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

[jeaton]

Business Class would be cushion underframe cars?

Jay

[dharmon]

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.

Yeah..and we can use our frequent traveller miles to upgrade to an old army blanket in Business Class!!![:p]

[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.

[Anonymous]

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 . .

I don't think Amtrak is important when it relates to "Homeland Defense". Amtrak has very little in the way to rails outside the NEC (michigan?). Any RR can pull a train with people in an emergency. I'm sure people would even ride in a boxcar if necessary.

Amtrak role is for mass transit on a national scale.

[CopCarSS]

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.

250 miles? Hmmm...that gets me somewhere into Western Nebraska. Considering that when I go beyond the Metro Denver area, it's usually not to Western Nebraska, 250 miles doesn't mean much to me.

And even though I've cruised at 125 and more, I don't think I'd care to do it on a Freeway with other drivers, no matter how good the roads are. Traveling at that speed is deadly. Doing it with the number of American drivers that would try it if we had it? Suicide.

I do know that they have freeways, too. But it's still not the same. You stated it yourself: "Europe has an equaly extensive freeway system in many of their countries" Many of does not equate to all of as the Interstate system does. And I really doubt there is anywhere in Europe that equates to Eatern Wyoming, or North Dakota, etc. It's really, REALLY empty, and passenger rail in the transcontinental frame of mind is a page from America's past.

Chris
Denver, CO

[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 ???

[CopCarSS]

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 . . .

In America right now? I don't think so. Saving fuel would be best served by high speed (or conventional commuter, too) rail in short to moderate length. Not some itsy, bitsy, tiny little attempt of passenger service from another era.

Chris
Denver, CO

[Junctionfan]

This reminds me of a song I heard..."What is politics good for, absolutly nothing..."

Wait, I mean war....

[TH&B]

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.

[Anonymous]

Lets be clear about this.

It is not about Bu***rying to put in high speed rail. It is not about trying to save or kill Amtrak really.

Bush needs to reduce the amounts spent each year and show the voters he is doing it if he is to pave the way for another Republican President which the people who supported him (and his father) want.

So Bush is trying to zero out Amrak in the budget and remove the drain on funds in represents (which is very small in terms of the overall budget, but he wants to make an example of it) . So he doesn't alienate some pretty powerful Republican Senators and Congressmen he is offering as an alternative, transit matching money from the HIGHWAY TRUST FUND, paid by your gas taxes, not from the general budget which is funded by income taxes and various other taxes and tarriffs. Also, he reduces the cost to the Federal Government this way by requiring the States and localities to pay a 50% match to the Federal Funds.

The effect of this is there is $1.8Billion annually he can use to retire debt instead of supporting Amtrak which he can use to fund tax cuts.

That is how politics works in this case.

LC

[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 . . .

[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

[dharmon]

Amtrak and Homeland Defense.

Apples and Horanges

[eastside]

When I was in school, a very distinguished professor once asked me during a class:
What is the primary motivation for a successful politician (pick one)?
A. Serving the people
B. Win votes

I said A. He said that was naive and dangerous. After several decades I understand why.
I would say the administration understands the Amtrak problem perfectly well. The bottom line is that Amtrak doesn't win votes.

[Sterling1]

I just read what Jim Wrinn wrote in the June 2005 Trains From the Editor.

You know I'm going to college soon and that's what I put in for my essay , how to look at national passenger rail differently.

I am not talking about the BS that the Bush administration wants for Amtrak . . .

Screw the reform, may be rewrite or look over the core values of Amtrak or for this matter, of national passenger rail.

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 . . .

The above just simply proves one of the points, certain freedoms are available but few are using them and the majority suffer . . .

Anyway that's just me . . .

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 . . .

Matt