Let's Just Give Passenger Rail Back.

[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.

[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?

[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!

[Modelcar]

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

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[jeaton]

QUOTE: Originally posted by andrewjonathon


Wow - no scheduled airline service and yet ironically, people in these towns still don't use the train...at least based on my experiences. I understand that Amtrak serves about 500 stations nationwide. What about all of the other cities and towns in the US that have no scheduled airline service or passenger trains? They all seem to be surviving just fine. What is it that makes these 500 cities special that they deserve train service while the rest get nothing?

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.

[oltmannd]

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

Jim-

The freight RRs tried to get relief from passenger losses going back to the late 1940s. The gov't didn't create Amtrak until nearly 25 years of fighting and having the largest RR go bankrupt (PC).

The ICC used to regulate passenger train operations. RRs couldn't abandon unless the public agreed to the train-off. There were cases where the RRs were obligated to run empty trains day after day because the public demanded the train be there in case it snowed - when a few would show up to ride.

The ICC is gone and so is that "pubic interest"/common carrier regulatory oversight of RRs. Should you somehow force the passenger trains back on the RRs and get the STB to provide regulatory oversight, the RRs would immediately file to stop running the trains, and they'd provail. Passenger trains lose money - and RRs are private enterprise and regulated as such.

[andrewjonathon]

QUOTE: Most civilized countries, including those with a lower population density than the USA believe their citizens are ENTITLED to have access to their entire country without being FORCED to drive, fly, or be cramped for long distances in a bus. They have government owned railroads that probide decent service. Or they subidize private railroads sufficientlyi. Canada is one such country. Australia is another. And New Zealand . Do you want an elderly American on the shore of one ocean to be forced to take his transcontinental journel of a life in Canada instead of his own coutnry?

In fact passenger service in Canada has often been the focus of controversy and government cut backs over the years. Remember, even VIA's flagship, the Canadian only operates three times a week and on the "second" choice route due to gut wrenching cutbacks 15 years ago. By the way, the arguments made for and against retaining passenger train travel in Canada sound very similiar to those in the US - society has an obligation to people who don't like to fly, no alternatives transportation in some communities, politicians concerned to face the electorate after the cuts are made, nostalgia etc. And just like in the US, despite all of the arguments people make for keeping the train, very few of the people who make the arguments end up using the train.

My understanding is that even Australia's transcontinental train came very close to extinction and was in sorry shape before a private train operator revived its fortunes.

[andrewjonathon]

QUOTE:
Nearly 80 percent of the towns Amtrak serves have no schedule airline service.....over 80 percent.....

That's the reason we need Amtrak.......

Wow - no scheduled airline service and yet ironically, people in these towns still don't use the train...at least based on my experiences. I understand that Amtrak serves about 500 stations nationwide. What about all of the other cities and towns in the US that have no scheduled airline service or passenger trains? They all seem to be surviving just fine. What is it that makes these 500 cities special that they deserve train service while the rest get nothing?

[jockellis]

It has been suggested by folks from the National Association of Railroad Passengers that despite Pres. Bush's attempt to kill Amtrak, our representatives, ever mindful of their role in Congress - to get re-elected - won't dare let Amtrak fail on their watch for fear of the consequences which would be that their opponents in the next election will have a field day with that issue just as Bush did with Kerry's Vietnam service. They would never get to talk about anything else.
Anyone wanting to do so might call the local offices of their state representatives and senators and tell them what a wonderful opportunity they have to prove that they are more than stooges for the administration by restoring funding for Amtrak.
I don't see how Amtrak's gas mileage can be as bad as one member pointed out. On the GE Transportation intranet, a piece about our Evolution engine says the V-8 gets 4 gpm (gallons per mile) under load. Say your Amtrak flyer gets that with 300 passengers behind it, that's 37.8 mpg. In the NEC, they are using electric so that should be even more efficient. But I don't have Microsoft Excel on my Mac so I cannot go to the spreadsheet which spells out the information.
In the mid 70s, Seaboard Coastline RR Pres. Rice made a speech at the opening of the appropriately named Rice Yards in Waycross, GA and told the crowd that SCL had made a $3 million profit on passenger trains their last year of operation. But he pointed out that one lawsuit would have wiped out that profit. Thirty years later, it would have wiped out way more than that.
Jock Ellis
Cumming, GA US of A

[Paul Milenkovic]

I believe it was Don Oltmann who posed the question what is the purpose of Amtrak and what kind of Amtrak do we want -- the corridors, the long-distance trains, is the purpose congestion relief, etc?

OK, so the reason for Amtrak is public accomodation. Why does this have to be on rail? Why can't this public accomodation be on the bus? Or even on planes?

And if the bus is too cramped, why not pass highway legislation to allow for an articulated bus that carries the same number of people, but 3 across seating with more leg room? And what is wrong with "being forced to fly?" The plane is as safe or safer than any other mode, so you are not imposing on anyone to take an unreasonable risk. The airplane is a common carrier, if you have some flexibility when you take your trip, fares are as low as any common-carrier mode is going to get (passenger transportation is primarily a service industry and most of your cost is paying the people to provide that service, a cost well ahead of your direct operating expenses, and any replacement for air has to replicate that service structure).

So the bus gets stuck in traffic. So does the passenger train given the surge in freight traffic and the prevalence of single-track rail lines. The bus takes too long -- OK, show me where, outside the Hiawatha and the NEC where Amtrak beats over-the-highway travel times.

OK, the reason for Amrak is the long-distance trains (there can be multiple reasons). One market for trains is the long-distance "cruise ship on rails." Last time I mentioned "cruise ship on rails" I got a talking to about how the long-distance trains are lifelines to all the cities along the route. OK, how many people have boarded the Empire Builder in Minot at 2 AM?

Your hypothetical elderly taking the transcontinental journey -- presumably a wealthy person who has saved up enough money for sleeping car fares so they can tour the country in style and comfort. Also a person who has a lot of time for this vacation and to spend the vacation in transit. We have National Parks, which are similar subsidized forms of entertainment for vacationers. The justification is preserving part of our national heritage and cultivating a sense of wonder in the natural beauty of the land in our citizenry.

We also, to a limited extent subsidize the fine arts and the performance arts. All these things are primarily for a wealthy elite, although the wealthy patrons of sleeping cars perhaps cross-subsidize the Amtrak system to a degree and opera patrons are asked to provide private financial support. With public subsidy and or patronage we have the Metropolitan Opera, PBS, long-distance trains, the National Parks, art museums. Outside of public subsidy we have Disney World, NASCAR, professional sports (OK, that gets subsidy too) -- all reasonable forms of entertainment, but they are not the opera. Were we to lose the Met, PBS, the trains, the National Parks, and the museums, we would all be a little poorer for it, but these things would not be missed by the vast majority of the public out there.

But are we "entitled" to a sleeping car room on a long distance train? Are we "forced" to drive, fly, or ride a bus (three transportation modes) in the absence of the train (fourth transportation mode)? If someone decided Amtrak could provide the greatest social benefit by carrying larger numbers of passengers by getting rid of sleeping cars and putting in 5-across seating in coaches (as on NEC commuter trains -- oh, the Japan Bullet Train has 5-across seating unless you are in first class which is 4-across), would this be violating something to which we are entitled (there is nothing inherent in rail about spacious seating -- it is a decision on a grade of service to offer)?

Is an opera ticket an entitlement? I believe that the opera is a beautiful thing and an important part of a cultural heritage (oh, and much better subsidized and attended in Europe), and to not have the opera would be a great loss. But for a lot of people in the U.S.A., not only do they not care about opera, playing opera music over speakers in a public place would be a great way to clear it out -- that style of singing in the absence of a rock drum beat really grates on a lot of people.

From what I have been able to determine, the long-distance trains are part of our cultural and national heritage, the people able to take trips on them have said good things about them, they are well-patronized and almost but not quite pay their own way. I also understand that without some public subsidy these trains wouldn't make a go of it in private hands -- just like without some form of public support there would be no opera, no symphony orchestra -- the private sector would provide only various forms of rock music. But we need to sell the greater public on the merits of the trains, a greater public who doesn't ride them, never will, and doesn't care about them.

As to the corridor trains, they have the potential to reduce energy consumption and relieve congestion on highways and airports. Emphasis on potential -- in their current form they use more energy than driving and don't amount to enough passengers to put a dent in either -- even in the NEC. A lot more public money is required to make the corridor trains players in the transportation picture, and a lot more homework is needed to make the case at what level of service, subsidy, and ridership they could make a difference.

[Anonymous]

The railroads don't want it back....they were happy to unload it a few decades ago.....

Yes, Amtrak isn't profitable, and will probably never will be profitable.... However, the only country in which there are a large number of people willing to end passenger rail service is US.....no other country even thinks about ending passenger rail subsidies, not one....

I read the other day that the federal government would have to spend $87 billion to rebuild and widen I-95 to increase its capacity to make up for the loss of the NEC's capability..... today..... not over a period of years...... Either we keep Amtrak and lose or don't keep Amtrak and lose.....

As for buses, I have said this before and I will say it again, Greyhound has been in receivership for years. It has cut its service from several times a day in Granbury, Texas, to once a day, to once a week, and now doesn't serve this town at all.... A county of over 40,000 citizens... It seems Greyhound is only interested in running expresses and throughs along interstates, it has forsaken the small towns......

Its also difficult for a railroad to match the prices of airlines, which are all over the place. For example, it only costs a couple of hundred dollars to fly non-stop to Las Vegas from DFW, but if you wanted to fly to Reno instead, its eight hundred dollars with no non-stops..... Nearly 80 percent of the towns Amtrak serves have no schedule airline service.....over 80 percent.....

That's the reason we need Amtrak.......

[daveklepper]

Long distanced passenger trains are a necessity to many people but don't ear money. So are John;s in Supermarkets, handicapped access ramps in all public buildings, assisted listening systems for hard of hearing in concert halls, theatres, movie houses, and sports stadiums, emergenyc hotline numbers for the police (indeed, the police in general), the fire department, and much else. Most civilized countries, inmcluding those with a lower population density than the USA believe their citizens are ENTITLED to have access to their entire country without being FORCED to drive, fly, or be cramped for long distances in a bus. They have government owned railroads that probide decent service. Or they subidize private railroads sufficientlyi. Canada is one such country. Australia is another. And New Zealand . Do you want an elderly American on the shore of one ocean to be forced to take his transcontinental journel of a life in Canada instead of his own coutnry?

[jockellis]

If we cut out passenger trains that don't make a profit, we should do the same for cars. The military, which had the roads built in the first place, spends four times what we do on gas to keep if flowing from all those pesky Arab states. So that gas which now costs you $2 a gallon actually costs $10 and the road fuel taxes are not paying all the cost. Would you like to pay that additional $8? At the Georgia Association of Rail Passengers meeting today, someone joked, "Buses (correct spelling) are the preferred mode of public transportation of people who never take buses." I thought that was pretty astute. Guess that's why he's the club president. Buses rely on the federal gov. and our gas taxes to transport people cheaply. If railroads had someone to build their tracks, maintain them and only charge them a fraction in taxes of its true value, they'd be siting pretty. But railroads, as the first big business, have always been the govermental piggy bank.
I like the convenience of my car too. Except when I can ride the train or when I get onto the interstate at the beginning of a vacation and realize all the driving I have to do. I don't consider that convenient. I think I would have taken a plane on my last vacation, but I don't think they fly into Orbisonia, PA. Hurricane Ivan sure did the night before I arrived.
Jock Ellis
Cumming, GA US of A

[Anonymous]

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

Yeah, lets have the governement who took on the responsibility, abrogate it, breach numerous agreements, violate statues, laws, regulations and even the U.S. Constitution and force the railroads to take back it's mess...

FOFLMAO...yeah, right...

Jim, whatever you are smoking, you need to pass it around...LOL...

LC

[Puckdropper]

It seems to me that there's a type mismatch between passenger trains and freight trains. Passengers are a very low-density and easily hurt type of cargo, while the bread and butter of freight railroads is high-density and tough cargo.

The only effective solution I see is to seperate the two types of train and keep them apart. Freight can plod along at 10-25 mph while passengers can whizz along at 150 mph. (I am talking high-speed rail.)

Amtrak service should be discontinued where its losing money, the engines and cars reassigned to trains as needed and then less money spent overseas and more spent on US. JMHO.

[Modelcar]

...I don't know what the answer is but one thing is clear....The Railroad Co's couldn't and won't return to major rail passenger business...They can't afford it for one thing and they would not agree to do it again. It nearly drove them out of ready cash {business}, before Amtrak was formed to releave them of the responsibility.

[Anonymous]

If nobody can run passenger train service at a profit I'll just take the bus or learn to stay close to home. I don't care to fly and I won't starve because I can still walk or take a bus to all the necessities of life.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by SP9033

[

QUOTE:

You're theory of, "The railroads used to run passenger trains, and now that the government doesn't want to, the railroads should have to." Makes no sense to me, perhaps I'm just not educated enough, but I don't see why.

The railroads didn't force the government to make Amtrak, the Railroads just didn't want to run passenger service anymore. It was the government that said, ok we'll take passenger service and run it and take care of it, you railroads are off the hook.

The railroads didn't say, OK government we don't want to run passenger serivce anymore, so you have to, good luck.

If it were up to the railroads they would rather not have ANY passenger service, be it run by them, or run by the government. Passenger trains just get in the way and cause delay to the money making freight trains.

The passenger business is not a profitable business in most cases.

There may very well be cases in the Northeast where it would be profitable, and I say that those runs SHOULD be able to be kept alive by private corporations, not by the government or by the railroads being forced into it.

The idea that because the Errs once ran passenger services and now the government no longer wants to, so RRs should be forced back into it is absurd, and I see no reason why that should be, it just isn't a valid argument.

Mostly it makes no sense to you because, you've never witnessed the regulation of the industry and that industry's responsibility to the community!. You have no sense of right or wrong! Much to young to understand!!!

Well, that comment didn't really help me understand you side of the discussion. All I got out of it was that the government is almighty and everyone should do what they say no questions asked. That sounds a little Fascist to me.

I think the big picture we are missing here is the fact that in the vast majority of instances in previous years passenger rail is just not being utilized on a large scale by the general public.

If Amtrak wants to make money, in my opinnion, they should be getting rid of passenger service where it's not making money and not being utiized, and should focus what operating cash it has on lines that will make money, and lines that are utilized.

Just because they discontinue train service in some areas, doesn't mean they can't ever recontinue it, but it doesn't make sense, to me, to have trains running around and only a handfull of paying passengers on board.

But to say that the government no longer wants to subsidise Amtrak, therefore it can't survive on it's own so everything has to go back to the way it was in the 1950s is just wrong.

I thought it was a neat time in History when Class Ones all ran passenger trains, and they pretty much all had catchy names and were painted in honor of the railway they represented, but those times are gone, and they are not coming back, ever. At least not to the extent of the 1950s.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by tatans

Try Canada and the C.P.R. they were Given thousands of square miles of land for free -----------provided-----they supply passenger service, well, they are not, do we get our land back?? somehow I don't think we will. Now they have a private museum of antique passenger cars and locomotives they run on their lines for their favorite customers.

...They did provide passenger service - for about 6 decades, and later in history when passenger service was no longer as necessary as it was in the pioneer days, the railways asked to get out of it - MANY times, and eventually the government did let them out of it, sounds like the railways did a pretty good job of holding up their end of the bargin to me.

It's not like the RRs set up passenger service for a few months or years, then stopped willy nilly, the government gave them permission to stop (AFTER 6 decades of service), and therefore the railways did nothing wrong.

[conrailman]

If Congress gave Amtrak the Money it gives Highways 35 Billion this Year and Airlines 15 Billion Dollars Amtrak would be great shape. Last Year 25 Million people ride Amtrak. [8D]

[csxengineer98]

QUOTE: Originally posted by SP9033

[

QUOTE:

You're theory of, "The railroads used to run passenger trains, and now that the government doesn't want to, the railroads should have to." Makes no sense to me, perhaps I'm just not educated enough, but I don't see why.

The railroads didn't force the government to make Amtrak, the Railroads just didn't want to run passenger service anymore. It was the government that said, ok we'll take passenger service and run it and take care of it, you railroads are off the hook.

The railroads didn't say, OK government we don't want to run passenger serivce anymore, so you have to, good luck.

If it were up to the railroads they would rather not have ANY passenger service, be it run by them, or run by the government. Passenger trains just get in the way and cause delay to the money making freight trains.

The passenger business is not a profitable business in most cases.

There may very well be cases in the Northeast where it would be profitable, and I say that those runs SHOULD be able to be kept alive by private corporations, not by the government or by the railroads being forced into it.

The idea that because the Errs once ran passenger services and now the government no longer wants to, so RRs should be forced back into it is absurd, and I see no reason why that should be, it just isn't a valid argument.

Mostly it makes no sense to you because, you've never witnessed the regulation of the industry and that industry's responsibility to the community!. You have no sense of right or wrong! Much to young to understand!!!

sp...what are you on..and where can i get some of it...it seems like some realy realy good stuff..
csx engineer

[Anonymous]

[

QUOTE:

You're theory of, "The railroads used to run passenger trains, and now that the government doesn't want to, the railroads should have to." Makes no sense to me, perhaps I'm just not educated enough, but I don't see why.

The railroads didn't force the government to make Amtrak, the Railroads just didn't want to run passenger service anymore. It was the government that said, ok we'll take passenger service and run it and take care of it, you railroads are off the hook.

The railroads didn't say, OK government we don't want to run passenger serivce anymore, so you have to, good luck.

If it were up to the railroads they would rather not have ANY passenger service, be it run by them, or run by the government. Passenger trains just get in the way and cause delay to the money making freight trains.

The passenger business is not a profitable business in most cases.

There may very well be cases in the Northeast where it would be profitable, and I say that those runs SHOULD be able to be kept alive by private corporations, not by the government or by the railroads being forced into it.

The idea that because the Errs once ran passenger services and now the government no longer wants to, so RRs should be forced back into it is absurd, and I see no reason why that should be, it just isn't a valid argument.

Mostly it makes no sense to you because, you've never witnessed the regulation of the industry and that industry's responsibility to the community!. You have no sense of right or wrong! Much to young to understand!!!

[tatans]

Try Canada and the C.P.R. they were Given thousands of square miles of land for free -----------provided-----they supply passenger service, well, they are not, do we get our land back?? somehow I don't think we will. Now they have a private museum of antique passenger cars and locomotives they run on their lines for their favorite customers.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by SP9033

QUOTE: Originally posted by SteelMonsters

Give it back to the owners that gave up on it back in the 60's? Passenger rail has been hurting since long before Amtrak was formed. Even Amtrak is failing and the government finally got rid of the subsiderary. It was a waste of the average taxpayers money to support railways when they would rather drive their own cars or fly.

Next year it will have been 50 years that air has had more passengers than rail. Cars, busses, and airplanes have become prefered modes of transportation over rail. Even Freight railroads don't want passenger trains around anymore.

I personally like the convenience of my car over any other modes especially rail.

Hey Marc,

During the fifties, it was decided that a defense of US soil required an investment in what we call the "Interstate Highway System." For more than twenty years a big stipend from the Defense budget went to build the Interstate Highway System!

Everyday the city of SPARKS and RENO along with WASHOE county sends money to the airport. Gosh, what do you call that?

President Bush, has so much enthusiasm for privatizing of government programs, again, lets just give it back to "BIG BUSINESS," those people that spent good money pushing congress to take it off their hands! They where private and in business! So if anyone could make money - they could because they are in business and are companies!

Jim - Lawton, NV MP 236

You're theory of, "The railroads used to run passenger trains, and now that the government doesn't want to, the railroads should have to." Makes no sense to me, perhaps I'm just not educated enough, but I don't see why.

The railroads didn't force the government to make Amtrak, the Railroads just didn't want to run passenger service anymore. It was the government that said, ok we'll take passenger service and run it and take care of it, you railroads are off the hook.

The railroads didn't say, OK government we don't want to run passenger serivce anymore, so you have to, good luck.

If it were up to the railroads they would rather not have ANY passenger service, be it run by them, or run by the government. Passenger trains just get in the way and cause delay to the money making freight trains.

The passenger business is not a profitable business in most cases.

There may very well be cases in the Northeast where it would be profitable, and I say that those runs SHOULD be able to be kept alive by private corporations, not by the government or by the railroads being forced into it.

The idea that because the RRs once ran passenger services and now the government no longer wants to, so RRs should be forced back into it is absurd, and I see no reason why that should be, it just isn't a valid argument.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by SteelMonsters

Give it back to the owners that gave up on it back in the 60's? Passenger rail has been hurting since long before Amtrak was formed. Even Amtrak is failing and the government finally got rid of the subsiderary. It was a waste of the average taxpayers money to support railways when they would rather drive their own cars or fly.

Next year it will have been 50 years that air has had more passengers than rail. Cars, busses, and airplanes have become prefered modes of transportation over rail. Even Freight railroads don't want passenger trains around anymore.

I personally like the convenience of my car over any other modes especially rail.

Hey Marc,

During the fifties, it was decided that a defense of US soil required an investment in what we call the "Interstate Highway System." For more than twenty years a big stipend from the Defense budget went to build the Interstate Highway System!

Everyday the city of SPARKS and RENO along with WASHOE county sends money to the airport. Gosh, what do you call that?

President Bush, has so much enthusiasm for privatizing of government programs, again, lets just give it back to "BIG BUSINESS," those people that spent good money pushing congress to take it off their hands! They where private and in business! So if anyone could make money - they could because they are in business and are companies!

Jim - Lawton, NV MP 236

[Anonymous]

Why would they take it back? If they were forced why would they run first/second class trains? Just think how late your train would be!!!! It would take weeks to travel from Chicago to NY.