Let's get this straight!!!

[dharmon]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MP57313

QUOTE: Originally posted by dharmon
Business travellers by and large do not travel by rail across the country.

This is true, though not for want of trying.
As for return on investment...whose investment? Rail service is a 'consumable item'; what would be left over in the way of dividends? I ride the train because I think I get good value for the money. Suppose I ride the Coast Starlight to Oxnard. While in Oxnard, I buy lunch, plus a couple newspapers, plus some drinks or film at a local drugstore. Every little bit helps the local economy, no?
Later in the day I return south on a Surfliner. I would not have made this trip if the train was not there.
I suppose some taxpayers would argue that the train took me away from where I normally would have been that afternoon, and just diverted my where I normally spent money (though I picked up film just to get pictures of the trains).

The southern section of the "UP Coast Line" was out of commission, Amtrak-wise, for a few weeks. For those Santa Barbara businesses (hotels, restaurants, stores) that depend on rail travelers, sales were off 20% or more in some areas while rail travel was out.

I realize that none of this makes much of a difference to most folks. But I do think there are other areas where rail travel positively impacts local businesses...

And that's my point. Short haul corridors like the coast line that are ripe for service, have and are being developed and it's driven by the state or region. Metrolink and the Coaster both have good ridership. But how many of those businesses are relying on passengers from Chicago or Philadelphia? If the NEC is viable and self sustaining then the states served need to pony up and make it work, just like Caltrans is doing. There isn't a whole lot I can say nice about Califonia, but making the trains runs is definitely in the good column.

[bbrant]

QUOTE: Originally posted by O.S.

Mr. Brant: That's exactly the plan advanced by David Stockman. Didn't work. I'll try one more time to see if this thread is anything more than a rant.

How do you propose to convince the U.S. public to drop their support for Amtrak? And why do you think your proposal will be successful this time?

OS

OS -

First of all, I don't recall I ever said my proposal would be successful. Right or wrong, I think privitization would be a better than relying on gov. money. Would it work, who knows but I think that is the intention of the Bush admin and I can't fault them for that.

[Anonymous]

Fair enough answer, bbrant.

I'll be well and truly surprised if the Bush Administration's efforts will be successful this time any more than the efforts of the last 20 or so attempts by various administrations to kill Amtrak. It would seem the privatization message just isn't resonating with the voters. They seem to like Amtrak -- not enough to make it a really good service, or an effective service, but they're not willing to let it go, either. They don't seem to agree that privatization is better than relying on government money. Maybe the voters are all different now. You ever heard the saying, "the battle isn't always to the strongest, or the race to the swiftest, but that's how you place your bets"? I wonder why so many administrations insist on betting on long shots.

OS

[arbfbe]

Perhaps the public is more interested in "railbanking" AMTK at this point. They know if it is abandoned it will never come back. If they just keep it limping along then there will be a base to build upon. I am not sure there is any financial analysis about this, just more of a gut feel by members in Congress. It is amazing AMTK has been able to stand up against the airline lobby for this long.

So if AMTK sticks around and a few more corridors are developed, rail travel will get better. Imagine what kind of a rail system we would have if the railroads had conceded long distance travel to the airlines in the 1960s and concentrated on doing short haul hub and spoke service to the airlines? Of course we all know that long haul always provides the best revenue. That is the way the railroads view it, and so do the airlines and trucks and shipping companies.

Alan

[bobwilcox]

QUOTE: Originally posted by O.S.

Fair enough answer, bbrant.

I'll be well and truly surprised if the Bush Administration's efforts will be successful this time any more than the efforts of the last 20 or so attempts by various administrations to kill Amtrak. It would seem the privatization message just isn't resonating with the voters. They seem to like Amtrak -- not enough to make it a really good service, or an effective service, but they're not willing to let it go, either. They don't seem to agree that privatization is better than relying on government money. Maybe the voters are all different now. You ever heard the saying, "the battle isn't always to the strongest, or the race to the swiftest, but that's how you place your bets"? I wonder why so many administrations insist on betting on long shots.

OS

I think the Bush administration's current Amtrak proposal is just a small part of a game. They knew the day the budget came out Congress would not go along on Amtrak and many other cuts.

They promised to do something about the defecit during the campaign. They now can say the have made a proposal but those evil Congressmen prevented a balanced budget and the beat goes on...

[Junctionfan]

QUOTE: Originally posted by dharmon

Developing passenger rail corridors for commuter and short haul intercity is a good idea. If done in a manner which is inexpensive, efficient and most of all convenient to the rider is good. Relieves traffic both on the ground and in the air. Long haul passenger travel is the vacation. As for rationing and trying to cut off demand. We are not fighting an all out national economy war of the likes of WWII. These dark fantasies of yours of global war and the end of days are just that. As I recall we don't get a whole lot of oil from Iran or Afghanistan. I'll give you credit for strategic schoolhouse thinking, but so far the tanks and planes haven't ground to a stop because of a diminished national oil reserve.

So do Canadians, with a vastly superior passenger rail system, ride the train from Montreal to Calgary or fly? Taking the family for a week's vacation to see dear Aunt Millie, do they fly or ride? Does Mr. Jones going there for a 1 day meeting fly or ride?

Dark fantasiers? I wish it was just that. If you can't see thease things as a possibility, you are living in fantasyland I'm afraid. If it is incorrect, excellent but if not, better to be prepared then S.O.L. This War against Terrorism wasn't really a prepared thing; it just happened and now the country has to deal with it just like the sneak attack at Pearl Harbor. Conserving on oil is the best way to stock up on fuel for the military. How much fuel do thease military vehicles land, sea and air use? You add that up over several years maybe even a decade and you end up spending billions of dollars on fuel. Who owns the majority of the oil interests? The middle east yes? Who owns the oil exactly? Those who invest in it. Who invest in it? Those shieks you here about that are so darn wealthy from oil, may or may not invest in terrorist groups with their profits. Now yes, South America also has oil but not enough to quench the thirst of the world and it's cars, furnaces, other moter vehicles etc. So......how do you divide the world supply of oil so you get more without paying more? You can't so you must reduce the amount by doing something to reduce the national need of fuel.

Using electric trains and using vehicles of natural gas is a start. Now as for Amtrak (to stay on topic), I can't argue with you about the long distance routes-you are absolutely right. However the short distance stuff like Interstate connections like Detroit to Chicago, New York to Montreal, Cleveland to Chicago and other medium distance commuter runs would be the best way to go.

If you look at the amount of VIA trains that run between Windsor and Toronto, Sarnia and Toronto, Toronto and Ottawa and Toronto and Montreal and then look at the population of the communities served and compare that to some of the U.S corridors, we runs quite a few for the size of our population. I don't know how VIA works so well but it does. Figuring that the U.S population is larger in terms of amount of cities over 200,000 people and commuter possibilities, I would have figured that Amtrak would have done much better in the medium distance commuter runs. Of course that was before I knew that the government was deliberately trying to screw Amtrak's possibility of success.

At any rate, I see potential in Amtrak and a profitable one at that. Amtrak is not dead but it's operating habits may need to change a bit in favour of more commuter services for now and less of the long distance stuff. After it demonstrates to the public how good it can run, maybe more funding for the extra curicular stuff can become available and the tourism part of Amtrak can sprout again.

Right now, VIA's profit is mostly in the Windsor Corridor which is a rather long route. As far as I know, the Canadian (Toronto to Vancouver) and the Ocean (Montreal to Halifax) are our only major trains. Of course Canada is only a population of 26/27 million.

[dharmon]

I don't know Andrew, I've got a couple of ribbons on my chest that signify a degree of experience in the war on terrorism, and in my opinion you are over dramatizing events. That being said, the majority of US oil imports do not come from OPEC nations. According to the US DOE, Canada accounted for the single greatest source of US imports from any single country in Dec 04. So apparently many of OPECs other customers...Europe, Japan.....who have much better passenger rail service are helping to line the shieks pockets.....Now, presuming that we were going to save all of this oil for military purposes....where is it we're supposed to stockpile it all? The strategic reserves will take some. The rest is going to be in the ground, waiting to be pumped...and transported...and refined....and transported again.....and then again....and stored...and transported....to get to the great global war when? Or we could just build great big tanks to make great big targets....

Passenger rail to decrease road and congestion...good. To decrease pollution....good. To reduce dependence on oil..not just foreign oil...good. To pin the hopes of bringing terror funding to it's knees on Amtrak.....

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by arbfbe

They know if it is abandoned it will never come back. If they just keep it limping along then there will be a base to build upon.

Personally, I suspect that if Amtrak ever did "go away", the high speed rail snake oil salesmen will come crawling out of the woodwork... Looking for, of all things, a public infusion of funds, to make their dream happen......wadda ya know? just like deja vu, all over again.

The prospect of HSR has festered up in the local paper here a few times, and the pattern that seems determined to repeat is usually along the lines of some private entity that wants to make it all happen,. but who first must fish out of the public the extent of state and local contribution that might be available,...of course,.. without the private entity bothering to put on the table just how much of an economic commitment they would contribute as their share. the commitments they seem to be willing to make extend to a willingness to spend as much of the public's contribution as possible to make it happen, and to control the farebox (big surprise, huh?)

In a way, the demise of Amtrak might ease the way for some form of HSR entity to get off the ground with their plan,...since at least then there would be a void to be filled. Whether or not that would be a "good" thing, I have yet to make up my mind.

The proposals that have been vaguely outlined for my locale in northern Indiana, propose a HSR corridor in one of two possible locations... One coming right through my own town, with the alternate being considerably out of the way.

They seem to be wanting to fi***he publics willingness to commit to funding the local share, without bothering to disclose which of the two routes will be the likely one built...

There's just a taint to the smell of that, due to the expectation that the public will commit without receiving any commitment what so ever if the route to be built will touch their comunity, or not..

"pig in a poke" is the way it looks to me..

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by DSchmitt

Spending money collected from highway users on highways does not justify subsidizing Amtrak. Even if the Federal government were subsidizing highways, that would not justify subsidizing Amtrak. Subsidizing air travel doesn't justify subsidizing Amtrak. (I am not addressing whether or not any mode of transportation should be subsiddized)

Spending money to defend this country does not justify subsidizing Amtrak. (Unless Amtrak can be shown to be useful for defence)

Amtrak may be worth funding. If so, find legitimate reasons to subsidize Amtrak.
If money isn't being taken from a lot of people just to let a few (1%) play with trains, prove it.

The proposed funding was not determined by whim. People who studied the issues much more thoroughly than any of us had input on the decision. The buget the President sends to Congress is never the budget adopted. Good solid arguments are needed if you want Amtrak funding increased.

Gee, you want it all to make sense?

I agree!

But, the first step is to figure out what Amtrak is supposed to be and I don't think that's ever been done. Too often I hear that Amtrak is a "placeholder" for some future rail passenger network - which is never really defined, either.

Once that is done, it's much easier to figure out what should be spent where.

The most humorous comment so far is the "Amtrak as insurance" in case of a nat'l emergency. Outside of the NE and maybe LA, there isn't enough Amtrak capacity to move a medium sized flea circus!

Maybe we should just define Amtrak as "kinetic art", instead.

[gfjwilmde]

Some of you are still missing the point. I can't make you want Amtrak if you don't want it. If any of you real railroaders remember, it was our government that was forcing the private freight railroads to run passenger trains to serve your local communities and cities, knowing it was at a loss. When the private freight railraods finally had enough, that's when Amtrak was formed. There were no private investment groups stepping up and saying that they are/were willing to run a passenger rail company, except the government. Now fast foward to the late 90's and now, and now our government wants private investment to take over and fund Amtrak. Well, I can tell you, again, no one is stepping foward to say they're willing to do so. Don't think for one minute the freight railroads are now willing to do this. If given a chance, the first thing they'll do is cancel all aggrements that they have with any passenger or commuter services that use their tracks. If Norfolk Southern had/has it's way, they'll dismantle the catenary on the Northeast Corridor and run freights up and down the entire property. All day and all night. The writing is on the wall when I saw those two intermodel trains from NS come right through Washington, DC's Union Station some month back. Plus, if anyone has been really reading your train magazines, you'll read the Great Britain is trying to go back to governmental controls of it's rail system, if not all, in part. They realized privatization is a fiasco and the British railroads are in the worst shape they have been in years. I can also agree with some of you that feel, if Amtrak doesn't serve your community, why then should my tax dollars go to support it. Well, I'm one that has used all forms of land, sea and air public transport, and I can tell you, not every form of public transportation goes to/near where you live nor to/near where you want to go. Not every city is linked to an airline nor are on a major intercity bus route. You know, I'm not going to try and bend your arms, but the next time you're stuck on a runway on a crowded airplane waiting to take off, don't blame Amtrak, because we won't exist. The same I can say for all of you that are stuck in your cars, on vacation, in a traffic jam several miles long because some tractor trailer jacknifed and wrecked. When the next 9/11 happens, you may miss us?



GLENN
A R E A L RAILROADER!!!!

[daveklepper]

But Amtrak did come through in the 11.09.01 emergency and had the capacity to do the essential job that was necessary, with the help of the bus companies, of course.

[bbrant]

QUOTE: Originally posted by gfjwilmde

Some of you are still missing the point. I can't make you want Amtrak if you don't want it. If any of you real railroaders remember, it was our government that was forcing the private freight railroads to run passenger trains to serve your local communities and cities, knowing it was at a loss. When the private freight railraods finally had enough, that's when Amtrak was formed. There were no private investment groups stepping up and saying that they are/were willing to run a passenger rail company, except the government. Now fast foward to the late 90's and now, and now our government wants private investment to take over and fund Amtrak. Well, I can tell you, again, no one is stepping foward to say they're willing to do so. Don't think for one minute the freight railroads are now willing to do this. If given a chance, the first thing they'll do is cancel all aggrements that they have with any passenger or commuter services that use their tracks. If Norfolk Southern had/has it's way, they'll dismantle the catenary on the Northeast Corridor and run freights up and down the entire property. All day and all night. The writing is on the wall when I saw those two intermodel trains from NS come right through Washington, DC's Union Station some month back. Plus, if anyone has been really reading your train magazines, you'll read the Great Britain is trying to go back to governmental controls of it's rail system, if not all, in part. They realized privatization is a fiasco and the British railroads are in the worst shape they have been in years. I can also agree with some of you that feel, if Amtrak doesn't serve your community, why then should my tax dollars go to support it. Well, I'm one that has used all forms of land, sea and air public transport, and I can tell you, not every form of public transportation goes to/near where you live nor to/near where you want to go. Not every city is linked to an airline nor are on a major intercity bus route. You know, I'm not going to try and bend your arms, but the next time you're stuck on a runway on a crowded airplane waiting to take off, don't blame Amtrak, because we won't exist. The same I can say for all of you that are stuck in your cars, on vacation, in a traffic jam several miles long because some tractor trailer jacknifed and wrecked. When the next 9/11 happens, you may miss us?



GLENN
A R E A L RAILROADER!!!!

Glenn -

I have to agree that freight railroads would like to see Amtrak off their lines just as much as I like to see my mother-in-law head for home after a weekend visit. And regardless of what happens with private investors, govt. funding or a combo of both, I believe Amtrak will always be around.

The issue for Amtrak is that people would wait on a crowded runway rather than take the train because they'll still arrive to their final destination quicker. Call it nature of the beast. Most people want/need to get from here to there 5 minutes ago and the best solution for them is flying. That's where Amtrak can't compete. Not that it's their fault, it's just the way it goes.

Another downfall for Amtrak is their schedules. Speaking from personal experience, I took the train from Pittsburgh to Detroit 9 years ago. I had to catch the train at midnight. To be honest with you, if I weren't a train buff I would never have opted for a schedule like that. I think most people are in that same boat in that they want a more convenient schedule. The other problem with the trip is that it took 8 hours. I could've drove there in about 5 or 6. I consider that another downfall.

With that being said, I'm guessing (hoping) that Amtrak made improvements since then. Dispite other posts I don't want Amtrak to go away. If a time comes up where I need to travel and I'm given the option, I would probably still opt for taking the train. Like I mentioned in a previous post is that I believe Amtrak would benefit more under privatization. But like you mentioned nobody is breaking out the checkbook yet.

Brian

[Junctionfan]

QUOTE: Originally posted by dharmon

I don't know Andrew, I've got a couple of ribbons on my chest that signify a degree of experience in the war on terrorism, and in my opinion you are over dramatizing events. That being said, the majority of US oil imports do not come from OPEC nations. According to the US DOE, Canada accounted for the single greatest source of US imports from any single country in Dec 04. So apparently many of OPECs other customers...Europe, Japan.....who have much better passenger rail service are helping to line the shieks pockets.....Now, presuming that we were going to save all of this oil for military purposes....where is it we're supposed to stockpile it all? The strategic reserves will take some. The rest is going to be in the ground, waiting to be pumped...and transported...and refined....and transported again.....and then again....and stored...and transported....to get to the great global war when? Or we could just build great big tanks to make great big targets....

Passenger rail to decrease road and congestion...good. To decrease pollution....good. To reduce dependence on oil..not just foreign oil...good. To pin the hopes of bringing terror funding to it's knees on Amtrak.....

Perhaps I am misinformed but why does CNN often talk about the U.S military low on oil researves?


BTW congradulations on your ribbons Dan.[:)] Just please stay safe if you can.

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by daveklepper

But Amtrak did come through in the 11.09.01 emergency and had the capacity to do the essential job that was necessary, with the help of the bus companies, of course.

Amtrak came through doing what? Some small number of stranded flyers filled the few available Amtrak seats on LD trains, but the vast majority rented cars and drove, even if it took a few days to get a car.

Amtrak's seat miles are almost invisible compared to the airlines. Passenger trains have not be a reasonable back up to flying since the 1950s.

[mucable]

QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd

QUOTE: Originally posted by daveklepper

But Amtrak did come through in the 11.09.01 emergency and had the capacity to do the essential job that was necessary, with the help of the bus companies, of course.

Amtrak came through doing what? Some small number of stranded flyers filled the few available Amtrak seats on LD trains, but the vast majority rented cars and drove, even if it took a few days to get a car.

Amtrak's seat miles are almost invisible compared to the airlines. Passenger trains have not be a reasonable back up to flying since the 1950s.

I must respectfully disagree with your statement that "passenger trains have not be (sic) a reasonable back up to flying since the 1950s".

A couple or so years ago, Car and Driver magazine did a test comparing travel times for three persons who all left DC at the same time bound for NYC. One took the train, one drove and one flew. The driver beat the train by 5 minutes, but I can imagine the stress involved in trying to negotiate the NJ Turnpike. As I recall, the air traveler arrived about 35 minutes behind the others. There was also a cost comparison which was quite revealing.

So how can you say it's not a reasonable alternative here in the 21st Century?

In short-to-medium distance corridors where train movements are more frequent than once a day, or even once an hour, I think it's a very reasonable mode of transport. That's because you should factor in everything on a total origination to final destination basis. A cab ride from the NYC airports to downtown Manhattan isn't what I would call inexpensive. and it adds travel time.

[dharmon]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan

QUOTE: Originally posted by dharmon

I don't know Andrew, I've got a couple of ribbons on my chest that signify a degree of experience in the war on terrorism, and in my opinion you are over dramatizing events. That being said, the majority of US oil imports do not come from OPEC nations. According to the US DOE, Canada accounted for the single greatest source of US imports from any single country in Dec 04. So apparently many of OPECs other customers...Europe, Japan.....who have much better passenger rail service are helping to line the shieks pockets.....Now, presuming that we were going to save all of this oil for military purposes....where is it we're supposed to stockpile it all? The strategic reserves will take some. The rest is going to be in the ground, waiting to be pumped...and transported...and refined....and transported again.....and then again....and stored...and transported....to get to the great global war when? Or we could just build great big tanks to make great big targets....

Passenger rail to decrease road and congestion...good. To decrease pollution....good. To reduce dependence on oil..not just foreign oil...good. To pin the hopes of bringing terror funding to it's knees on Amtrak.....

Perhaps I am misinformed but why does CNN often talk about the U.S military low on oil researves?


BTW congradulations on your ribbons Dan.[:)] Just please stay safe if you can.

What they are short on is operating budget, not fuel itself. Fuel dollars for training and readiness are nearly always in short supply. Storing It is kind of like gas for the lawnmower. If you keep it in a can in the garage for a long period of time it starts to go bad (this is a simplification). Stockpiling large amounts of fuel just takes up space. Running short on the battlefield is a logistics issue not so much a world supply issue.

[daveklepper]

Esxcuse me. There were rescue workers and doctors and others who road free into Penn Station to help with the situation on the day of the disaster. I presume the same happened in Alexandria with respect to the Pentagon. Sure some people could wait on line for the next rental car. But others had to get moving and Amtrak, for them, was there. Some of those people were on essential business. And this was true all over the USA, not just in the northeast.

[Junctionfan]

Are they short handed or not enough equipment? (off topic)

Any any rate all, Amtrak is still a practical problem solver or can be for something and doesn't need to or should be a problem causer.

[gfjwilmde]

Some of you still think that a private entity(another railroad or investment firm) is willing to start up and fully fund a passenger rail company?? Well, let's have this scenario. Once Amtrak is shut down, NS will swoop in and gobble up what they've wanted all along. The remaining piece of what was the Pennsy mainline, which by the way is Amtrak's Northeast Corridor. This mainline is very valuable for several reason. The first being, that this main passes by every major port facility from Baltimore to Boston. NS knowing this would block CSX from any rights to this main(NS is brutal at this), giving NS more access to said ports. Second, it would aleviate NS from paying huge trackage rights fees to Amtrak for the use said main, because it will be their's(except for the portion of track between CP AF[Alexandria, Va.] and CP Virginia[Washington, DC] which is owned by CSX). So then, they'll be able to run more of their intermodal trains on a truer north-south route through DC, instead of diverging through Hagerstown, Md. like they're doing now. NS would now have a two-four track mainline on which to run their trains, with no time restrictions(and probably no weight restrictions either). Although, CSX has a mainline that pretty much parallels Amtrak's main from DC to northern New Jersey, it's mostly single track, and so, capacity will be limited. Plus, if NS muscles CSX out of the remaining CR properties(the yards in northern & southern New Jersey), CSX will find it harder to maintain a presence in those port facilities I had mentioned earlier. Let's say however, Amtrak is restored after being shut down for several weeks. Now, with NS having control of the Northeast Corridor, were jammed. If they have control of this property, they'll see to it that their trains get priority ove Amtrak's instead of the other way around. Just something to think about before 1 October, 2005.


GLENN
A R E A L AND T R U E RAILROADER!!!!

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by gfjwilmde

Some of you still think that a private entity(another railroad or investment firm) is willing to start up and fully fund a passenger rail company?? Well, let's have this scenario. Once Amtrak is shut down, NS will swoop in and gobble up what they've wanted all along. The remaining piece of what was the Pennsy mainline, which by the way is Amtrak's Northeast Corridor. This mainline is very valuable for several reason. The first being, that this main passes by every major port facility from Baltimore to Boston. NS knowing this would block CSX from any rights to this main(NS is brutal at this), giving NS more access to said ports. Second, it would aleviate NS from paying huge trackage rights fees to Amtrak for the use said main, because it will be their's(except for the portion of track between CP AF[Alexandria, Va.] and CP Virginia[Washington, DC] which is owned by CSX). So then, they'll be able to run more of their intermodal trains on a truer north-south route through DC, instead of diverging through Hagerstown, Md. like they're doing now. NS would now have a two-four track mainline on which to run their trains, with no time restrictions(and probably no weight restrictions either). Although, CSX has a mainline that pretty much parallels Amtrak's main from DC to northern New Jersey, it's mostly single track, and so, capacity will be limited. Plus, if NS muscles CSX out of the remaining CR properties(the yards in northern & southern New Jersey), CSX will find it harder to maintain a presence in those port facilities I had mentioned earlier. Let's say however, Amtrak is restored after being shut down for several weeks. Now, with NS having control of the Northeast Corridor, were jammed. If they have control of this property, they'll see to it that their trains get priority ove Amtrak's instead of the other way around. Just something to think about before 1 October, 2005.


GLENN
A R E A L AND T R U E RAILROADER!!!!

I would think that with the demise of Amtrak, the NEC would be the most likely candidate to be spun off to a desiring private operator. It serves a usefull and in demand need, and I thought it was the one segment of Amtrak that was truly capable of carrying it's own weight.

I just hope the government doesn't "give away" the improved right of way without reasonable recovery of the public funds that have been spent to improve it, or ties some form of strings to such a deal to protect from the outright greed that might result if one entity got sole control, and tried to leverage their "monopoly".. Perhaps as an alternative to selling outright might be the leasing of the actual roadbed on a 3net type basis?

[bbrant]

Glenn -

Do you really think Amtrak is completely going away? I just can't see that happening.