Who cares if passenger rail disappears ?

[Anonymous]

I've read a lot on these forums about what could be done about Amtrak and I think I may have teed off a lot of people by my constant call that you write or e-mail your congressman or senator, if I have, I'm sorry. I can't help thinking if everyone who answered my ' When did your love for railroads start ' started e-mailing, it would be a start. How about all you guys in the industry, wouldn't you like to be a part of a train like, say; The Twentieth Century Limited. We, the ordinary people, are the only ones who can save passenger rail travel but bemoaning the demise on forums such as this will not help. Let congress know how you feel.
Pop

[Anonymous]

I've read a lot on these forums about what could be done about Amtrak and I think I may have teed off a lot of people by my constant call that you write or e-mail your congressman or senator, if I have, I'm sorry. I can't help thinking if everyone who answered my ' When did your love for railroads start ' started e-mailing, it would be a start. How about all you guys in the industry, wouldn't you like to be a part of a train like, say; The Twentieth Century Limited. We, the ordinary people, are the only ones who can save passenger rail travel but bemoaning the demise on forums such as this will not help. Let congress know how you feel.
Pop

[Anonymous]

My belief is that if you give americans a good and cheap alternative to cars they will buy it. I do not know what to say about amtrak, cause i've never used it.
But i'm very dissapoited about the level of passenger services in Alaska. Alaska Railroad is providing passenger services, but 99.9% of those using our passenger trains are tourists from other states and countries. We are wasting millions on the facilities that most alaskans probably will never get to use.
But on the bright side we are receiving tons of money from them people.
God bless the tourists.
I'm quite pessimistic(did i spell the right?) about passenger trains in the US. It doesnt work the way we want it to.
Maybe we should discuss that problem with congress as suggested above?

[Anonymous]

My belief is that if you give americans a good and cheap alternative to cars they will buy it. I do not know what to say about amtrak, cause i've never used it.
But i'm very dissapoited about the level of passenger services in Alaska. Alaska Railroad is providing passenger services, but 99.9% of those using our passenger trains are tourists from other states and countries. We are wasting millions on the facilities that most alaskans probably will never get to use.
But on the bright side we are receiving tons of money from them people.
God bless the tourists.
I'm quite pessimistic(did i spell the right?) about passenger trains in the US. It doesnt work the way we want it to.
Maybe we should discuss that problem with congress as suggested above?

[edblysard]

First, I doubt your ordinary.
Ordinary people rarely take a stand, or really voice their opinion.
You have no trouble doing both, which sets you a cut above ordinary.
Yup, would love to be the conductor on the Limited, any of the Zeyphers.
And I speak with my vote, just ask Kay Hutchinson.
I agree, if we want passenger trains, real passenger trains, then the only way we will ever get them is to make our voices and opinions heard in Congress.
Find the e-mail or web site of your congressman, and go to town.
If they finally get the message we wont vote for them if they dont give us what we want, something may get started!
Keep the heat on...
Ed

[edblysard]

First, I doubt your ordinary.
Ordinary people rarely take a stand, or really voice their opinion.
You have no trouble doing both, which sets you a cut above ordinary.
Yup, would love to be the conductor on the Limited, any of the Zeyphers.
And I speak with my vote, just ask Kay Hutchinson.
I agree, if we want passenger trains, real passenger trains, then the only way we will ever get them is to make our voices and opinions heard in Congress.
Find the e-mail or web site of your congressman, and go to town.
If they finally get the message we wont vote for them if they dont give us what we want, something may get started!
Keep the heat on...
Ed

[cabforward]

analyzing this topic is like photographing a diamond from every facet.. a diamond can have hundreds of facets..

it's a catch-22: people stopped riding trains because cars & planes were more available and affordable, attracting customers from riding trains.. therefore, trains spent less to maintain levels of service.. service deteriorated and fewer people rode, causing more curbacks..

transit, although a loser in paying for itself, has attracted ridership where population has resulted in crowded hi-ways & parking conditions.. transit in the northeast corridor, atlanta, chicago, l.a., san diego and seattle will stay as it has maintained regular ridership..

hot-button issues receive immediate consideration.. inter-city rail is not a hot-button issue and will not be in the foreseeable future..

there is no interest in rehabilitating amtrak nation-wide because there is no interest in the medium.. why no interest?

people say if amtrak had its own r-o-w, it could move faster without freights to slow it down.. sure, if i had noone in front of my car, i wouldn't have to slow down.. who will build a hi-way just for me?

france, japan, etc. have hi-speed rail, why not us? beause there's no support for it.. why? amtrak is often slow to arrive, breakdowns and accidents are frequent.. it doesn't matter whose fault it was, any accident is a black mark against the train, in the public's eyes..

a large truck recently was stopped too close to the tracks at a guarded crossing.. [reportd in trains' newswire] it was struck by a lead amtrak engine.. why was the truck parked too close? i don't know, it doesn't matter.. point is, prohibitions against stopping too close to the tracks are not taken seriously enough in the u.s... in europe, it is rare to read of a crossing accident..

nothing about long-haul pass. rail service is taken seriously here.. local transit is serious as voters use the systems and will not tolerate impediments in their trips between work & home..

nation-wide, america has loads of room, and few people to fill up the open spaces, so far.. the thing is, if you're in a hurry, fly; if you're not, drive; if you're really not in a hurry, hitchhike..

europe has few unpopulated areas.. rail service is important as the population is spread evenly from the beaches of normandy to the russian border.. this is why the orient express was popular and lasted so long..

the only way to really put people back into long-haul service is to put the airlines out of business..

before the 50s, trains were common, planes and cars weren't.. now planes and cars are common, trains aren't.. the only way to change this equation is to ground the airlines.. trains would move faster than cars and have no competition from the air..

the public will never support trains as a curiosity, something we should have because we like it, or our parents did, or because it's part of our history..

the public is satisfied to remember trains with videos, books, museums, fan trips & clubs.. those people spend their money on trains because they connect with the idea..

taxpayers will not support long-haul service because they perceive that the money required is too great, the benefit too small and the budget can only grow, not shrink.. also, if the train doesn't stop in their town, they feel slighted and left out of the loop..

how would you re-start interest in the 20th century ltd? i know i couldn't..

how would you re-vitalize interest in the pony express and get people to send mail via horseback? how would you re-vitalize interest in riding a stagecoach from l.a. to denver? why not? this is history, right?

if you don't see the need to return those examples to their historical position, you can appreciate the impression people have about funding long-haul pass. service to the way it was, in whatever year you feel best represents the industry..

buggy whips, steam-powered cars, iceboxes that used an icecake in the top were familiar tools in america in the 20th cent.. they're gone now.. they were replaced.. those who miss them can read books, look for examples in antique shops and trade memories on the internet..

if you ask a hundred people about restoring those examples of americana to their former status in our country, you might get a fair portion of 'sure, why not?' responses..

then ask them if we should hand out tax money to make sure the restoration is done right..how many 'yeses' would you hear?

it isn't that rail serice does not serve an important function in our culture, what it is, is that the public's perception does not support spending great sums of money to make the dream happen for someone else..

if you can figure out a way to sell a number of citizens on the re-introduction of the pony express, buggy whips, old-fashioned ceboxes, etc., and to do it at taxpayer expense, you should not only be selling the idea about pass. trains, you should run for office..

[cabforward]

analyzing this topic is like photographing a diamond from every facet.. a diamond can have hundreds of facets..

it's a catch-22: people stopped riding trains because cars & planes were more available and affordable, attracting customers from riding trains.. therefore, trains spent less to maintain levels of service.. service deteriorated and fewer people rode, causing more curbacks..

transit, although a loser in paying for itself, has attracted ridership where population has resulted in crowded hi-ways & parking conditions.. transit in the northeast corridor, atlanta, chicago, l.a., san diego and seattle will stay as it has maintained regular ridership..

hot-button issues receive immediate consideration.. inter-city rail is not a hot-button issue and will not be in the foreseeable future..

there is no interest in rehabilitating amtrak nation-wide because there is no interest in the medium.. why no interest?

people say if amtrak had its own r-o-w, it could move faster without freights to slow it down.. sure, if i had noone in front of my car, i wouldn't have to slow down.. who will build a hi-way just for me?

france, japan, etc. have hi-speed rail, why not us? beause there's no support for it.. why? amtrak is often slow to arrive, breakdowns and accidents are frequent.. it doesn't matter whose fault it was, any accident is a black mark against the train, in the public's eyes..

a large truck recently was stopped too close to the tracks at a guarded crossing.. [reportd in trains' newswire] it was struck by a lead amtrak engine.. why was the truck parked too close? i don't know, it doesn't matter.. point is, prohibitions against stopping too close to the tracks are not taken seriously enough in the u.s... in europe, it is rare to read of a crossing accident..

nothing about long-haul pass. rail service is taken seriously here.. local transit is serious as voters use the systems and will not tolerate impediments in their trips between work & home..

nation-wide, america has loads of room, and few people to fill up the open spaces, so far.. the thing is, if you're in a hurry, fly; if you're not, drive; if you're really not in a hurry, hitchhike..

europe has few unpopulated areas.. rail service is important as the population is spread evenly from the beaches of normandy to the russian border.. this is why the orient express was popular and lasted so long..

the only way to really put people back into long-haul service is to put the airlines out of business..

before the 50s, trains were common, planes and cars weren't.. now planes and cars are common, trains aren't.. the only way to change this equation is to ground the airlines.. trains would move faster than cars and have no competition from the air..

the public will never support trains as a curiosity, something we should have because we like it, or our parents did, or because it's part of our history..

the public is satisfied to remember trains with videos, books, museums, fan trips & clubs.. those people spend their money on trains because they connect with the idea..

taxpayers will not support long-haul service because they perceive that the money required is too great, the benefit too small and the budget can only grow, not shrink.. also, if the train doesn't stop in their town, they feel slighted and left out of the loop..

how would you re-start interest in the 20th century ltd? i know i couldn't..

how would you re-vitalize interest in the pony express and get people to send mail via horseback? how would you re-vitalize interest in riding a stagecoach from l.a. to denver? why not? this is history, right?

if you don't see the need to return those examples to their historical position, you can appreciate the impression people have about funding long-haul pass. service to the way it was, in whatever year you feel best represents the industry..

buggy whips, steam-powered cars, iceboxes that used an icecake in the top were familiar tools in america in the 20th cent.. they're gone now.. they were replaced.. those who miss them can read books, look for examples in antique shops and trade memories on the internet..

if you ask a hundred people about restoring those examples of americana to their former status in our country, you might get a fair portion of 'sure, why not?' responses..

then ask them if we should hand out tax money to make sure the restoration is done right..how many 'yeses' would you hear?

it isn't that rail serice does not serve an important function in our culture, what it is, is that the public's perception does not support spending great sums of money to make the dream happen for someone else..

if you can figure out a way to sell a number of citizens on the re-introduction of the pony express, buggy whips, old-fashioned ceboxes, etc., and to do it at taxpayer expense, you should not only be selling the idea about pass. trains, you should run for office..

[ironhorseman]

Who cares? Lots of people, that's who.

If we didn't have passenger rail you'd notice it. What should we do? Just eliminate the overnight services? Or all the services?

PEOPLE GO ANYWHERE FOR PLANES
I don't think passenger rail is about getting from point A to point B. We here all know that passenger trains don't go everywhere. I can't get on a train in my hometown. I'd have to drive an hour away to meet a trains that come sometime between 2-8AM (yes, they're late a lot). But you know, people will drive anywhere to take a plane. I live in the Wichita area and everyone drives to Kansas City to get cheaper flights that go to more direct places without transfers and rerouting. Every plane out of Wichita goes to/comes from Dallas everytime. And speaking of driving anywhere, all the airports are located out of city limits, not downtown like train stations.

But despite the diffculties of getting the right flight at the right price, the hassle of getting to and from an airport that now has increased security, and regardless of overbooked flights of crowded planes and cramped seats and taking a chance of poor food meals people will, mostly, take a flight over a train, why?

FEAR OF...
Out of MOST PEOPLE I've talked to - non-train enthusiast - FEAR is why they fly and NOT ride the rails. They're afraid of all those trains crashing all the time and killing all those people. I'm like "what train crashes?" This is an irrational fear. A plane crash is highly more likely to kill everyone aboard and a train crash is more likely of killing only a couple of people at most. Now there are exceptions, but when was the last time a passenger train in the United States crashed and killed hundreds? I know there was one in the 1980s that was a disaster in the North East. But how about the time before that? There was horrific accident in D.C. in 1953. A Pennsy GG1 lead the Federal and crashed at Union Station. Miraculously no one was killed.

The rest of the people I talk to about passenger trains are initially surprised that passenger trains still exist. You should see their eyes light up when I "break this news." But, like most people, they'll forget about and never take a trip.

RR FATALITY FACTS
The worst of railroad passenger fatalities are behind us. You'd have to go back further in history to find them. Pre-WWII and even then pre-1900. Fewer accidents, however, can also be attributed to fewer passenger trains, but more so with increased safety standards. If we could out peak the highest passenger and freight RR traffic in US history we could still maintain safe rails.

I don't understand where people get this major fear of "crashing-all-the-time" passenger trains. Did you know if radar systems failed airplanes would be crashing into each other in the sky. Thank God this didn't happen during the blackout last weekend.

I surprised no one on this forum in any thread has said anything about this fear. If they have, I've missed it (probably because there are too many threads all about this topic).

CONCLUSION
I've said this before and I'll say it again. I'm not a financial wizard nor am I a brilliant strategist or businessman, but if done right the passenger railroads could be run successfully. Some entrepreneur out there could probably do this. The currant system could be done differntly. It's all about supply and demand and the economy of scale.

[ironhorseman]

Who cares? Lots of people, that's who.

If we didn't have passenger rail you'd notice it. What should we do? Just eliminate the overnight services? Or all the services?

PEOPLE GO ANYWHERE FOR PLANES
I don't think passenger rail is about getting from point A to point B. We here all know that passenger trains don't go everywhere. I can't get on a train in my hometown. I'd have to drive an hour away to meet a trains that come sometime between 2-8AM (yes, they're late a lot). But you know, people will drive anywhere to take a plane. I live in the Wichita area and everyone drives to Kansas City to get cheaper flights that go to more direct places without transfers and rerouting. Every plane out of Wichita goes to/comes from Dallas everytime. And speaking of driving anywhere, all the airports are located out of city limits, not downtown like train stations.

But despite the diffculties of getting the right flight at the right price, the hassle of getting to and from an airport that now has increased security, and regardless of overbooked flights of crowded planes and cramped seats and taking a chance of poor food meals people will, mostly, take a flight over a train, why?

FEAR OF...
Out of MOST PEOPLE I've talked to - non-train enthusiast - FEAR is why they fly and NOT ride the rails. They're afraid of all those trains crashing all the time and killing all those people. I'm like "what train crashes?" This is an irrational fear. A plane crash is highly more likely to kill everyone aboard and a train crash is more likely of killing only a couple of people at most. Now there are exceptions, but when was the last time a passenger train in the United States crashed and killed hundreds? I know there was one in the 1980s that was a disaster in the North East. But how about the time before that? There was horrific accident in D.C. in 1953. A Pennsy GG1 lead the Federal and crashed at Union Station. Miraculously no one was killed.

The rest of the people I talk to about passenger trains are initially surprised that passenger trains still exist. You should see their eyes light up when I "break this news." But, like most people, they'll forget about and never take a trip.

RR FATALITY FACTS
The worst of railroad passenger fatalities are behind us. You'd have to go back further in history to find them. Pre-WWII and even then pre-1900. Fewer accidents, however, can also be attributed to fewer passenger trains, but more so with increased safety standards. If we could out peak the highest passenger and freight RR traffic in US history we could still maintain safe rails.

I don't understand where people get this major fear of "crashing-all-the-time" passenger trains. Did you know if radar systems failed airplanes would be crashing into each other in the sky. Thank God this didn't happen during the blackout last weekend.

I surprised no one on this forum in any thread has said anything about this fear. If they have, I've missed it (probably because there are too many threads all about this topic).

CONCLUSION
I've said this before and I'll say it again. I'm not a financial wizard nor am I a brilliant strategist or businessman, but if done right the passenger railroads could be run successfully. Some entrepreneur out there could probably do this. The currant system could be done differntly. It's all about supply and demand and the economy of scale.

[Anonymous]

You will never have successful passenger service because of the fact that freight roads gave it up due to non-profitability, and to allow passenger service on their rails, which is now of great inconvenience, to the extent that would make it truly profitable, is improbable. During the 1960's and 1970's, the bean counters convinced railroads to remove double tracked mainlines, passing sidings, and yards for the sake of tax relief because railroads were in great decline. Now that freight has returned in greater strength, the decision they or their predicessors made some 30 years ago have come to bite them in the butt. What then cost 1 million to lay down rail and maintain, would now cost tens of millions to replace. The railroads simply do not want to lay that kind of cash down. They cry poverty, but have it. The lobby is to have the American people pay the burden with taxes. Don't believe me? Look into the Amtrak Richmond VA station project to return the Downtown Station back to active service, restore Brown Street Yard to a Amtrak facility, and double and triple mainline the RF&P again..Who was supposed to fit the bill? CSX? Hardly! American and Virginian tax payers..

That's why it still hasn't come to fruitition...

You will not see passenger service like it used to because of freight carrier concerns, automobiles, and established costs vs travel times.

Is this all to it? Hardly, but it speaks volumes!

The cold fact is pay the dough, put the rails back, add trains, lower the fares, decrease travel times, and you'll get the increase in ridership.

JMHO....

[Anonymous]

You will never have successful passenger service because of the fact that freight roads gave it up due to non-profitability, and to allow passenger service on their rails, which is now of great inconvenience, to the extent that would make it truly profitable, is improbable. During the 1960's and 1970's, the bean counters convinced railroads to remove double tracked mainlines, passing sidings, and yards for the sake of tax relief because railroads were in great decline. Now that freight has returned in greater strength, the decision they or their predicessors made some 30 years ago have come to bite them in the butt. What then cost 1 million to lay down rail and maintain, would now cost tens of millions to replace. The railroads simply do not want to lay that kind of cash down. They cry poverty, but have it. The lobby is to have the American people pay the burden with taxes. Don't believe me? Look into the Amtrak Richmond VA station project to return the Downtown Station back to active service, restore Brown Street Yard to a Amtrak facility, and double and triple mainline the RF&P again..Who was supposed to fit the bill? CSX? Hardly! American and Virginian tax payers..

That's why it still hasn't come to fruitition...

You will not see passenger service like it used to because of freight carrier concerns, automobiles, and established costs vs travel times.

Is this all to it? Hardly, but it speaks volumes!

The cold fact is pay the dough, put the rails back, add trains, lower the fares, decrease travel times, and you'll get the increase in ridership.

JMHO....

[Anonymous]

Thanks for the compliment Ed. Cabforward how do you know what the taxpayer will or will not stand for? For years we, the taxpayers, have had our hard earned money to the tune of 4 billion dollars a year sent to Israel and a like amount to Egypt and God knows how much more to God knows where, I don't hear any outcry over that. If any of the monuments in D.C. started falling into disrepair there would be a tremendous hue and cry to get them fixed. To my mind, passenger rail service is just as great a monument to the building of this country as any other. O.K. so maybe passenger rail would only be a break even concept at best but how else can you give the travelling public and alternative to planes and cars. After this blackout in the Northeast, you watch the airlines go screaming back to congress because they have lost money. To travel by car on the highways any great distance nowadays produces stress that negates the convenience. I"ll keep on with my writing Washington and I hope some of you will do the same.
Stay safe.
Pop

[Anonymous]

Thanks for the compliment Ed. Cabforward how do you know what the taxpayer will or will not stand for? For years we, the taxpayers, have had our hard earned money to the tune of 4 billion dollars a year sent to Israel and a like amount to Egypt and God knows how much more to God knows where, I don't hear any outcry over that. If any of the monuments in D.C. started falling into disrepair there would be a tremendous hue and cry to get them fixed. To my mind, passenger rail service is just as great a monument to the building of this country as any other. O.K. so maybe passenger rail would only be a break even concept at best but how else can you give the travelling public and alternative to planes and cars. After this blackout in the Northeast, you watch the airlines go screaming back to congress because they have lost money. To travel by car on the highways any great distance nowadays produces stress that negates the convenience. I"ll keep on with my writing Washington and I hope some of you will do the same.
Stay safe.
Pop

[cabforward]

mr scott,

how do i know what the taxpayer will stand for? i sure know what i stand for..

i watch the news (broadcast & cable), i read newspapers and newsmagazines.. unless the media is pulling a really BIG joke on the public, the overwhelming opinion is 'i don't appreciate the taxes i'm paying and don't appreciate being hit on to pay higher taxes or new taxes..'

where have you been? were you held hostage on an island somewhere between shangri-la and the land of oz?

who have you spoken to who supported higher taxes for any purpose? 'oh, gee, scotty, i'm just doing so well, uncle sam should take a bigger share of my hard-earned wages..'

who have you spoken to who supports doubling amtrak's budget? have you talked with anyone who is not on a r.r. line used by amtrak? have you talked to anyone who believes amtrak is doing a bang-up job and certainly deserves more than the share of $$ they are getting?

you're talking to the wrong guy.. you admonished members who post messages here but do nothing more to raise the issue of amtrak funding or public support, yet you have posted several messages here in 1 week..

what are you doing, if you don't object to my asking, to promote long-haul pass. service, especially to those who oppose it?

how many minds have you changed this year who were anti-amtrak, but now support funding as requested by mr. gunn?

confronting me or anyone else on this forum is not a prudent way of bringing the situation to america's conscience.. everybody posting here probably supports amtrak in some manner.. why are you wasting time preaching to the choir?

you may be participating in an organization that is actively raising the cry to support amtrak, but you have not mentioned any activities so far..

what groups or clubs are writing letters, visiting politicians, soliciting support from people in the vicinity of r.r. stations?

i've said it before: add up the people who have ridden a train in the last 30 years, every person who has worked on an amtrak train in the last 30 years, every person in every r.r. forum (doesn't matter what kind), every r.r. modeler, every family member of everyone described in all of the categories above, and you still wouldn't have public opinion strong enough to persuade anyone in congress or the white house..

you are hoping for a white knight to ride up and say, 'yes, i'll save amtrak with my sword excalibur and the prayers of all good people who hunger for the thrill of riding the 20th century ltd. or the super chief or the chattanooga choo-choo again..'

get ready for a shock: it ain't gonna happen.. not this year, not this decade or the next..

you can go on believing amtrak will shape-up, turn a profit and put smiles on everyone's faces.. but it won't help..

you either passed over the my comments about buggy-whips and the pony express or did not think them relevant.. i'll ask again: would you support taxpayer-funding to return the pony express to service? if you hope to stimulate support for your project you (and others who support amtrak funding) need to state your position on reinstating the pony express to active use today..

if you agree, please explain what the pony express can do today that would help the mail service..

if you disagree, please explain why amtrak should receive tax dollars but the pony express shouldn't..

both the express and amtrak have historical backgrounds, both provided a vital service, both stimulated a lot of interest in how they did their job (books, pictures, etc.)..

i don't understand the big deal about helping amtrak.. i think horses that worked on the pony express were much better-looking, the riders showed much more courage riding across indian territories..

but, maybe that's just me..

[cabforward]

mr scott,

how do i know what the taxpayer will stand for? i sure know what i stand for..

i watch the news (broadcast & cable), i read newspapers and newsmagazines.. unless the media is pulling a really BIG joke on the public, the overwhelming opinion is 'i don't appreciate the taxes i'm paying and don't appreciate being hit on to pay higher taxes or new taxes..'

where have you been? were you held hostage on an island somewhere between shangri-la and the land of oz?

who have you spoken to who supported higher taxes for any purpose? 'oh, gee, scotty, i'm just doing so well, uncle sam should take a bigger share of my hard-earned wages..'

who have you spoken to who supports doubling amtrak's budget? have you talked with anyone who is not on a r.r. line used by amtrak? have you talked to anyone who believes amtrak is doing a bang-up job and certainly deserves more than the share of $$ they are getting?

you're talking to the wrong guy.. you admonished members who post messages here but do nothing more to raise the issue of amtrak funding or public support, yet you have posted several messages here in 1 week..

what are you doing, if you don't object to my asking, to promote long-haul pass. service, especially to those who oppose it?

how many minds have you changed this year who were anti-amtrak, but now support funding as requested by mr. gunn?

confronting me or anyone else on this forum is not a prudent way of bringing the situation to america's conscience.. everybody posting here probably supports amtrak in some manner.. why are you wasting time preaching to the choir?

you may be participating in an organization that is actively raising the cry to support amtrak, but you have not mentioned any activities so far..

what groups or clubs are writing letters, visiting politicians, soliciting support from people in the vicinity of r.r. stations?

i've said it before: add up the people who have ridden a train in the last 30 years, every person who has worked on an amtrak train in the last 30 years, every person in every r.r. forum (doesn't matter what kind), every r.r. modeler, every family member of everyone described in all of the categories above, and you still wouldn't have public opinion strong enough to persuade anyone in congress or the white house..

you are hoping for a white knight to ride up and say, 'yes, i'll save amtrak with my sword excalibur and the prayers of all good people who hunger for the thrill of riding the 20th century ltd. or the super chief or the chattanooga choo-choo again..'

get ready for a shock: it ain't gonna happen.. not this year, not this decade or the next..

you can go on believing amtrak will shape-up, turn a profit and put smiles on everyone's faces.. but it won't help..

you either passed over the my comments about buggy-whips and the pony express or did not think them relevant.. i'll ask again: would you support taxpayer-funding to return the pony express to service? if you hope to stimulate support for your project you (and others who support amtrak funding) need to state your position on reinstating the pony express to active use today..

if you agree, please explain what the pony express can do today that would help the mail service..

if you disagree, please explain why amtrak should receive tax dollars but the pony express shouldn't..

both the express and amtrak have historical backgrounds, both provided a vital service, both stimulated a lot of interest in how they did their job (books, pictures, etc.)..

i don't understand the big deal about helping amtrak.. i think horses that worked on the pony express were much better-looking, the riders showed much more courage riding across indian territories..

but, maybe that's just me..

[Anonymous]

Almost everyone I know cares. When faced with the facts that the federal government spends annually $35 billion on interstates that have already been built, $12 billion on airports that have already been built, $7 billion on buses that have already been built, what is a billion for Amtrak? Crumbs.....

When asked what they wanted government to do? All said they were for more infrastructure. For those that wanted less government, they wanted less taxes and regulations, but most of those wanted more infrastructure....

When asked whether America should have a high speed rail network similar to Europe, most agree. In the polls I have seen, more people support high speed rail than they do Amtrak. Many people think Amtrak has been mismanaged. And why not?

Insisting on the daily transcontinentals running through some of the most barren areas of America is not bright. Having no plans to implement high speed rail in America to the major population centers is not bright. The people want other alternatives than the airlines and their car. They want passsenger trains, but they want them to go fast!!!!

When will this government give the people want they want?

[Anonymous]

Almost everyone I know cares. When faced with the facts that the federal government spends annually $35 billion on interstates that have already been built, $12 billion on airports that have already been built, $7 billion on buses that have already been built, what is a billion for Amtrak? Crumbs.....

When asked what they wanted government to do? All said they were for more infrastructure. For those that wanted less government, they wanted less taxes and regulations, but most of those wanted more infrastructure....

When asked whether America should have a high speed rail network similar to Europe, most agree. In the polls I have seen, more people support high speed rail than they do Amtrak. Many people think Amtrak has been mismanaged. And why not?

Insisting on the daily transcontinentals running through some of the most barren areas of America is not bright. Having no plans to implement high speed rail in America to the major population centers is not bright. The people want other alternatives than the airlines and their car. They want passsenger trains, but they want them to go fast!!!!

When will this government give the people want they want?

[Anonymous]

I wouldn't compare USA with Europe. Two completely different stories. More people in Europe rely on trains to get them from point A to point B than here.
As for high speed network in this country- if there is money i say build it. But i won't be surprised if only few people will use it. Cars are simply more affordable and convinient.

[Anonymous]

I wouldn't compare USA with Europe. Two completely different stories. More people in Europe rely on trains to get them from point A to point B than here.
As for high speed network in this country- if there is money i say build it. But i won't be surprised if only few people will use it. Cars are simply more affordable and convinient.

[Anonymous]

1. Long distance rail travel in this country is dead!! Let the dead lie dead!!
2. I would rather see the money being spent on Amtrak today, be used for expanding AIRPORTS!!
3. I have taken trips on Amtrak 4 times in 2 year, everytime I get off the train I say the same thing, NEVER AGAIN!!
4. Bigger airports boost the economy in there area. Railroads do not!! (Example: The new U.P. yard at Rochelle was turned down by two other communities.)
5. A train takes twice as long to get from point A to point B. To a businessman time is money.
6. A train ticket costs the same as a plane ticket.
TIM A

[Anonymous]

1. Long distance rail travel in this country is dead!! Let the dead lie dead!!
2. I would rather see the money being spent on Amtrak today, be used for expanding AIRPORTS!!
3. I have taken trips on Amtrak 4 times in 2 year, everytime I get off the train I say the same thing, NEVER AGAIN!!
4. Bigger airports boost the economy in there area. Railroads do not!! (Example: The new U.P. yard at Rochelle was turned down by two other communities.)
5. A train takes twice as long to get from point A to point B. To a businessman time is money.
6. A train ticket costs the same as a plane ticket.
TIM A

[RudyRockvilleMD]

It depends. If it is commuter rail service quite a few would care if passenger rail service disappears; but, if it is long distance very few would care. According to statistics gathered by the Department of Transportation's Bureau of Transportation Statistics only 0.5% of all trips in the U.S. longer than 100 miles are by train.

Let's face it motorists pay user fees in the form of state or federal gasoline taxes, and sometimes tolls, to drive. Airline passengers pay user fees in the form of a 10% taxe on airline tickets, security fees, and airport passenger facility fees to fly. How much and what kind of user fees do railroad passengers pay?

I doubt of any congressman/congresswoman or senator would be turned out of office for failing to support passenger rail service.

After World War II the railroads spent plenty of money upgrading passenger trains even to the point of doing much more to make train travel attractive to the coach passenger, and people flocked to the trains. But, when air travel became more widespread and more comfortable it was only inevitable that people would travel by air.

There is a need for some long distance passengerail service, but mostly in the more crowded and densely populated corridors where building more highways is not the answer. Supporting all passenger rail service makes asmuch sense as bringing back the Pony Express and river steamers, or ocean liners from the U.S. to Europe, Hawaii, or the Far East.

[RudyRockvilleMD]

It depends. If it is commuter rail service quite a few would care if passenger rail service disappears; but, if it is long distance very few would care. According to statistics gathered by the Department of Transportation's Bureau of Transportation Statistics only 0.5% of all trips in the U.S. longer than 100 miles are by train.

Let's face it motorists pay user fees in the form of state or federal gasoline taxes, and sometimes tolls, to drive. Airline passengers pay user fees in the form of a 10% taxe on airline tickets, security fees, and airport passenger facility fees to fly. How much and what kind of user fees do railroad passengers pay?

I doubt of any congressman/congresswoman or senator would be turned out of office for failing to support passenger rail service.

After World War II the railroads spent plenty of money upgrading passenger trains even to the point of doing much more to make train travel attractive to the coach passenger, and people flocked to the trains. But, when air travel became more widespread and more comfortable it was only inevitable that people would travel by air.

There is a need for some long distance passengerail service, but mostly in the more crowded and densely populated corridors where building more highways is not the answer. Supporting all passenger rail service makes asmuch sense as bringing back the Pony Express and river steamers, or ocean liners from the U.S. to Europe, Hawaii, or the Far East.

[Anonymous]

One reason why passenger rail has suffered in this country is because the maintenance on the infrastructure of the competing modes (air and highway) are paid for by taxes while the freight lines are responsible for maintaining the rail lines. The freight lines maintain the tracks well enough so their trains can go over them at the rates they usually travel at which is not nearly good enough for passenger rail that could compete with cars and planes. According to two pieces in the current issue of "Trains" this is true, in part, because the men who own the railroads have always been afraid to let the government maintain the tracks because of the regulations that would certainly accompany such involvement. Also, the auto makers, truckers and the airlines have fought tooth and nail to prevent increased subsidies for rail service. Apparently, things are changing of late. On the one hand, trucking companies are beginning to work with railroads ("Beltway Insider") and the railroad CEOs are also seeing advantages in working with the government ("From the Editor").

Also, a study done for the National Association of Railroad Passengers, suggests that passenger rail would be competitive with air and highway transportation over medium distances (e. g. Chicago-Detroit) if it was subsidized on the same level.

Here in Chicago, we are fighting over how to deal with our over-crowded airports. At present, most plans propose updating existing airports or building a new one. But there is a small but growing minority that is advocating rail as the solution. Jet engines are terribly inefficient at low altitudes. On short flights, planes spend very little time at an altitude that is best for their engines. Diesel/Electric locomotives are already more efficient and with the improvements that are going to have to be done to reduce emissions, they'll do better yet. We just need to have roads build with welded rails, concrete ties and no level crossings so that the trains can go 150+ mph like they do on the Northeast Corridor.

[Anonymous]

One reason why passenger rail has suffered in this country is because the maintenance on the infrastructure of the competing modes (air and highway) are paid for by taxes while the freight lines are responsible for maintaining the rail lines. The freight lines maintain the tracks well enough so their trains can go over them at the rates they usually travel at which is not nearly good enough for passenger rail that could compete with cars and planes. According to two pieces in the current issue of "Trains" this is true, in part, because the men who own the railroads have always been afraid to let the government maintain the tracks because of the regulations that would certainly accompany such involvement. Also, the auto makers, truckers and the airlines have fought tooth and nail to prevent increased subsidies for rail service. Apparently, things are changing of late. On the one hand, trucking companies are beginning to work with railroads ("Beltway Insider") and the railroad CEOs are also seeing advantages in working with the government ("From the Editor").

Also, a study done for the National Association of Railroad Passengers, suggests that passenger rail would be competitive with air and highway transportation over medium distances (e. g. Chicago-Detroit) if it was subsidized on the same level.

Here in Chicago, we are fighting over how to deal with our over-crowded airports. At present, most plans propose updating existing airports or building a new one. But there is a small but growing minority that is advocating rail as the solution. Jet engines are terribly inefficient at low altitudes. On short flights, planes spend very little time at an altitude that is best for their engines. Diesel/Electric locomotives are already more efficient and with the improvements that are going to have to be done to reduce emissions, they'll do better yet. We just need to have roads build with welded rails, concrete ties and no level crossings so that the trains can go 150+ mph like they do on the Northeast Corridor.

[jsanchez]

I think its interesting that even countries like Korea, Taiwan, China, Russia, Spain are pulling ahead of the USA with highspeed rail, even India is working towards it. It seems every part of the world realizes the efficiency, ecconomic benefits, increased mobilty and minimal environmental impact of highspeed rail. One rail track is equal to seventeen lanes of interstate. Does anyone in the Bush administration realize that? Building high speed rail would greatly cut our dependence on foriegn oil, this should be a national priority. Air travel is a horrible fuel guzzling mode of transport, as is most highway oriented transport.
With airlines not wanting to deal with trips under 400 miles in distance , there is a huge need for highspeed rail transportation in this country. Think about it next time your stuck in traffic whether it is Atlanta, Orlando, Des Moines Houston, L.A., etc. The USA needs more trains not less. Due to the high population growth of this country it is only going to get worse. Interstate highways no matter how many lanes you add will never match the potential efficiency and capacity to move people and goods as rail can. It is also a relative cheap to build rail compared to airport runaways or interstate highways through urban/suburban areas. The French TGV proved this. I wi***he leadership of the USA Democrat and Republican had some vision, instead just apeasing those who contribute to their campaigns every two to four years. We need a highspeed interstate rail system equivelant to Eisenhower's Interstate highway vision of the 1950's which is our reality now, for good or bad.

James
www.parail.com

[jsanchez]

I think its interesting that even countries like Korea, Taiwan, China, Russia, Spain are pulling ahead of the USA with highspeed rail, even India is working towards it. It seems every part of the world realizes the efficiency, ecconomic benefits, increased mobilty and minimal environmental impact of highspeed rail. One rail track is equal to seventeen lanes of interstate. Does anyone in the Bush administration realize that? Building high speed rail would greatly cut our dependence on foriegn oil, this should be a national priority. Air travel is a horrible fuel guzzling mode of transport, as is most highway oriented transport.
With airlines not wanting to deal with trips under 400 miles in distance , there is a huge need for highspeed rail transportation in this country. Think about it next time your stuck in traffic whether it is Atlanta, Orlando, Des Moines Houston, L.A., etc. The USA needs more trains not less. Due to the high population growth of this country it is only going to get worse. Interstate highways no matter how many lanes you add will never match the potential efficiency and capacity to move people and goods as rail can. It is also a relative cheap to build rail compared to airport runaways or interstate highways through urban/suburban areas. The French TGV proved this. I wi***he leadership of the USA Democrat and Republican had some vision, instead just apeasing those who contribute to their campaigns every two to four years. We need a highspeed interstate rail system equivelant to Eisenhower's Interstate highway vision of the 1950's which is our reality now, for good or bad.

James
www.parail.com

[Anonymous]

Why is Cunard building the new Queen Mary 2, twice the displacement of the Queen Elizabeth 2? Why did Norwegian Cruise Lines buy and save the S.S. United States, yes the Big U, the pride of the American merchant marine and holder of the Blue Ribband? No one I know likes to fly, no one I know likes to drive more than 3 hours. However, everyone I know don't mind riding fast trains as they have in Europe for several hours....

Vision is the word. Insight into the future. While our population is not as dense as Europe's, the United States is still growing, whereas Europe isn't. In twenty to thirty years, most of America east of the Mississippi River will be as dense as Europe is today, plus the eastern half of Texas. In the 2000 census, Texas has a population of over 22 million, ten of it in two large metropolitan areas of Houston and Dallas. In the next twenty years, that number is expected to double....

Practically all of the states east of the Mississippi River is dense enough for high speed rail, as is California. There is no need to wait twenty years, we need to get started NOW!

High speed rail lines can be built alongside interstate highways, and alongside current railroad right of ways. When the lines close upon a large city, small distances can be purchased to connect the stations in existence already to the new main lines (probably less than a mile). High speed rail lines can also be built under the huge transmission power lines too. Available CHEAP real estate exists.

THE BEST OF WHAT HIGH SPEED RAIL LINES BRING TO THE TABLE IS MORE FREQUENCY! For example, a train averaging 150 mph can travel the 900 miles distances of most of the legs I proposed in 6 hours, not 24 hours. Therefore two trains operating on any leg can provide service every 3 hours, three trains can provide service every 2 hours. THIS IS AIRLINE SERVICE FREQUENCY!

No need to run trains at night. If one is late, wait 2 hours for the next train. All of this during daylight hours. Unfortunately, Amtrak can't provide that service today except on the northeast corridor. After high speed rail is built, that service frequency would be everywhere....

And like the Europeans, once Americans get their door blown off by a high speed train, they might consider riding the train the next time.....

[Anonymous]

Why is Cunard building the new Queen Mary 2, twice the displacement of the Queen Elizabeth 2? Why did Norwegian Cruise Lines buy and save the S.S. United States, yes the Big U, the pride of the American merchant marine and holder of the Blue Ribband? No one I know likes to fly, no one I know likes to drive more than 3 hours. However, everyone I know don't mind riding fast trains as they have in Europe for several hours....

Vision is the word. Insight into the future. While our population is not as dense as Europe's, the United States is still growing, whereas Europe isn't. In twenty to thirty years, most of America east of the Mississippi River will be as dense as Europe is today, plus the eastern half of Texas. In the 2000 census, Texas has a population of over 22 million, ten of it in two large metropolitan areas of Houston and Dallas. In the next twenty years, that number is expected to double....

Practically all of the states east of the Mississippi River is dense enough for high speed rail, as is California. There is no need to wait twenty years, we need to get started NOW!

High speed rail lines can be built alongside interstate highways, and alongside current railroad right of ways. When the lines close upon a large city, small distances can be purchased to connect the stations in existence already to the new main lines (probably less than a mile). High speed rail lines can also be built under the huge transmission power lines too. Available CHEAP real estate exists.

THE BEST OF WHAT HIGH SPEED RAIL LINES BRING TO THE TABLE IS MORE FREQUENCY! For example, a train averaging 150 mph can travel the 900 miles distances of most of the legs I proposed in 6 hours, not 24 hours. Therefore two trains operating on any leg can provide service every 3 hours, three trains can provide service every 2 hours. THIS IS AIRLINE SERVICE FREQUENCY!

No need to run trains at night. If one is late, wait 2 hours for the next train. All of this during daylight hours. Unfortunately, Amtrak can't provide that service today except on the northeast corridor. After high speed rail is built, that service frequency would be everywhere....

And like the Europeans, once Americans get their door blown off by a high speed train, they might consider riding the train the next time.....