Let's Just Give Passenger Rail Back.

[BaltACD]

QUOTE: Originally posted by SP9033

The freight railroads lobbied congress to take passenger rail away...Congress, getting re-election money from these railroads, did just that. Lifted the responsibility right away.

This federal program of passenger rail, called Amtrak, just didn't work. As easily as Congress took these railroad's responsibilities away 34 years ago, let's just give it back.

President Bush is all for making business live up to its commitments. Its time to admit that Amtrak just didn't work. The taxpayers just need to throw this ball back to the server, private enterprise - THE FREIGHT RAILROADS!

Jim - Lawton, NV MP 236

So long as the Freight Railroads have as say....the will say NO WAY! If there is to be valid passenger rail transportation it will have to be done as it is in the rest of the world....Governmental Operation of rail passenger transportation.

No rail passenger system in the world is profitable on its own, why should we expect the USA to be any different. Rail passenger transportation is a Public Service and should be treated as such.

[andrewjonathon]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton


Unless you frequently in and out of the 500 Amtrak stops your experience is anecdotal.

You can assume all you want about the cities and towns that don't have rail passenger service doing just fine, but you might want to ask the people living in those towns who on occasion travel more than 250 miles out of town if they are happy that they have no option but travel by car.

I'd say the evidence Amtrak provides is more than anecdotal. Everytime Amtrak makes cutbacks they seem disproportionately affect the small towns. It is the small towns that don't have any alternative that have hours cut, station agents removed. These are typically the same towns that do not have other alternative forms of transportation. If there were so many people boarding at these stations then why they the first places to get affected? However, if you have non-anecdotal evidence to refute my position, I am certainly willing to listen.

[oltmannd]

How does the argument that Amtrak serves 400 or so locations w/o air service square with the fact that there are thousands of towns without air, rail or bus service?

When counting stations w/o air service, are we counting places like Princeton Jct which is only 15 miles from Trenton's airport? Or Tyrone PA, which is only 15 miles from State College's airport?

[daveklepper]

There are people who cannot fly for medical reasons and many of those reasons prevent them from being on a bus more than two or three hours. But they can travel in a reclining seat day coach. Hint: One medical problem is having to use the john for one of several purposes while the seat belt light stayes lit for the whole trip.

[Modelcar]

....Paul: Why are you trying to cram everyone into airplanes....?

[oltmannd]

I got it! The solution to Amtrak. Let's go "offshore" and give it to Mexico. Using Mexican labor and labor rules, Amtrak could actually turn a profit.

...he said tongue in cheek!

[andrewjonathon]

QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd

How does the argument that Amtrak serves 400 or so locations w/o air service square with the fact that there are thousands of towns without air, rail or bus service?

When counting stations w/o air service, are we counting places like Princeton Jct which is only 15 miles from Trenton's airport? Or Tyrone PA, which is only 15 miles from State College's airport?

I am sorry but I think I am missing the point. Are you implying that all other towns in the US that Amtrak doesn't serve do have either air or bus service?

[andrewjonathon]

QUOTE: Originally posted by daveklepper

There are people who cannot fly for medical reasons and many of those reasons prevent them from being on a bus more than two or three hours. But they can travel in a reclining seat day coach. Hint: One medical problem is having to use the john for one of several purposes while the seat belt light stayes lit for the whole trip.

This is a common argument raised on this site for continuing long distance Amtrak service. It may very well be valid although I would be interested to find out how many of the travelling public actually fall into this category. However, I presume there must be many people that in this category that do not live in an Amtrak served city. How do you propose that these people travel if Amtrak is not an option? Of course I assume whatever the solution for these people outside of Amtrak served areas, it is the governments responsibility to provide the solution.

[kevarc]

Lower amtraks flag - it is way overdue.

[Anonymous]

Its kind of fun to read the replies. I see some good thinking going on here, I also see most folks bias, and yes I have one too.

But, if a viable Long Distance passenger train network is to continue, it will have to be operated by those carriers that own the rails. The freight railroads.

This ball needs to go back to the begining court from which it came. Yes, a government subsidy is nessecary to make it a profit center for the freight railroads, this making it interesting to the stockholders.

Jim - Lawton, NV MP 236

[daveklepper]

A good nationwide ground passenger transportation system would have Amtrak and buses on competitive on a core network and buses only serving the towns not on the core. Even now don't assume that people not on the Amtrak network don't use Amtrak. Elderly and infirm people can be driven or use a bus to the nearest Amtrak station and do so regularly. When I used Amtrak for business and pleasure travel, before moving to Jerusalem, I did this sort of thing regularly.

A business trip to Lubbok, Texas: The San Fransisco Chief Joliet-Amerillo and return, rental car Amerillo-Lubbok and return.

Five successive days in sleepers: Owl Boston-NY, Cresent to Hickery, North Carolina, except it didn't stop in Hickory and my client picked me up at the nearest Southern passenger station and returned me there to take the Piedmont to New Orleans. Then the Kansas City Southern to Shrieveport, a sleeper on the mixed connecting with the Texas Eagle through Little Rock to St Lous, and TWA back to Boston. The Illinois Terminal had just shut down its last passenger operations before I arrived, but I did get to view the rolloing stock stored in the St. Louis Terminal. Also rode two of the last four St. Louis streetcar lines.

Bus to Allentown, PA. Returning, the client drove me to Landsdale and I used SEPTA and Amtrak to get back to NYC.

Another similar trip to Allentown. But this time I picked up SEPTA at Norristown and used the former Red Arrow Philadelphia and Wewstern, now route 100 and the Marklet Street rapid transit to 30th Street Station.

Several trips from NY to Atlantic City before rail service was restored using Amtrak to Philadelphia and bus to AC.

State College PA accessed by bus from Amtrak at Lewistown, PA

The regular Amtrak bus connection between Tampa and St. Pete.

When Amtrak schedules didn't fit the bill, once rode Greyhound Richmond - DC, then a Metroliner to NYC. Greyhound honored my Amtrak ticket.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by csxengineer98
sp...what are you on..and where can i get some of it...it seems like some realy realy good stuff..
csx engineer

Its 35 years of watching the quality of life for working folks be put aside for some higher goal for the nation, that somehow never worked out for the majority of us! Its called a passion to tell truths, so folks can see through the lies!

Jim - Lawton, NV MP 236

[daveklepper]

More reaching towns not on Amtrak by Amtrak. Had business in Glencoe, IL, and Rockford, IL while working from an office in the NY area. Rode Amtrak's Lake Shore Limited. IN Chicago, went from Union Station to the Northwestern Transportation Center and rode Metra up to Glencoe, then after work completed, Metra back to the Center and Metra again to Harvard, where the client picked me up for Rockford. I understand Metra has now been extended to Rockford. Going home the client wanted to continue the discussion so he drove me all the way to Union Station, Chicago

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by andrewjonathon

QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd

How does the argument that Amtrak serves 400 or so locations w/o air service square with the fact that there are thousands of towns without air, rail or bus service?

When counting stations w/o air service, are we counting places like Princeton Jct which is only 15 miles from Trenton's airport? Or Tyrone PA, which is only 15 miles from State College's airport?

I am sorry but I think I am missing the point. Are you implying that all other towns in the US that Amtrak doesn't serve do have either air or bus service?

I'm implying that many of those 400 Amtrak stations whose towns don't have Greyhound or air service have it very close by. So, the arguement that Amtrak is "vital" to those 400 locations for that reason is flawed.

Also, the argument that Amtrak is "vital" to rural America is also flawed because the vast majority of rural American towns don't have air, rail or bus service. If you drop Amtrak, you just add a few dozen more towns to the list.

If we want to save passenger rail service in the US, we are going to have to present some very well honed arguments. As Paul M has said, the 'anti's' have veen honing their knives for a long time.

[daveklepper]

But the vast majority of Rural America towns are a short distance from a town or city that does have rail or bus service or both.

[METRO]

Show me just one route that Amtrak currently runs in the red that private enterprise could run in the black without massive fare increases.

Outside of commuter operations and some regional operations private passenger enterprise will not return. I also would debate that Amtrak has truly failed because of itself. If the government would give them the money that they ask for and fund the deciently then we still could have a great passenger rail system in the United States. Via in Canada is a great example of what Amtrak could be if it were given its due.

~METRO

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by daveklepper

But the vast majority of Rural America towns are a short distance from a town or city that does have rail or bus service or both.

define "short".

I'd say <30 miles is short. By this definition, most of rural US is NOT a short drive from bus or rail (or air) service.

Check out the Greyhound map.

http://www.greyhound.com/locations/routemap.shtml

[Anonymous]

From the above map, it appears Greyhound is mostly an interstate highway national bus network.... running throughs and expresses along the interstates..... In Texas, for example, one cannot get to Lubbock via Greyhound..... one must use a regional bus network to get there..... the same for Wichita Falls.... Lubbock is a medium size city of over 200,000 in population, and Wichita Falls is a small city of over 100,000....

To get from Amarillo to Dallas, a Greyhound rider would have to travel to Oklahoma City eastbound on I-40 and then southbound on I-35.... doubling the length and time of the trip, even though there is a divided US marked highway between Amarillo, US 287, and Fort Worth/Dallas......

Greyhound is not what it used to be.....

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by BaltACD

QUOTE: Originally posted by SP9033


!

Jim - Lawton, NV MP 236

No rail passenger system in the world is profitable on its own, why should we expect the USA to be any different. Rail passenger transportation is a Public Service and should be treated as such.

At the risk of being BLUNT, "Because we (Citizens of the USA) ARE different.***the Japanese Ambasidor said once Americans as a people are a bunch of Kir Dogs. GOOD THING, we don't have to worry about confused bloodlines just do the right thing.

[Anonymous]

Umm The railroads gave Amtrak the trains because they had a Legal Resposibility to run trains esp. the land grant railroads. Amtrak is tech. owned by its member railroads. If amtrak goes belly up the legal reposibility is still there?

[oltmannd]

The frt RRs have no ownership in Amtrak. The Sec of Trans holds all the Amtrak stock. The franchise to operate passenger trains on the roads that opted to "join" Amtrak was transferred to Amtrak. The frt RRs were not allowed to compete with Amtrak. Amtrak cannot just "give" the passenger franchise back to the frt RRs.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Dunkirkeriestation

Umm The railroads gave Amtrak the trains because they had a Legal Resposibility to run trains esp. the land grant railroads. Amtrak is tech. owned by its member railroads. If amtrak goes belly up the legal reposibility is still there?

Amtrak is NOT owned by the railroads it is owned by the U.S. Government. Where do you get this stuff???

LC

[Junctionfan]

Another discussion on Amtrak eh? Oh well why not....

Amtrak is going to have to be a corridor commuter or a commuter's commuter. That is where the bucks will be made. NEC on the eastcoast and the Cascades et al on the westcoast is a great start already. Amtrak really should run into Canada more particularly to Toronto. Let VIA handle the other cities in Canada and just run express from say Detroit to London, Ontario and then to Toronto and no other Canadian city in between otherwise you take more time that you already didn't want to spend at the customs. The cross-corridor stuff is just tourism attractive and should be charged as such just make sure you have enough sleepers because Amtrak seems to be running too low on them.

As far as having more corridors well their are alot of major cities that must require transit around the surrounding areas and don't have their own transit system. States like Ohio, Michigan and Indiana don't have alot of rail transit running to my knowledge at least the kind that runs out some distance like Chicago Metralink does and yet there is quite a few cities and commuting possibilities from the large industry alone never mind adding cities like Detroit, Toledo, Dayton, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Akron OH, Canton OH, Youngstown OH, Flint MI, Grand Rapids MI, Lansing MI, and other higher density populated areas that must have alot of people doing commuting between cities. As the NEC stands for the North East Corridor, there could be a GLC which would stand for the Great Lakes Corridor. It would include the Chicago to Toronto trains and if the old Canada Southern line ever go back in running, a Detroit to Buffalo express would be a plan too. Also since Youngstown and Cleveland are kind of close to Pittsburgh, connect it too.

[cpbloom]

No mention of Columbus Oh? Its the largest city in Ohio and I think the largest City in the US not to have Amtrak service.....I seriously doubt anyone is missing it though.

[andrewjonathon]

QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd



I'm implying that many of those 400 Amtrak stations whose towns don't have Greyhound or air service have it very close by. So, the arguement that Amtrak is "vital" to those 400 locations for that reason is flawed.

Also, the argument that Amtrak is "vital" to rural America is also flawed because the vast majority of rural American towns don't have air, rail or bus service. If you drop Amtrak, you just add a few dozen more towns to the list.

If we want to save passenger rail service in the US, we are going to have to present some very well honed arguments. As Paul M has said, the 'anti's' have veen honing their knives for a long time.

Yes, I understand now and I agree with your point. Many people on this site try to say that Amtrak service to small towns is a vital service to these communities. I have a hard time buying that argument given how many other towns survive without train service. Despite my comments about the need for Amtrak's long distance service, I actually love riding these trains. I just don't believe a good case can be made that they provide a vital service to the nation in this modern era. Over the years, I have tried to convince family and friends to ride the trains. The typical response I get is a (from people in both big and small towns) "Yeah right, what century are you living in...2 days on the train!" comment or at best now and then people will express interest in the "experience" of the train. It is rare that anyone seems to think 2 or 3 days on the train is a good transport alternative. Of course I realize this is just anecdotal evidence.

[andrewjonathon]

QUOTE: Originally posted by METRO

Via in Canada is a great example of what Amtrak could be if it were given its due.

~METRO

I am not sure why VIA Rail is such a great example for Amtrak. Sure their onboard service is good but in terms of network coverage VIA doesn't do any better than Amtrak. I would suggest that VIA Rail's service in the Windsor to Quebec City corridor is the Canadian version of Amtrak's Northeast Corridor. Outside of this corridor service is pretty sparse with some large Canadian cities (i.e. Kelowna, Calgary, Regina, Saint John etc) without any train service and others like Vancouver, Edmonton, Saskatoon etc with just tri-weekly service. Is the example Amtrak should be following?

[jeaton]

If you are talking to people who have full time employment, the idea of spending a two or more days just to get to a vacation destination is troubling. Those ten or fifteen vacation days, plus the associated weekend days are are not readily given just to travel. So the decision is made to fly,except that the fares for a family of three might be a little bit steep and that just leaves the car. Travel by auto is popular because it seems to be cheap. Even at $2.10 a gallon a two thousand mile drive in a 20 MPG car will only run $210. Of course, the IRS now allows 39 cents a mile as a deduction for business travel reflecting the full cost of driving the "average" vehicle. That makes the actual cost of that two thousand mile trip about $780.

Consider now, Amtrak coach fare round trip between Chicago and Denver for 2 adults and one child. $410.00

We the public are so wise.

I would like to know how many of you who so adamantly oppose Amtrak actually travel via any mode any farther than the county line. If you haven't had the recent pleasure of a 500 mile trip by car on the crowded interstate system or had the privelege of taking two hours to go through the security drill to be shoehorned into a metal tube for a ride in a seat that is small for my 5'8", 160 pound frame, then I repectfully request that you butt out. This should be a conversation by people who travel, who are not tightly constrained by time limits and prefer a mode of travel with very low stress levels.
Oh yes, if you are concerned about your tax dollars being wasted on long distance train service, drop me an email. I will be glad to cover your share of grant for those trains this year, as I have no problem coming up with $1.00.

Jay

[dharmon]

Jay ... love you man, but...

I have done both in the last couple of months...the >500 mile trip in a Suburban (with family) and the indignity of having to take my shoes off at the bequest of a gentleman who can't spell terrorist, much less spent as much time as I have fighting them...(and that..you'll have to take my word for is a no kidding) ........and having to do that as an ACTIVE duty miltary person, travelling ON ORDERS...I consider to be an indignity.

By the way...I'm 6'1" and 215......I live for center seats!

But if you do my taxes for me...gratis....I'll stop complaining about the pointless arrow....

Dan

[dharmon]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Dunkirkeriestation

Umm The railroads gave Amtrak the trains because they had a Legal Resposibility to run trains esp. the land grant railroads. Amtrak is tech. owned by its member railroads. If amtrak goes belly up the legal reposibility is still there?

After I retire, can I get some of whatever you're smoking?

[daveklepper]

I think Abraham Lincoln himself, who authorized the construction of the first CP-UP transcontinental, and in the middle of a hjorrible fratricidle war, at that, would be horrified to learn that a President of the party he started would end transcontinental passenger service!