or all parts. Like mentioned back in a another forum that kind faded
away.Back in the old passenger train ara. No one
would ever think of hauling non hazordous freight behind a passenger train. But now you see Amtrak
doing it. Times changed with the hauling rules. The regular frieght trains sees that, probably wondering why can't wee do that. Shesh
any more you see Amtak hauling more frieght cars than passenger cars. I can picture a BNSF with some superlineres in there orange colors with 6
or more roadrailers and box cars tagging along.You
got to be making money that way. Well I'm axtiously waiting to see what the Bush administration plan will come up with. It may work

[Anonymous]

Mac,

You 'da man! I made several postings to this effect last time the thread was alive. If someone wants to support Amtrak, let 'em buy a ticket. Based on what I have heard, it appears that Amtrak is a burden to the freight railroads and to the taxpayers.

I work in the highway industry and I know the staggering cost of building a mile of highway. But in addition to the construction costs there are R/W costs and utility relocation costs. A well meaning supporter of Amtrak told me the other day that it was perfectly reasonable for Amtrak to expect the government to pay for the infrastructure. After all, he said, the government pays for the truckers infrastructure. But that's bull! The truckers infrastructure is paid for in gasoline taxes by the people who benifit from the road. I don't want to pay for Amtrak if it is not providing me a service. Let the people who want to use Amtrak bear the cost.

[Anonymous]

Back in the "old passenger era" the "non hazardous" freight was hauled in express boxcars on the front end of passenger trains,look at old pictures. The major freight railroads,through the AAR, are on record saying that Amtrak should be the sole intercity passenger service operator. As far as the administration plan,neither Republicans nor Democrats have ever made an organized effort to fix Amtrak, so I'm not holding my breath.

[RudyRockvilleMD]

The reason you hear very little about keeping a national passenger rail transportation systems is very few care. I believe some intercity passenger rail sevice is necessary, mainly corridor and short haul, but not the long distance.

Federal funding should be limited to infrastructure and capital needs not operating subsidies except for the Northeast Corridor where an interstate compact might be too unwieldy to manage. Federal funds are used to finance highways and air travel, but they only finance infrastructure, and they are backed by user charges in the form of the aviation trust fund, which is funded by taxes on airline tickets, and the highway trust fund which is backed by an 18.4 cents per gallon gasoline tax.

For the short term intercity passenger rail service should be revamped so that no passenger operator has the statuory right of access to the freight railroads; this is the way it is done with the local commuter authorities, they have to negotiate the terms with the freight railroads. While it may be desireable to accord passenger trains priority dispatching there may be times for operational reasons when the freight railroads may not be able to do that; the freight railroads should have the flexibility to put their trains first.

But what about the long term? There are a few corridors where high speed rail, average speeds of at least 125 mph or higher, might be viable, however, many of the corridors that were identified for high speed rail service in a DOT study are not viable. The criteria for viable high speed rail corridors are availability of ridership, distance (200 - 400 miles), and the ability to be able to maintain an average speed of at least 125 mph.

[Anonymous]

Yes I'm aware of the express cars .I aplogize
for making my apinion.

[thirdrail1]

Since Amtrak is a creature of the government, the only effective way to accomplish anything concerning its continued existence, revival or recreation is to write your Congressman and Senators. It is they, and they only, who will decide the fate of Amtrak.

[RudyRockvilleMD]

It seems as if Congress has put the responsibility on the Department of Transportation for developing a plan for continuing passenger rail service. Congress has asked the Department of Transportation to develop passenger rail service legislation that will not be vetoed in light of the projected budget deficits for fiscal years 2002 and 2003.

[Anonymous]

Now this is more to the point. It's great to read the views of those who have an interest in railroading.

I'm actually not suprised to read that not all of us like, or want, passenger trains to exist with freight, or even exist at all because our taxes might be used for them.

And yes, the view that if you want to save passenger service then we and more new people ought to use it. I certainly do use it, as well as other local and regional rail providers. I have to, I can not and never will be able to drive since my vision, even corrected, will always be worse than what is allowed to drive. Besides, even if I could just get by, I know that I would be a hazard on the road to myself and others.

I'm selfishly a supporter of passenger rail. I'm proud to say so. I've flown and don't like it, even less now than before. Buses work if they are available where rail is not. But I have my own difficulty with the short seats.

I do hope though that consideration is honestly given to the issue. Once permanently lost, I fear, the connection from suburban/urban centers between States will not be reconnected.

Keep letting you thought be known. Support the rail you know and use.

Walter

[Anonymous]

I see what you mean Sam5775. True the old passenger trains did have express cars behind the engine.But one difference they where equiped with
extra hoses and electrical conections between the cars for head end power. And these cars for loading and unloading at each station. When you
trail roadrailer and box cars at end. You have the
luxury of disconecting them and leaving the entire
car or cars and picking up new ones at any station Amtak perfers. I believe Amtrak will prevail awhile longer.But it takes the freight railroads
to help them out and work with them to make a difference to there survival and the people to get
off the airplanes and see what America looks like
beside looking down from jetplane window. I took
my elderly mother on one last train ride arcoss
the states see the rest my family. This country
don't know what there missing. Each family has to try it just once....

[Anonymous]

My husband and I were planning a rail trip to see America. We had a certain budget, but when planning the trip on the Empire Builder from eastern washington, the whole trip would have been at night. We would leave at 8pm and arrive at 4am. I have a hard time understanding how much of America I can see at night. Return trip, same.

[Anonymous]

Hmm I'm clueless of what happened on that Washington trip. Could there be more factors be there? Like example if there are daylight trips are they booked up and is that the only time you can squedule your vacation if they are booked up?

[Anonymous]

This is to idea brought on by Sam5775 on March
28..Remember this just a pipe dream that will never work so don't get excited Jonathen..
Hmmm what if you tied few superliners a sleeper
and a dinner in front of the hot shot train. This
is the fastest non stop freight train for ups thats coast to coast that BNSF&CSX&NS are famous for.Well if Amtrak want to do try it a
nonstop hotshot auto train coast to coast non stop
yaa thats it there ya go... hmmmm

[Anonymous]

Wow,

I don't usually bother to post here but cablebridge's response was so completely wrong that I had to. First off, if you work in the highway industry you know that trucks cause thousands of times more wear on the roads than cars and the taxes, they pay, although hefty, don't begin to cover "their fair share". Second, if I use my boat, snowmobile, or even mow my lawn, I'm also paying the gas tax, but not using the road so saying the gas tax is fair is simply not. The government does finiance the roads and airports because transportation turns our economy; why not finiance rail? And to say you don't use Amtrak is once again false....don't you get the mail or eat fruit? They both, among other things, ride the rails. I think maybe someone doesn't want to think of an rail structure so good it eliminates the need for our "government fattened" highway system!!!

[Anonymous]

Ho, ho, ho ...

Let's see, where should I begin ...

Yes, trucks do a lot of damage to the roads and that cost is not proportional to the taxes and fees charged to the truck operators.

Yes, when you pay for gas for your recreational vehicles and your lawn mower you are putting in a little more than those who do not. (You got a boat AND a snowmobile? Cool!)

Yes, I get mail. Mostly bills, but I know some who are not online yet. It was posted on this site a while back that the government had diverted mail shipments to the airlines from the railroads to help them out. Was this inaccurate? Amtrak hauls a significant (or even incidental?) amount of fruit and mail? I wasn't aware of that. What are they transporting in those Tropicana cars that go through my town each week, Chess sets?

Now, while the truck operators don't pay the share of damage they cause, it is a wash. If the taxes were restructured so the truckers did pay the correct share then the costs would be passed along to us at the retail level. Oh! and then we would get to pay state sales tax on the trucker's share. Great idea! Seriously, in the end we all benifit from the truckers access to the highway system and I don't think a better system is likely to be adopted by anyone.

Back to your boat, do they charge gas taxes when you buy gas at the dock? I would be in favor of eliminating that, although I worry that some would abuse that loophole in the gas tax and find a way to fill up their cars. Unfortunately, I doubt either of us could get a congressman to listen to our request to reduce taxes on this one. Sorry, that's the best I can do for you there.

Back to Amtrak hauling mail and fruit, is it a significant amount of either? I must admit that I hear a lot of different stories on mail. One fellow tells me it is on the planes. Another article talks about the number of U.S. Mail trailers seen on TOFC trains. Of course, I see plenty of trucks carrying it about town. My guess is that the volume of mail carried by Amtrak is incidental to the total but I could be completely wrong about that.

Before I get to my main point though, unless you or one of your buddies can overcome gravity, which I am in favor of if you can, I'm not too concerned about the government drastically reducing its funding for highways. I am a structural engineer. Bridges for highways or railroads, I don't care. Buildings, whatever, I'm just not worried. And if you think I have the power on this forum to influence natioinal transportation policy, you flatter me beyond my wildest dream.

Now to the important point. As an engineer I respect the efficiency of our rail network. I would like to see as much freight travel by rail as practical and I think the best measure of what is practical is our free market system. Our transportation network is an essential component of our free market system because without the ability of my supermarket to choose between oranges from Florida or California there is no free market system. I hope we agree that the free market is good for all of us and that the transportation network is important for that reason.

I know the government funds highways and airports. While I don't know the numbers, I suspect the government's support of airports is higher than I would like but there is little I can do about that. I would like the users to pay the costs of the airport. As I said before, because of the open access of the highway network I can't think of a better way to finance the construction of the nations highways. I can think of a bunch of ways to make our highway dollars go further but the majority of the highway industry isn't interested in listening to the engineers who design the system. You may just have to trust me on that one.

The reason I don't think the government should be involved in passenger rail transportation is because they upset the balance of the free market. Every freight railroader I have spoken to has told me they would rather the Amtrak trains were not operated on their line. Are there any on this forum who like Amtrak trains operating on their tracks? I'm honestly curious. Those I have talked to tell me of long waits on remote sidings waiting for an Amtrak train to pass and they don't care for it. I have been told that there are special clearance (time) requirements for Amtrak trains which upset the flow of freight. As I am not a train operator (engineer) I have taken these men at their word.

If Amtrak were as universally accessable as the road network, then I would not have a problem with it being universally funded. However, it is my perception that Amtrak service is concentrated in the northeast and between some of the largest cities. Amtrak doesn't provide any commuter service in my town. I wouldn't want Amtrak to have to because it would only serve the needs of a few and we would all have to pay for their convenience. It is immoral to expect others to pay for something which benefits you.

I would like to see passenger rail thrive again in this country. I have two proposals for those who think it would be good in your community. First, contact your congressmen and ask them to divert some of your highway funds to support the passenger rail system in your area. If you think the money would be better spent on rail transportation in your community, I have no problem with that. My second proposal would be to privatize passenger rail operations and let the users pay for the system they use. This could be done by having the existing railroads run passenger service if they choose or finding an entrepreneur who wanted to take a substantial risk and build a new passenger rail network. I imagine the first alternative would be more likely to occur.

Finally, I think the federal government should eliminate many taxes which the railroads pay in order to make the playing field more level. I know that some of this probably comes across a bit harsh, but your willingness to state that I am 'wrong' when we simply don't agree sort of hit a hot button. The post is much too long for me to fix right now so I hope you will simply indulge my weakness. I would like to discuss this further if you like. I just honestly think the government's involvement in pasenger rail would only insure that it is less efficient and I don't want that.

Regards - Ed