QUOTE: I just think that in Europe, the people get a better transportation system, but this _____ country either doesn't know or just doesn't act on its resources . . .
-ChrisWest Chicago, ILChristopher May Fine Art Photography"In wisdom gathered over time I have found that every experience is a form of exploration." ~Ansel Adams
QUOTE: Originally posted by CopCarSS QUOTE: I just think that in Europe, the people get a better transportation system, but this _____ country either doesn't know or just doesn't act on its resources . . . Better, or just different? It's tempting to look at Europe, and say "Wow! Look at them! I wish we could have that!" At the same time, Europe doesn't have an Interstate system that can take you reasonably close to anywhere in the country (well, at least in the lower 48 here). Rail travel works in Europe. Automobile travel works here. Public transportation works well when you don't have states like Wyoming, Montana, North Dakota, etc. I.E. lots and lots of square miles with little or no market for public transportation. I think the Bush administration realizes this, and this is the first push for a transportation system that would work (forcing Amtrak to become profitable or die is merely the first step in working towards high speed rail projects in corridors that need them). Just my [2c] pf course. Chris Denver, CO
QUOTE: Originally posted by Sterling1 QUOTE: Originally posted by CopCarSS QUOTE: I just think that in Europe, the people get a better transportation system, but this _____ country either doesn't know or just doesn't act on its resources . . . Better, or just different? It's tempting to look at Europe, and say "Wow! Look at them! I wish we could have that!" At the same time, Europe doesn't have an Interstate system that can take you reasonably close to anywhere in the country (well, at least in the lower 48 here). Rail travel works in Europe. Automobile travel works here. Public transportation works well when you don't have states like Wyoming, Montana, North Dakota, etc. I.E. lots and lots of square miles with little or no market for public transportation. I think the Bush administration realizes this, and this is the first push for a transportation system that would work (forcing Amtrak to become profitable or die is merely the first step in working towards high speed rail projects in corridors that need them). Just my [2c] pf course. Chris Denver, CO Well what about fuel economy or saving fuel? Maybe that's something else . . .
QUOTE: Originally posted by 440cuin What do you mean? Europe has an equaly extensive freeway system in many of their countries, sometimes known as the Autobahn, with smoother pavement and higher speed limits to boot. And frequent passenger trains if one should want to choose. Some people over there think a 400km ((250 miles)) distance is just a two hour drive ! Anyways I still only think it's different, not better, but they have too many freeways like the US does.
QUOTE: Originally posted by Sterling1 There some here including myself who would like to hear your opinions and viewpoints on this subject that relates "Homeland Defense" as much as anything . .
QUOTE: Originally posted by talbanese Any RR can pull a train with people in an emergency. I'm sure people would even ride in a boxcar if necessary.
QUOTE: Originally posted by ajmiller QUOTE: Originally posted by talbanese Any RR can pull a train with people in an emergency. I'm sure people would even ride in a boxcar if necessary. As long as the boxcars come equipped with shackles---er---I mean appropriate safety restraints. Yeah, safety restraints, that's what I meant. heh heh cough.
"We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics
QUOTE: Originally posted by CopCarSS I just think that in Europe, the people get a better transportation system, Public transportation works well when you don't have states like Wyoming, Montana, North Dakota, etc. I.E. lots and lots of square miles with little or no market for public transportation. I think the Bush administration realizes this, and this is the first push for a transportation system that would work (forcing Amtrak to become profitable or die is merely the first step in working towards high speed rail projects in corridors that need them). So high speed projects would just spontaneously evolve? Funny how that scheme never worked when it came to building the Interstates or airports. The feds just poured BILLIONS into them without idiotically demanding they be profitable. Bush's plan is like saying we'll improve the airways if we first bankrupt the FAA. All those free-marketers will come in and then run the highways, airports and trains. Right. He's living in a fantasy if he thinks anything remotely on that level would happen. THe interstates weren't built only so the more densley populated states could have service. That's why Sterling, Colo., got the Interstate. People drive back east like they do in the west. Dittos for train or bus travel. You'd think someone from as geographically isolated as the Rocky Mountains would realize that. Denver is a popular Amtrak stop, even with only one train each direction. The federal investment in infrastructure comes first - then the ridership. Neglecting Amtrak by both parties over its 30 plus years is what has caused its current troubles. Funny how highways and airways never have to beg for crumbs of funding like Amtrak. Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, May 5, 2005 8:18 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by ajmiller QUOTE: Originally posted by talbanese Any RR can pull a train with people in an emergency. I'm sure people would even ride in a boxcar if necessary. As long as the boxcars come equipped with shackles---er---I mean appropriate safety restraints. Yeah, safety restraints, that's what I meant. heh heh cough. OK. I don't want to start the X-Files again. Lets say any available car on hand. If necessary. I guess we could even dig out some old Amtrak cars that Mr Bush put in the closet. Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts What does Bush not understand about Amtrak Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, May 5, 2005 8:47 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by morseman To: LIMITEDCLEAR Is there any difference from the reasons Reagan wanted to abolish Amtrak, and the reasons why G>W>B> wants to do the same. It didn't work for Reagan, What are Bush's chances of getting his way ??? I don't think it will happen, but in politics one can never tell for certain. The positives for Amtrak so far are the vote this week by the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee to fund Amtrak at $2Billion for the next three years. Sen. Trent Lott, the Chairman of the Senate Surface Transportation Subcommittee has also publicly opposed the Bush plan as have many State Governors. The problem I see is that if in the compromise some of the Bush plan is adopted that could still hurt Amtrak long term. LC Reply Edit CSXrules4eva Member sinceAugust 2004 From: Louisville, KY 1,345 posts Posted by CSXrules4eva on Thursday, May 5, 2005 9:00 PM I have to say some things about Amtrak here. Actually I think Don Phillips (spelling) said it best in his article involving Amtrak, in the June 2005 issue of Trains. Bush doesn't know the first thing about what it's like to run a national passanger railroad. I think that Bush has been brushing off Amtrak and concentraing more on something else. One plan he came up with for Amtrak was complete uter (spelling) crap. Bu***hinks it would be good to break Amtrak into seperate systems with the states supporting "their" section. The federal government would recive the NEC. Ok this is all well and fine but, what happens if a couple of the states don't pay?? Will "that section" end up being subsidized?? That wouldn't make much sence to me. If that contunies then the govenment will end up paying more to subsidise individual sections. While all together they could of just given Amtrak it's money. Phillips brings up a good point as to what could happen if the states didn't pay their share. I know one thing. A person who pays taxes and rides on Amtrak is going to be pretty ticked off if he isn't allowed to get off the train in a state he wants to travel to. All because that state didn't pay. If this were to happen the NEC would be the only "section" of the national passanger rail that would operate swiftly and smoothly. LORD HELP US ALL TO BE ORIGINAL AND NOT CRISPY!!! please? Sarah J.M. Warner conductor CSX Reply Modelcar Member sinceFebruary 2002 From: Muncie, Indiana...Orig. from Pennsylvania 13,456 posts Posted by Modelcar on Thursday, May 5, 2005 10:57 PM ...If Bush gets his way, he will bankrupt the passenger rail system in this country. Regan would have liked to do the same. Quentin Reply PNWRMNM Member sinceMay 2003 From: US 2,593 posts Posted by PNWRMNM on Friday, May 6, 2005 1:06 AM Too bad Regan chickened out. Hope Bush kills the beast. Amtrack serves no role in saving fuel. In fact it runs up fuel bill due to being the cause of freight train delay and using rail capacity it does not pay for. Mac Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Friday, May 6, 2005 7:00 AM Actually a national passenger rail system and homeland security have a lot in common from a political perspective. Consider Kay Hutchinson's comments(a Republican) about supporting Amtrak, but ONLY if it's a national system. Homeland Security was supposed to protect the most vulnerable targets, but by the time the politicians got done scaring the public and dividing up the pork, small towns in Iowa are better prepared than large northeastern cities. Terrorists want to kill LOTS of people, not derail a Hazmat tankcar in the middle of nowhere. And if there were a tax-supported national high speed rail system, Montana wheat farmers would probably want the same frequency of service as the NEC. Reply Edit spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Friday, May 6, 2005 7:54 AM Besides GWB who cannot run again I would suspect your post is right on. Out there in the hinterlands I think there is very little support for A/trak. The majority of voters I thinks consider A/trak just another government boondoggle. [:o)][8D] Originally posted by eastside [ Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply CopCarSS Member sinceAugust 2002 From: Turner Junction 3,076 posts Posted by CopCarSS on Friday, May 6, 2005 8:02 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by ohlemeier QUOTE: Originally posted by CopCarSS I just think that in Europe, the people get a better transportation system, Public transportation works well when you don't have states like Wyoming, Montana, North Dakota, etc. I.E. lots and lots of square miles with little or no market for public transportation. I think the Bush administration realizes this, and this is the first push for a transportation system that would work (forcing Amtrak to become profitable or die is merely the first step in working towards high speed rail projects in corridors that need them). So high speed projects would just spontaneously evolve? Funny how that scheme never worked when it came to building the Interstates or airports. The feds just poured BILLIONS into them without idiotically demanding they be profitable. Bush's plan is like saying we'll improve the airways if we first bankrupt the FAA. All those free-marketers will come in and then run the highways, airports and trains. Right. He's living in a fantasy if he thinks anything remotely on that level would happen. THe interstates weren't built only so the more densley populated states could have service. That's why Sterling, Colo., got the Interstate. People drive back east like they do in the west. Dittos for train or bus travel. You'd think someone from as geographically isolated as the Rocky Mountains would realize that. Denver is a popular Amtrak stop, even with only one train each direction. The federal investment in infrastructure comes first - then the ridership. Neglecting Amtrak by both parties over its 30 plus years is what has caused its current troubles. Funny how highways and airways never have to beg for crumbs of funding like Amtrak. I never said that it would be a spontaneous overnight evolution. I simply said this was the first step. As much as I like Amtrak, and I do ride the CZ between Denver and Chicago quite a bit, it doesn't make sense. It's as if we had a national conestoga wagon association begging for money to run wagon trains to the west. Amtrak is the National Steel and Wire of the Rail Passenger world. For some reason, they're holding onto what worked a long time ago, and ignoring reality. The result is an operation that appeals to railfans, but basically makes everyone else shake their heads. Bush would never be stupid enough to bankrupt the FAA. Because while bankrupting Amtrak would pretty much have no effect on the economy, a big shake up in the industry like that would be cataclysmic to the well being of the economy. And if it ever did happen, one of two things would occur: 1) The people of the US would vote for someone who realized that the airline passenger industry is an important one, or 2) Private industry would step in to the wake of an FAA collapse. By the by, I think you'll find that I-76 wasn't created for Sterling, CO. I'm thinking it has a lot more to do with the fact that its an important link between two major E-W interstates, namely I-80, and I-76. The concept that I-76 was made for Sterling, CO is as silly as Denver being a "popular Amtrak stop." Come out to Denver some day, and I'll drive down to Union Station, and we can watch how many people get on and off of the CZ. Then, we can head out to DIA, and see how many people travel by air. I'd be willing to bet that the former wouldn't equal .01% of the latter. Chris Denver, CO -ChrisWest Chicago, ILChristopher May Fine Art Photography"In wisdom gathered over time I have found that every experience is a form of exploration." ~Ansel Adams Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Friday, May 6, 2005 8:46 AM I think the whole hornets nest stirred up by the Bush Admin surrounding Amtrak is political. Here's why: For what we get, Amtrak costs a lot. There are some conservatives and others who think killing Amtrak would be wise and put an end to wasteful spending. They are a minority of those in power now. These same folk generally believe that a "free market" generally produces goods and services most efficiently. Amtrak is currently the antithesis of this. The Bush admin knows that killing Amtrak is not politically feasible. The national network just has too many supporters in Congress whose want to keep their trains in order to keep voter support back home. So, how do you make both sides happy? You "reform" Amtrak. If you can bake in some "free market" ideas and keep the national network supporters happy, you can declare victory and walk away - whether or not it the net subsidy is more or less in the end. But, you say, "He zeroed out Amtrak in his budget!" Well, it appears to me that it was a way to get everyones attention. Then he sends Mineta out with a half-baked plan with the promise of funding if Amtrak is reformed and, voila, everyone IS paying attention. Even Amtrak's board has come out with a reform plan. If Bush had put, say, $1.2 B in his budget, it is likely that it would have been passed and Amtrak status-quo would have limped along for another year. What's really interesting now is that most of the budget proposals for Amtrak to surface from Congress have been for what Amtrak has asked for ($1.8B) or more ($2.0B) and the Bush admin hasn't said "boo" about it. If they were really intent on killing Amtrak and thought they could do it, they would be saying rather loudly that it's too much money - but they have been silent so far. If they do this right, we could wind up with better train service and a more efficient Amtrak plus a reliable funding source for intercity rail expansion. It looks like the most palatable model will be federal matching funds for state supported corridor work, but that's a good place to start! -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply DSchmitt Member sinceSeptember 2003 From: California - moved to North Carolina 2018 4,422 posts Posted by DSchmitt on Friday, May 6, 2005 10:07 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by up829 [ And if there were a tax-supported national high speed rail system, Montana wheat farmers would probably want the same frequency of service as the NEC. If public transportation is a right and has to be subsidized, then the Montana wheat farmer has a right to the same quality of subsidized service as the New York stockbroker. I tried to sell my two cents worth, but no one would give me a plug nickel for it. I don't have a leg to stand on. Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Friday, May 6, 2005 10:18 AM Amtrak is the National Steel and Wire of the Rail Passenger world. For some reason, they're holding onto what worked a long time ago, and ignoring reality. The result is an operation that appeals to railfans, but basically makes everyone else shake their heads. Chris, I ride the CZ to Grand Junction from time to time. Last time, last spring, the thing was packed. I was the only railfan aboard. No one was shaking their heads. I worked Amtrak jobs a lot during the '70s. From Milwauke to Chicago or the Twin Cities. I was the only railfan aboard. Mitch Reply Edit CopCarSS Member sinceAugust 2002 From: Turner Junction 3,076 posts Posted by CopCarSS on Friday, May 6, 2005 10:38 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by artmark Chris, I ride the CZ to Grand Junction from time to time. Last time, last spring, the thing was packed. I was the only railfan aboard. No one was shaking their heads. I worked Amtrak jobs a lot during the '70s. From Milwauke to Chicago or the Twin Cities. I was the only railfan aboard. Mitch I've had similar experiences on the CZ going east and west. But, in the grander picture, it still means very little to the transportation industry. 1 train a day each direction? How many flights take off and land at DIA every day? How many people travel on I-70? How many of those could you convince that Amtrak is not a waste of taxpayer money? I still stand by my observation that Amtrak is a dinosaur, and while I would hate to see it go, I can't see spending the $1.8 Billion they requested to keep it alive. Chris Denver, CO -ChrisWest Chicago, ILChristopher May Fine Art Photography"In wisdom gathered over time I have found that every experience is a form of exploration." ~Ansel Adams Reply CopCarSS Member sinceAugust 2002 From: Turner Junction 3,076 posts Posted by CopCarSS on Friday, May 6, 2005 11:00 AM Additionally, thinking about it. If there is a profit to be made on Amtrak on routes like the CZ, this is Amtrak's golden oppurtunity to abandon the status quo, and focus on routes like that. And should Amtrak fail to do so, and there is an oppurtunity for profit, there will be private interests that will see the oppurtunity. Maybe not as passenger rail as we know it today, but in some form, the Phoenix will arise out of its ashes. Chris Denver, CO -ChrisWest Chicago, ILChristopher May Fine Art Photography"In wisdom gathered over time I have found that every experience is a form of exploration." ~Ansel Adams Reply conrailman Member sinceDecember 2001 From: NS Main Line at MP12 Blairsville,Pa 830 posts Posted by conrailman on Friday, May 6, 2005 11:11 AM Well, Chris Stop spend on Airlines too 16 Billion a year and 35 Billion on Highways Too, Also 381 Billion on the Wars and aid to these other Country every costing Us 80 to 200 Billion in aid every Year, that a waste of are money, not Amtrak we need a fair transportion for Amtrak,Airplanes, and Highways. We need More Amtrak not Less, Amtrak should bring Back Train like 25&26, 35&36, 60&61,and 40&41 that bring back another 4 millionpeople to Amtrak.[:D] Reply 12345 Join our Community! Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account. Login » Register » Search the Community Newsletter Sign-Up By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy More great sites from Kalmbach Media Terms Of Use | Privacy Policy | Copyright Policy
I just think that in Europe, the people get a better transportation system, Public transportation works well when you don't have states like Wyoming, Montana, North Dakota, etc. I.E. lots and lots of square miles with little or no market for public transportation. I think the Bush administration realizes this, and this is the first push for a transportation system that would work (forcing Amtrak to become profitable or die is merely the first step in working towards high speed rail projects in corridors that need them).
QUOTE: Originally posted by morseman To: LIMITEDCLEAR Is there any difference from the reasons Reagan wanted to abolish Amtrak, and the reasons why G>W>B> wants to do the same. It didn't work for Reagan, What are Bush's chances of getting his way ???
Quentin
Originally posted by eastside [ Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply CopCarSS Member sinceAugust 2002 From: Turner Junction 3,076 posts Posted by CopCarSS on Friday, May 6, 2005 8:02 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by ohlemeier QUOTE: Originally posted by CopCarSS I just think that in Europe, the people get a better transportation system, Public transportation works well when you don't have states like Wyoming, Montana, North Dakota, etc. I.E. lots and lots of square miles with little or no market for public transportation. I think the Bush administration realizes this, and this is the first push for a transportation system that would work (forcing Amtrak to become profitable or die is merely the first step in working towards high speed rail projects in corridors that need them). So high speed projects would just spontaneously evolve? Funny how that scheme never worked when it came to building the Interstates or airports. The feds just poured BILLIONS into them without idiotically demanding they be profitable. Bush's plan is like saying we'll improve the airways if we first bankrupt the FAA. All those free-marketers will come in and then run the highways, airports and trains. Right. He's living in a fantasy if he thinks anything remotely on that level would happen. THe interstates weren't built only so the more densley populated states could have service. That's why Sterling, Colo., got the Interstate. People drive back east like they do in the west. Dittos for train or bus travel. You'd think someone from as geographically isolated as the Rocky Mountains would realize that. Denver is a popular Amtrak stop, even with only one train each direction. The federal investment in infrastructure comes first - then the ridership. Neglecting Amtrak by both parties over its 30 plus years is what has caused its current troubles. Funny how highways and airways never have to beg for crumbs of funding like Amtrak. I never said that it would be a spontaneous overnight evolution. I simply said this was the first step. As much as I like Amtrak, and I do ride the CZ between Denver and Chicago quite a bit, it doesn't make sense. It's as if we had a national conestoga wagon association begging for money to run wagon trains to the west. Amtrak is the National Steel and Wire of the Rail Passenger world. For some reason, they're holding onto what worked a long time ago, and ignoring reality. The result is an operation that appeals to railfans, but basically makes everyone else shake their heads. Bush would never be stupid enough to bankrupt the FAA. Because while bankrupting Amtrak would pretty much have no effect on the economy, a big shake up in the industry like that would be cataclysmic to the well being of the economy. And if it ever did happen, one of two things would occur: 1) The people of the US would vote for someone who realized that the airline passenger industry is an important one, or 2) Private industry would step in to the wake of an FAA collapse. By the by, I think you'll find that I-76 wasn't created for Sterling, CO. I'm thinking it has a lot more to do with the fact that its an important link between two major E-W interstates, namely I-80, and I-76. The concept that I-76 was made for Sterling, CO is as silly as Denver being a "popular Amtrak stop." Come out to Denver some day, and I'll drive down to Union Station, and we can watch how many people get on and off of the CZ. Then, we can head out to DIA, and see how many people travel by air. I'd be willing to bet that the former wouldn't equal .01% of the latter. Chris Denver, CO -ChrisWest Chicago, ILChristopher May Fine Art Photography"In wisdom gathered over time I have found that every experience is a form of exploration." ~Ansel Adams Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Friday, May 6, 2005 8:46 AM I think the whole hornets nest stirred up by the Bush Admin surrounding Amtrak is political. Here's why: For what we get, Amtrak costs a lot. There are some conservatives and others who think killing Amtrak would be wise and put an end to wasteful spending. They are a minority of those in power now. These same folk generally believe that a "free market" generally produces goods and services most efficiently. Amtrak is currently the antithesis of this. The Bush admin knows that killing Amtrak is not politically feasible. The national network just has too many supporters in Congress whose want to keep their trains in order to keep voter support back home. So, how do you make both sides happy? You "reform" Amtrak. If you can bake in some "free market" ideas and keep the national network supporters happy, you can declare victory and walk away - whether or not it the net subsidy is more or less in the end. But, you say, "He zeroed out Amtrak in his budget!" Well, it appears to me that it was a way to get everyones attention. Then he sends Mineta out with a half-baked plan with the promise of funding if Amtrak is reformed and, voila, everyone IS paying attention. Even Amtrak's board has come out with a reform plan. If Bush had put, say, $1.2 B in his budget, it is likely that it would have been passed and Amtrak status-quo would have limped along for another year. What's really interesting now is that most of the budget proposals for Amtrak to surface from Congress have been for what Amtrak has asked for ($1.8B) or more ($2.0B) and the Bush admin hasn't said "boo" about it. If they were really intent on killing Amtrak and thought they could do it, they would be saying rather loudly that it's too much money - but they have been silent so far. If they do this right, we could wind up with better train service and a more efficient Amtrak plus a reliable funding source for intercity rail expansion. It looks like the most palatable model will be federal matching funds for state supported corridor work, but that's a good place to start! -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply DSchmitt Member sinceSeptember 2003 From: California - moved to North Carolina 2018 4,422 posts Posted by DSchmitt on Friday, May 6, 2005 10:07 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by up829 [ And if there were a tax-supported national high speed rail system, Montana wheat farmers would probably want the same frequency of service as the NEC. If public transportation is a right and has to be subsidized, then the Montana wheat farmer has a right to the same quality of subsidized service as the New York stockbroker. I tried to sell my two cents worth, but no one would give me a plug nickel for it. I don't have a leg to stand on. Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Friday, May 6, 2005 10:18 AM Amtrak is the National Steel and Wire of the Rail Passenger world. For some reason, they're holding onto what worked a long time ago, and ignoring reality. The result is an operation that appeals to railfans, but basically makes everyone else shake their heads.
Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub
QUOTE: Originally posted by ohlemeier QUOTE: Originally posted by CopCarSS I just think that in Europe, the people get a better transportation system, Public transportation works well when you don't have states like Wyoming, Montana, North Dakota, etc. I.E. lots and lots of square miles with little or no market for public transportation. I think the Bush administration realizes this, and this is the first push for a transportation system that would work (forcing Amtrak to become profitable or die is merely the first step in working towards high speed rail projects in corridors that need them). So high speed projects would just spontaneously evolve? Funny how that scheme never worked when it came to building the Interstates or airports. The feds just poured BILLIONS into them without idiotically demanding they be profitable. Bush's plan is like saying we'll improve the airways if we first bankrupt the FAA. All those free-marketers will come in and then run the highways, airports and trains. Right. He's living in a fantasy if he thinks anything remotely on that level would happen. THe interstates weren't built only so the more densley populated states could have service. That's why Sterling, Colo., got the Interstate. People drive back east like they do in the west. Dittos for train or bus travel. You'd think someone from as geographically isolated as the Rocky Mountains would realize that. Denver is a popular Amtrak stop, even with only one train each direction. The federal investment in infrastructure comes first - then the ridership. Neglecting Amtrak by both parties over its 30 plus years is what has caused its current troubles. Funny how highways and airways never have to beg for crumbs of funding like Amtrak. I never said that it would be a spontaneous overnight evolution. I simply said this was the first step. As much as I like Amtrak, and I do ride the CZ between Denver and Chicago quite a bit, it doesn't make sense. It's as if we had a national conestoga wagon association begging for money to run wagon trains to the west. Amtrak is the National Steel and Wire of the Rail Passenger world. For some reason, they're holding onto what worked a long time ago, and ignoring reality. The result is an operation that appeals to railfans, but basically makes everyone else shake their heads. Bush would never be stupid enough to bankrupt the FAA. Because while bankrupting Amtrak would pretty much have no effect on the economy, a big shake up in the industry like that would be cataclysmic to the well being of the economy. And if it ever did happen, one of two things would occur: 1) The people of the US would vote for someone who realized that the airline passenger industry is an important one, or 2) Private industry would step in to the wake of an FAA collapse. By the by, I think you'll find that I-76 wasn't created for Sterling, CO. I'm thinking it has a lot more to do with the fact that its an important link between two major E-W interstates, namely I-80, and I-76. The concept that I-76 was made for Sterling, CO is as silly as Denver being a "popular Amtrak stop." Come out to Denver some day, and I'll drive down to Union Station, and we can watch how many people get on and off of the CZ. Then, we can head out to DIA, and see how many people travel by air. I'd be willing to bet that the former wouldn't equal .01% of the latter. Chris Denver, CO -ChrisWest Chicago, ILChristopher May Fine Art Photography"In wisdom gathered over time I have found that every experience is a form of exploration." ~Ansel Adams Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Friday, May 6, 2005 8:46 AM I think the whole hornets nest stirred up by the Bush Admin surrounding Amtrak is political. Here's why: For what we get, Amtrak costs a lot. There are some conservatives and others who think killing Amtrak would be wise and put an end to wasteful spending. They are a minority of those in power now. These same folk generally believe that a "free market" generally produces goods and services most efficiently. Amtrak is currently the antithesis of this. The Bush admin knows that killing Amtrak is not politically feasible. The national network just has too many supporters in Congress whose want to keep their trains in order to keep voter support back home. So, how do you make both sides happy? You "reform" Amtrak. If you can bake in some "free market" ideas and keep the national network supporters happy, you can declare victory and walk away - whether or not it the net subsidy is more or less in the end. But, you say, "He zeroed out Amtrak in his budget!" Well, it appears to me that it was a way to get everyones attention. Then he sends Mineta out with a half-baked plan with the promise of funding if Amtrak is reformed and, voila, everyone IS paying attention. Even Amtrak's board has come out with a reform plan. If Bush had put, say, $1.2 B in his budget, it is likely that it would have been passed and Amtrak status-quo would have limped along for another year. What's really interesting now is that most of the budget proposals for Amtrak to surface from Congress have been for what Amtrak has asked for ($1.8B) or more ($2.0B) and the Bush admin hasn't said "boo" about it. If they were really intent on killing Amtrak and thought they could do it, they would be saying rather loudly that it's too much money - but they have been silent so far. If they do this right, we could wind up with better train service and a more efficient Amtrak plus a reliable funding source for intercity rail expansion. It looks like the most palatable model will be federal matching funds for state supported corridor work, but that's a good place to start! -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply DSchmitt Member sinceSeptember 2003 From: California - moved to North Carolina 2018 4,422 posts Posted by DSchmitt on Friday, May 6, 2005 10:07 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by up829 [ And if there were a tax-supported national high speed rail system, Montana wheat farmers would probably want the same frequency of service as the NEC. If public transportation is a right and has to be subsidized, then the Montana wheat farmer has a right to the same quality of subsidized service as the New York stockbroker. I tried to sell my two cents worth, but no one would give me a plug nickel for it. I don't have a leg to stand on. Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Friday, May 6, 2005 10:18 AM
QUOTE: Originally posted by CopCarSS I just think that in Europe, the people get a better transportation system, Public transportation works well when you don't have states like Wyoming, Montana, North Dakota, etc. I.E. lots and lots of square miles with little or no market for public transportation. I think the Bush administration realizes this, and this is the first push for a transportation system that would work (forcing Amtrak to become profitable or die is merely the first step in working towards high speed rail projects in corridors that need them). So high speed projects would just spontaneously evolve? Funny how that scheme never worked when it came to building the Interstates or airports. The feds just poured BILLIONS into them without idiotically demanding they be profitable. Bush's plan is like saying we'll improve the airways if we first bankrupt the FAA. All those free-marketers will come in and then run the highways, airports and trains. Right. He's living in a fantasy if he thinks anything remotely on that level would happen. THe interstates weren't built only so the more densley populated states could have service. That's why Sterling, Colo., got the Interstate. People drive back east like they do in the west. Dittos for train or bus travel. You'd think someone from as geographically isolated as the Rocky Mountains would realize that. Denver is a popular Amtrak stop, even with only one train each direction. The federal investment in infrastructure comes first - then the ridership. Neglecting Amtrak by both parties over its 30 plus years is what has caused its current troubles. Funny how highways and airways never have to beg for crumbs of funding like Amtrak.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
QUOTE: Originally posted by up829 [ And if there were a tax-supported national high speed rail system, Montana wheat farmers would probably want the same frequency of service as the NEC.
I tried to sell my two cents worth, but no one would give me a plug nickel for it.
I don't have a leg to stand on.
QUOTE: Originally posted by artmark Chris, I ride the CZ to Grand Junction from time to time. Last time, last spring, the thing was packed. I was the only railfan aboard. No one was shaking their heads. I worked Amtrak jobs a lot during the '70s. From Milwauke to Chicago or the Twin Cities. I was the only railfan aboard. Mitch
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.