What does Bush and parts of the US not understand about Amtrak and the national passenger rail?

[CopCarSS]

QUOTE: Originally posted by conrailman

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 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]

I won't touch war spending, because my comments are based around the transportation industry mainly. As for the billions being spent on the airline and highway portions of the transportation market, I still feel that its much more critical to the well being of the economy. If we lived in a true laissez-faire (sp?) capitalist country, there wouldn't be any government spending anywhere. Of course, we don't live in that hypothetical realm, so what do we have?

We have people that more or less want to either have speed, or freedom to their travels. Speed in North America means airline travel. So we need airlines. Freedom means automotive travel, so we need highways. Transcontinental Rail Service (Amtrak) is neither fast or personal. A cut to the spending here would yield little net effect to the economy. In fact, as has been pointed out, it could be beneficial to the railroads biggest concern, freight. And freight railroading is important to the economy. Freeing the freight railroads of the Amtrak albatross would be a good move in the overall economy picture, at least to me.

As always, its just my opinion. It's kind of an interesting discussion. It's an issue that I've struggled with myself for quite some time. I really enjoy traveling by train, and not just because I'm a railfan. To me, rail passengers are much more convivial. And the freedom to sleep, eat, talk, watch scenery go by in a comfortable environment can't be beat.

I don't enjoy the near strip searches of the TSA, or the sardine feeling I get on plane, so I only travel by plane when I have to be some where quick. I enjoy the freedom of driving, but sometimes it does get tiresome (I-80 in Nebraska is the being the prime example). While taking a break from I-80, and traveling US 30 is an option (and this is fun as a railfan), it does take up time. You couldn't pay me enough to go transcontinental on a bus. So I'm left with rail travel. If we could convince the rest of America that this is true, then maybe we'd be on the right track (pardon the pun) for Amtrak.

Chris
Denver, CO

[Anonymous]

One train a day doth not a passenger service make. Three trains a day, with a variety of services and stops does. And that's the whole problem. To fund the thing meakly with the status quo will not serve any purpose. Properly funded it could resume a position of importance.
The question in the first place is "What does President Bush not understand about Amtrak." My answer, as it has been in other threads, is that railroading, and passenger trains in particular, went out of fashion, more than neccesity. As things turned from the mid 60s when passenger trains were a known commodity, to the late 60s when they were fading, into the Brady Bunch Era of Amtrak, where interest acctually increased, the subject has never been given a realist view, of its potentials, to the American public.
Right now I'm afraid the uninitiated American's view of passenger railroading has to do with slow-rolling dinner trains, poorly done theme restaurants, and um-pah bands. So it's easy to label this medium of transportation as a "dinosaur." What would Bush know from a passenger train? He's probably never ridden or even seen one outside of the NEC. He really is your average American when it comes to this topic.

Mitch

[Anonymous]

$10 Billion for the Iraqi railroad......that's all I've got to say.

[Anonymous]

The people who do know how important Amtrak service is is the elderly, especially those that have a hard time walking long distances...... Airports are a hassle, with very long concourses, one could drain the battery on their mover before reaching the plane.....and when they do get to the plane how do they store it?

This is where trains come in.... And as the average American is getting older, the trains will eventually win....... HSR trains are the future.......

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by DSchmitt

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.

Not a right, but desired by the majority. Is that good enough? Of course, the majority could decide to rob the minority. Some would say that's what's been going on for years (not just the Amtrak subsidy)

[CopCarSS]

QUOTE: Originally posted by artmark

One train a day doth not a passenger service make. Three trains a day, with a variety of services and stops does. And that's the whole problem. To fund the thing meakly with the status quo will not serve any purpose. Properly funded it could resume a position of importance.
The question in the first place is "What does President Bush not understand about Amtrak." My answer, as it has been in other threads, is that railroading, and passenger trains in particular, went out of fashion, more than neccesity. As things turned from the mid 60s when passenger trains were a known commodity, to the late 60s when they were fading, into the Brady Bunch Era of Amtrak, where interest acctually increased, the subject has never been given a realist view, of its potentials, to the American public.
Right now I'm afraid the uninitiated American's view of passenger railroading has to do with slow-rolling dinner trains, poorly done theme restaurants, and um-pah bands. So it's easy to label this medium of transportation as a "dinosaur." What would Bush know from a passenger train? He's probably never ridden or even seen one outside of the NEC. He really is your average American when it comes to this topic.

Mitch

How much would it cost, though to run three trains a day on all of the routes? Let's say it happened, and Amtrak got a blank check to become a national carrier like you are envisioning. There's a few problems.

1) How long would it take to convince the public to ride of these three trains a day? There's a reason why rail passenger service died in the 50's-60's. Now we're going to convince an American Public even more dependent on trains and planes that they should be riding trains? Save for Thanksgiving and Christmas, your three trains a day would be empty on all but a couple routes.

2) So why not ditch everything buth those routes? Since the blank check was given by the whole of the American tax-payer base, it's certainly not fair to deny potential passengers on the lesser traveled routes merely because its not profitable. They paid the bill, too.

3) The freight railroads already don't like Amtrak. By tripling their inconvenience, I can envision some big time lobbying against any increase in service.

The beauty of making Amtrak become profitable or die is that it kills most of these problems. If they cut service to the popular routes, maybe they coudl focus on better service, which would give Amtrak a better look to Joe American, which would cause an increase in demand, and routes could be expanded based on need, rather than political necessity. If the routes were proven to be successful, you'd see a return by the freight railroads to run their own passenger service, which would eliminate point #3.

I still think this is all a big pipe dream, and American travel relies heavily on the airplane, and the automobile. Could a well-funded, changed Amtrak comete? I'd doubt it, but it's possible.

Chris
Denver, CO

[oltmannd]

If they do this "reform" thing even half-way right, we might wind up with a lot more for our money - and we might all agree it's better.

I'd hate to think that in 10 years we'd still have all the same routes, frequencies and equipment at roughly the same cost. That would be awful.

[Anonymous]

Chris,
If a store is only open one hour a day, it won't sell enough product to make costs or profit. If it's open 3 hours a day it moves enough product to maybe break eevn. If it's open 24 hours it moves a lot of product.
One train a day, 3/4 train of customers. 3 trains a day, 3 trains full of passengers. Hourly service, NEC. The place becomes a standard fixture of transportation.
Years ago there were 5 round trips by rail, Chicago to Seattle. Now there's only 1. But the population has increased. You can't tell me that a well run passenger service, with many departures won't start to cover its costs to a point. Add to that the fact that railroad work rules have changed creating better economies. A ticket agent open 8 hours for 2 trains is inefficient. Open for 3 trains is better.
There has been mention that the car has replaced the train, and which one is more modern. There were cars before passenger trains for centuries. We just called them wagons and pulled them with horses on lousey roads. That all got improved to where we are today iin the realm of automobiles. So do we say that an Amtrak train, not as refined as streamliners from the 50s is the state of the art, thereby halting all efforts to improve the product? They managed that overseas.
As for America being too far flung in the wild west and there is no need for the service I must ask then why was an Interstate Highway run out there? I don't think that was benevolence for the citizenry of Mandan, ND. No. It was so you could drive all the way to the coast.
I was just at Chicago's O'Hare Airport the other day to fetch my brother arriving from France. What a monster that airport is. I'm getting older, and I don't have the energy it takes to put in a 9 hour day driving the Interstate. I live far enough away from any airport to make air travel easy. Besides I don't think much of casting myself off into the blue yonder on a firey fusalage.
Everyone that I've ever spoken with on an Amtrak long distance train says the same thing. They wi***he service was a little better, and that there would be more trains. They weren't railfans. they think trains are a viable alternative.
When I worked Amtrak between Milwaukee and Chicago we had 7 departures a day and plenty of passengers. When the number of trains was cut by 1 round trip, the numbers decreased. then came the genius of having only 4 round trips one year account "funding." You could have carried the total nimber of passengers on a switch engine.

The store has to be open longer than one hour a day.

Mitch

[CopCarSS]

I don't know. While to you the idea of round the clock trains sounds modern, to me it just seems like trying to regain the 1940's. Converting Amtrak as it is now to a 24 hour a day operation would take a LOT of initial investment, and the end result that it would yield the kind of interest you say it would would be very risky.

If you were to propose it to a private corporation, I think you would have a very hard time selling it to potential investors. I don't see why the government would or should be the investor to take such a risk.

Maybe it should happen. The same kind of thing happened with Conrail, and look what a success that worked out to be. Conrail had deregulation on its side, though. I'm not sure what the hidden ace would be for a resurected Amtrak would be. Maybe there is a passenger base that would flock to it. I still think that the vast majority of American would much rather be in a plane, or in their cars, though.

And lets not forget Gomer the Motor Homer. Gomer is the #1 potential market, if you asked me. If Amtrak could offer the conveniences of a motor home at a decent rate to places like the national parks and other scenic wonders (and rails do travel near these oftentimes) I think Amtrak could potentially make a killing. Especially with gas prices as they are. I can't imagine what it costs to fuel one of those monsters right now. If Amtrak could sway those types away, and take away some of those noisy, ugly, big, pain in the neck RV's, and give me my campgrounds back, you would never hear me say a nasty word about them again! [;)][:P]

There's other markets that I think could flurish, too. The penultimate, that will never happen in today's world, but would still be really cool is a steam passenger train. Can you imagine traveling behind a real live steam locomotive across the country? Amtrak wouldn't be able to sell tickets fast enough. Of course, with insurance on steam excursions what they are, and the lack of supporting infrastructure for cross country steam, it would never be feasible, but oh how they could sell tickets!

Never the less, if Amtrak is to survive, it must change. I'm just still not sure I'd like to foot the bill.

Chris
Denver, CO

[Anonymous]

I'm not saying "round-the-clock" service is the answer, but a logical frequency is.
I once said in frustration, in the seventies,"Instead of running an airline burlesque show, they (Amtrak) should get a few steam engines and paint the coches green and give a real train ride." It sure would get attention. Just think of 100mph trains between Milwaukee and Chicago behind MR 261. The tourism bureaus would love it.

Mitch

[Anonymous]

I'm not saying "round-the-clock" service is the answer, but a logical frequency is.
I once said in frustration, in the seventies,"Instead of running an airline burlesque show, they (Amtrak) should get a few steam engines and paint the coches green and give a real train ride." It sure would get attention. Just think of 100mph trains between Milwaukee and Chicago behind MR 261. The tourism bureaus would love it.

Mitch

[DSchmitt]

"If a store is only open one hour a day, it won't sell enough product to make costs or profit. If it's open 3 hours a day it moves enough product to maybe break eevn. If it's open 24 hours it moves a lot of product."

False: If this was true every store would be open 24 hours a day. Longer hours mean higher costs. If the business is not there, the extra hours cost more money than they make. Even is business is good the aditional costs may exceed the aditional revenue.

Even when trains were the best transportation alternative (the alternatives being stage coach, wagon, horse or walking) many routes did not have the ridership even close to justifingy the cost of running a train and even full trains were and are often overall money loosers.

"As for America being too far flung in the wild west and there is no need for the service I must ask then why was an Interstate Highway run out there?"

While highways do cost money to build and maintain (as do railroads) the majority of the cost is paid by user fees (gas tax and other truck/auto related taxes and fees). The cost to the owner (government ) to operate highways is extremly low. There are no locomotives and cars to buy and maintain, no crew, no ticket sellers, , no dispatchers, no equipment cleaning and repair people, etc. to pay) The users pay for their own vehicles and operate them themselves.

The automobile provides much more flexible service to the user than any train system could.

"I'm getting older, and I don't have the energy it takes to put in a 9 hour day driving the Interstate. I live far enough away from any airport to make air travel easy. Besides I don't think much of casting myself off into the blue yonder on a firey fusalage.
Everyone that I've ever spoken with on an Amtrak long distance train says the same thing. They wi***he service was a little better, and that there would be more trains. They weren't railfans. they think trains are a viable alternative."

I find it hard to believe that your brother couldn't have arranged to go to a closer airport.
By highway I can be to either of two different County airports in 10 minutes or less, a regional airport in 40 minutes, or an international airport in 2 hours.
Trips don' t start and end at the train station or the airport. Even in the pre-automoble days a road ststem was necessary to get to the train station. Thanks to good roads and the autmobile its easier than ever before.

I live two miles from a railroad line on which Amtrak runs but It's over 50 miles to the nearest train station.

[Anonymous]

]Originally posted by DSchmitt

"If a store is only open one hour a day, it won't sell enough product to make costs or profit. If it's open 3 hours a day it moves enough product to maybe break eevn. If it's open 24 hours it moves a lot of product."

False: If this was true every store would be open 24 hours a day. Longer hours mean higher costs. If the business is not there, the extra hours cost more money than they make. Even is business is good the aditional costs may exceed the aditional revenue.I didn't say you have to be open 24 hours to make a profit. Walmart is though. I think you get the drift in terms of service.

Even when trains were the best transportation alternative (the alternatives being stage coach, wagon, horse or walking) many routes did not have the ridership even close to justifingy the cost of running a train and even full trains were and are often overall money loosers. So we should have had Amtrak in 1930?

"As for America being too far flung in the wild west and there is no need for the service I must ask then why was an Interstate Highway run out there?"

While highways do cost money to build and maintain (as do railroads) the majority of the cost is paid by user fees (gas tax and other truck/auto related taxes and fees). The cost to the owner (government ) to operate highways is extremly low. There are no locomotives and cars to buy and maintain, no crew, no ticket sellers, , no dispatchers, no equipment cleaning and repair people, etc. to pay) The users pay for their own vehicles and operate them themselves.

The automobile provides much more flexible service to the user than any train system could.

Whatcha gonna do when the gas runs out?]

"I'm getting older, and I don't have the energy it takes to put in a 9 hour day driving the Interstate. I live far enough away from any airport to make air travel easy. Besides I don't think much of casting myself off into the blue yonder on a firey fusalage.
Everyone that I've ever spoken with on an Amtrak long distance train says the same thing. They wi***he service was a little better, and that there would be more trains. They weren't railfans. they think trains are a viable alternative."

I find it hard to believe that your brother couldn't have arranged to go to a closer airport.
By highway I can be to either of two different County airports in 10 minutes or less, a regional airport in 40 minutes, or an international airport in 2 hours. I don't live where you live. Air France had no direct service to South Bend, 40 miles away. The airport itself was a hell to endure.

Trips don' t start and end at the train station or the airport. Even in the pre-automoble days a road ststem was necessary to get to the train station. Thanks to good roads and the autmobile its easier than ever before.

I live two miles from a railroad line on which Amtrak runs but It's over 50 miles to the nearest train station.Well, now you get my point about frequency and service. Two locals, one express.

Mitch

[DSchmitt]

"Whatcha gonna do when the gas runs out?]"

Most Amtrak trains run on diesel fuel (oil).

If the number of trains were trippled, there l would not be triple the ridership which would decrease their energy efficiency energy. How many passengers does it take to make a train more efficient than an auto?


If we can get the wackos to allow nuclear power plants and get the distribution infrastructure set up autos can be made to run fine on hydrogen (we need electricity to get the hydrogen) and make the electric car viable for around town use even with
no improvement in range.

" I don't live where you live. Air France had no direct service to South Bend, 40 miles away. The airport itself was a hell to endure."

He couldn't catch a local flight from O'Hare? or catch a bus? As I said trips don't start and end at the airport or train station. If every rail line that existed in 1950 still existed and evey line had passenger service on it, the train still couldn't match the auto for speed and covenience in most of the country. In most of the county it couldn't match the airplane either. Time is money.



"Well, now you get my point about frequency and service. Two locals, one express."

Yeah, but the express doesn't stop and the locals schedule is all wrong for my needs. Besides they take at least 3- hour station to station. What is a 2-1/2 hour door to door auto trip then takes over 4 hours. My trip isn't station to station

More trains, even with increased ridership, would likely mean greater loses and thus the need for more taxpayer as opposed to user money to keep the trains running.



I do believe that communter rail is useful under the right circunstances of population distribution and density.

Regional rail such as being developed in California may have it's place too.

As I have posted in other threads, sourse Victoria Transportation Policy Institute www.vtpi.org (which by the way not a pro-automobile site), the subsidy per passenger mile for rail is higher than the cost per vehicle mile for the automobile.

[Anonymous]

For those who believe gutting Amtrak will help corridors, short distance routes and mass transit...

These guys - supporters of light rail and the corridors - think Bush's wrong-headed plan is an attack on balanced transportation in general.

Corridors support needed LD trains. LD trains support and feed into corridors. What's needed is balance, with good regional air service and good highways as well. Passenger rail is far from outmoded. It does have a use in short and long distance travel Amtrak is at a record ridership level.

http://www.lightrailnow.org/features/f_amtrak_2005-03.htm

QUOTE.... "In its unprecedented proposal to shut down Amtrak intercity rail passenger service, the USA's Bush administration portrays its move as an effort to "save" corridor trains and bolster regional rail service. Certainly, regional corridors are a critical element in any program of intercity rail passenger service, but, as our various analyses of Bush's "zero funding" plan demonstrate, killing rail service to "preserve" or foster corridor service is at best an absurd oxymoron, and at worst a calculated deception to decimate regional and intercity rail public transport on a wide scale.

There is a veritable avalanche of evidence suggesting that long-distance passenger train services generate the greatest revenue per passenger, and that shorter-distance, purely "corridor" ridership is not the relatively ultra-remunerative traffic it's portrayed to be. Nevertheless, regional corridor ridership is certainly crucial, and a further essential interface with urban transit, both bus and rail. Yet there is a widespread misconception that decimating Amtrak's intercity operations will somehow bolster these corridor services and strengthen the financial performance of rail services (which, in the Bush proposal, include the fantasy of private-profit rail companies rushing to compete for supposedly lucrative, profitable rail passenger contracts).

But the evidence, and a thoughtful analysis of the Bush program, suggest that this vision of supposedly nurturing regional corridors by delivering a coup de grâce to Amtrak is nothing but a cruel hoax, designed to flummox the gullible. For those that naively buy into this flim-flam, what is particularly being misunderstood is that Amtrak already provides the basis for regional service – and, in fact, for a huge swath of the USA, Amtrak is the "regional rail service". In this respect, long-distance travel serves as "frosting on the cake" in terms of additional, lucrative revenue. "

[Anonymous]

Has anyone yet realized that Amtrak is operated using 1930's logistics? Show me any other mode where passenger service is using 70 year old logistical operations. For that matter, show me any other mode where the federal government is providing passenger services.

The nation's proprietary closed access rail system is built, operated, and maintained to run mile long 10,000+ ton consists at an average speed of 25 mph. Passenger service, regardless of mode, needs to be fast, frequent, and flexible. Trying to mix passenger services in with today's U.S. rail system is like trying to mix oil and water. It is completely nonsensicle.

Without a high speed rail system, one in which door to door transit times can beat door to door highway times regardless of the distance, the idea of passenger rail is a no go.

[jeaton]

In the category of be careful what you wish for. For those who wi***hat Amtrak will go away, you may also want to wi***hat you will not live long after your driver's license is not renewed because of disabilities brought on by old age.

[Anonymous]

The federal tax dollar revenues fund new construction only, with either new highways or rebuilding old highways...... Not one red cent goes to maintenance...... Maintenance funds come from the state and local governments......

The feds have spent over $1 trillion building new federally signed/marked highways in the past 50 years...... Its amazing how Amtrak's critics could possibly suggest that $24 billion over the past 40 years have been a huge tax boondoggle..... less than a quarter of one percent of the funds spent on new highways.....

Frankly, if the feds had instituted a one cent sales tax to fund passenger rail, we would have the best passenger rail network in the world, far surpassing the Europeans..... With a $7 trillion gross national product, a one cent sales tax would generate up to $70 billion a year to fund a national passenger railroad...... More than enough to build a new HSR network from New York City to Chicago, Washington DC to Miami, and from Chicago and Miami's corridors to Texas, a state with over 22 million people living in it.....not to mention a corridor in California linking northern and southern California..... IN ONE YEAR!

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

Has anyone yet realized that Amtrak is operated using 1930's logistics? Show me any other mode where passenger service is using 70 year old logistical operations. For that matter, show me any other mode where the federal government is providing passenger services.

The nation's proprietary closed access rail system is built, operated, and maintained to run mile long 10,000+ ton consists at an average speed of 25 mph. Passenger service, regardless of mode, needs to be fast, frequent, and flexible. Trying to mix passenger services in with today's U.S. rail system is like trying to mix oil and water. It is completely nonsensicle.

Without a high speed rail system, one in which door to door transit times can beat door to door highway times regardless of the distance, the idea of passenger rail is a no go.

Dave,
I'm with you on the high speed rail thing, as opposed to running passenger trains on freight railroads.

Our question may be one of symantics. In saving Amtrak are we asking for the "same-o same-o" or asking for proper funding that would take Amtrak, or a funded, non-private rail service to a new level?

My only "wise-guy" remark to your comments is the interstate highway idea is as old as the first streamliners in that it came from the German Autoban. Limited access highways were planned in Chicago before WW II.

Mitch

[Anonymous]

"Whatcha gonna do when the gas runs out?]"

Most Amtrak trains run on diesel fuel (oil).
What? We can't electrify?

If the number of trains were trippled, there l would not be triple the ridership which would decrease their energy efficiency energy. How many passengers does it take to make a train more efficient than an auto?
When service was increased between Milwaukee and Chicago, the ridership in general went up. I saw it.


If we can get the wackos to allow nuclear power plants and get the distribution infrastructure set up autos can be made to run fine on hydrogen (we need electricity to get the hydrogen) and make the electric car viable for around town use even with
no improvement in range.

If we could get the whacko power companies to maintain their nuclear plants responsibly, no one would argue. I don't want to become a glow-in-the-dark statue."

I don't live where you live. Air France had no direct service to South Bend, 40 miles away. The airport itself was a hell to endure."

He couldn't catch a local flight from O'Hare? or catch a bus? As I said trips don't start and end at the airport or train station. If every rail line that existed in 1950 still existed and evey line had passenger service on it, the train still couldn't match the auto for speed and covenience in most of the country. In most of the county it couldn't match the airplane either. Time is money.

Time is money. that's getting old. To some but not all. Especially the majority of folks who use their cars long distance instead of the airlines. Just what my brother wanted to do. Schlep 6 bags from one terminal to the other in an airport the size of my town just to wait for another flight, go back in the air to land at South Bend for a car trip. then thee's people that live around here that want to fly to New York. They get into their car around 4pm, drive to O'hare and get a room for the night, and take a morning flight out. By the time they get to New York they could have taken the Broadway. Do you jog to work?



"Well, now you get my point about frequency and service. Two locals, one express."

Yeah, but the express doesn't stop and the locals schedule is all wrong for my needs. Besides they take at least 3- hour station to station. What is a 2-1/2 hour door to door auto trip then takes over 4 hours. My trip isn't station to station

An assumption on your part not seeing a sample schedule, or connections.

More trains, even with increased ridership, would likely mean greater loses and thus the need for more taxpayer as opposed to user money to keep the trains running.

I don't get that. Do we scrap the NEC account too many riders? Or reduce it to one round trip a day?


I do believe that communter rail is useful under the right circunstances of population distribution and density.

Regional rail such as being developed in California may have it's place too.

[red]But if you want to go 501 miles, ya better drive, or stay home!

As I have posted in other threads, sourse Victoria Transportation Policy Institute www.vtpi.org (which by the way not a pro-automobile site), the subsidy per passenger mile for rail is higher than the cost per vehicle mile for the automobile.

[red]Bully for Victoria's Secret.

Mitch

[PNWRMNM]

Mark,

It is soo much more fun to make wild claims though. Keep up the good work.

Mac

[daveklepper]

I find two important points missing from this thread and they are also missing from any consideration so far by Bush and Mineta:

1. There are USA citizens who need Amtrak to be full citizens. They are the elderly and handicapped who cannot drive and who cannot fly but, in my opinion, are still entitled to have access to the entire country.

2. Airlines and interstate highways do not pay real estate taxes. Railroads do, and fees from Amtrak in part do pay part of those taxes. If all the land occupied by airports and interstate highways (only interstates, not any other highways) were evalautated for real estate taxes on realistic terms by local communities and counties, the total yearly tax bill would probably top $10billion, not $2Billion.

[Anonymous]

jim

[Anonymous]

Jim

[Anonymous]

I was wrong.

Jim

[Anonymous]

The Mark said this:

"But I can't actually introduce you to Mr. Zoubaa. You see, he and his driver were asassinated by insurgents this morning as they drove to work. The Iraqi railwaymen I work with every day are pretty shook up"

Geuss he'd still been alive if we would not have gone to war with the third world that had nothing to do with 911

So, just when did you sell out?

Jim!

[eastside]

QUOTE: Originally posted by SP9033

The Mark said this:
...
So, just when did you sell out?

A moral man acts as his conscience dictates, not someone else's. In my mind, "selling out" is when you compromise your conscience. I see no evidence of this. On the contrary, from everything that I've read that MWH has written, he's shown himself to be a man of integrity, directness, and conscience. My impression is that he took the job believing he's sincerely doing a service for the beleaguered people of Iraq, at considerable risk to his own life and obviously not for the money. I wouldn't go there for any amount of money. He should be applauded instead.

[jeaton]

SP9033

It appears that it is way beyond your ability to comprehend why thousands of people like Mark Hemphill have decided to voluntarily leave family, travel halfway around the world to tackle extroadinarily difficult problems while having their lives on the line. But I will try.

As much as anybody, I believe the decision to make pre-emptive strike against Iraq was made by people so narrow minded and egotistical that they could not even consider that the action they advocated could produce anything but a good outcome. At the least it could be said that the action was ill-advised, but I think that the resulting loss of human life, both military and innocent civilian, and the enormous cost to the American public makes the action an outragously immoral act.

As much as I and and people here and around the world think it was wrong, the war happened. In my mind we have a moral obligation to fix what we helped destroy. That in itself would be enough justification, but it is also clear to me that if we were to pull away and take our money with us, we would leave ourselves in far greater danger than we were before the war. Hemphill and the people working with him are trying to make do with a very small proportion of the $300 billion total cost of the war in a sincere effort to help the Iraqis rebuild and give them a chance to move on to more peacful lives.

I don't like the fact that we now have to spend the kind of money going to the war effort. I would like to see that kind of money and more spent on things like transportation infrastructure, schools, healthcare and many other things even much more needed than Amtrak. Given the popularity of tax cuts, it is pretty clear that the voting Americans will try anything to get out of paying for things that are needed for our welfare. For some, appearantly such as you, no government spending is to be allowed unless it is made directly to US citizens.

If you think that you, or for that matter, any other person in the world can avoid any interact with all the other political entities and people of the world, you had better start looking for a very deep hole in a very uninhabital part of the world.

In fact if you want to leave now, I'll pay to fill up the tank in your vehicle,

Jay Eaton

[dharmon]

QUOTE: Originally posted by SP9033

The Mark said this:

"But I can't actually introduce you to Mr. Zoubaa. You see, he and his driver were asassinated by insurgents this morning as they drove to work. The Iraqi railwaymen I work with every day are pretty shook up"

Geuss he'd still been alive if we would not have gone to war with the third world that had nothing to do with 911

So, just when did you sell out?

Jim!

Somedays the deployments, the time away from home...just isn't worth it realizing the drivel some folks spout using the freedoms that we protect.

Jim ...how about a nice steaming hot cup of SHUT THE &*^% UP.

[Anonymous]

I see this as a Quid Pro Quo. John McCain sold out to the Bushies, gave them his support. He would not do that without getting something in return. McCain has wanted Amtrak dead for years. Now, suddenly, he gets his way. Coincidence? Not in bush-world.

Bush has lied about everything else he's ever done. This is no different.

and to Mark, I hope you come home safe from Iraq. I don't necessarily admire what you are doing, but I do respect it. But you lost me with the democracy ain't cheap canard.

Since when do Trains = Democracy?

Paul