AMTRAK: Do you support it?

[Anonymous]

My wife and I just returned from roundtrip between La Crosse Wisc and Emeryville, Ca via Cal. Zephyr Coast Starlight Empire Builder...includes necessary layover in Chicago because only one train per day on Builder and Zephyr and schedules don't match...also stuck in snow on Starlight in Cascades...12 hours late and enforce day layover in Portland, at Amtrak's expense of course...trains were full all directions...no complaints...roads were snowed over also...and as you say...not a lot of commercial air travel to Wolf Point MT anyway...People who fly CHI-LAX or wherever and are too arrogant to care about the rrest of us in the "Great Flyover" are the ones who glibbly come up with the response "It would be cheaper to pay everyones air fare between Chicago and Los Angles...since they assume that's the only place people want to go.

[Supermicha]

QUOTE: I support all passenger rail, including Amtrak. However I have a question.

I used to live in Germany. The Deutsche Bahn (their national railway) had a perfect network. Extremely high frequencies of regional and HSR long distance trains. Great service, too. On top of that, the ticket prices were dirt cheap! The most memorable example of the inexpensive price was the weekend pacakge. 1 family (2 adults and 3 children), any regional train (does not exeed the speed of 160km/h) in Germany, Saturday and Sunday...only 15 Deutsche Marks (less than 10 dollars!!!!!). My point is, how can they charge so little and work out fine, and passenger rail in North America cost so much and still have financial problems?

The only difference I can think of...Deutsche Bahn is private. But doesn't that mean Amtrak gets more government funding?

I know, I sound naive, but could someone please explain this to me?

I can i think. The family package was a very good idea when it was started. but german railway had massive porblems a few months after beginning. why? the regional trains were overflooded with passengers on weekends and the long distance trains where nearly empty, because everybody rides with the cheap family package. What was the consequence? The tiket costs today 28 euros, aprox 25 dollars, and you can use it only saturday or sunday, not on both days.

The german railway is nearly bankrupcy, only millions of money from the state let here alive. Since its privatisation in 1994, it must open it rails for other private railways, today in germany we have more than 100 private passenger and freight railways. The german railway has 95% of the traffic for it self, but espacially in regional service the new private rails are often cheaper. And so, the districts which pay for the trains chooses the most cheapest company to operate the commuters in there area. German railway has only a good chance in HSR service, but it serves only bigger citys, and closes many stations in smaller town. the people there now use the car to go to the city and so on and so on. A private operated passenger railway, such big as the german rail, can never exist without money from the state i think. When Deutsche Bahn will go to the stock exchange in a few years, it will be insolvent.

Amtrak has done a good job modernizing its fleet and owned tracks in the last years, but as long as it must use tracks from other railways and a passenger train must wait for a freight (impossible in germany) it can´t be succesful. The north east corridor is good way i think, they should make also other services more attrctive like this, then it will make money.

The otther problem are the brains of the most american people, which are only fixed on cars and planes.

micha

[Anonymous]

I would NEVER fly. I only ride cars because they're everywhere. I do most of my vacations behind Amtrak.

[rich747us]

QUOTE: Originally posted by rrnut282

rich747us
I did, 6 years ago, but then I was an airline employee.
Unfortunatly, the nearest AMTRAK stop is over an hour drive away, the next closest is 2 1/2 hours. If I've got to drive that far, I might as well drive the rest of the way. I would love to see AMTRAK survive and thrive, just like the rest of you, but I don't see it happening with the status quo. At least Bush is talking about something different, for a change. I just hope what comes out of this discussion is not like what the U.K. did.

Hey rrnunt28,

I see you're from Indiana. Have you ever had the chance to go railfan Wellsboro? If you've never heard of it, its about 15 minutes south of LaPorte. Its at a diamond where the CSX and CN cross. I've been there once myself and have also railfaned Ft. Wayne (well, actually it was at the east end of the NS yard in New Haven) a couple of times.

[tree68]

What's probably needed in discussions on the whole rail/air/highway issue is some measure of the cost per passenger mile.

For the Interstates, that's federal, state (The plow that clears the snow says NYS DOT here - that's out of my state taxes) and local (some of the law enforcement, all of the fire and EMS), not to mention the cost of operating the car or truck.

In the air, you have to consider the cost of the air traffic control system, the airports (usually run by some local authority - ie local taxes), plus the cost of operating the airline itself.

We're all pretty familiar the railroad aspects here in the forum.

On top of that is the time factor for the travel, and intrinsic value (convenience, mostly).

I can't even begin to guess the relative costs, so I won't try. Compiling them would be quite the task.

[rrnut282]

rich747us
I did, 6 years ago, but then I was an airline employee.
Unfortunatly, the nearest AMTRAK stop is over an hour drive away, the next closest is 2 1/2 hours. If I've got to drive that far, I might as well drive the rest of the way. I would love to see AMTRAK survive and thrive, just like the rest of you, but I don't see it happening with the status quo. At least Bush is talking about something different, for a change. I just hope what comes out of this discussion is not like what the U.K. did.

[rich747us]

AMTRAK: Do I support it?! HA! Is the Pope a Catholic?!

Getting there should be half the fun, and flying just isint enjoyable anymore. One thing I like is that I can bring my radio scanner with me and listen to the crews and dispatchers. With flying, you'd never get said radio scanner through the front door!

[Anonymous]

I model Amtrak in my model railroad. Of course I support Amtrak.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Doggy

I do 100% I hate to fly I love to see America by rail and it beats the hassel of driving

Just say NO to the airlines...and YES to travel by train! [:D] Seriously, if you just have to get somewhere fast, then the airlines clearly have the advantage. Myself, I don't care for plane travel, period. I'd be lost without AMTRAK.

[Anonymous]

I do 100% I hate to fly I love to see America by rail and it beats the hassel of driving

[jeaton]

TAG,SCF, others,

I suspect a lot of us would be on the same page in a discussion about the merits of many government expenditures, and it can be very frustrating to see 10's of billions go one way, and chicken feed spent on something else. The problem with saying let's take funds from here and put it there is that you have to get into two arguements-here is not merited, there is.

When I look at the merits of the AMTRAK funding, I see this. I don't see much to argue about the need for the Northeast Corridor. I don't live there, but I get the idea that that one could almost make better time WALKING down the median of your favorite freeway.
The need for the long distance trains is a little more iffy, but I see the usefulness of those trains making a dramatic growth in the near future. The last number I recall was about a $300 million deficit on those trains, but the things that are being done to improve that service and attract ridership probably ought to bring that down to a point where it could be called loose change.

My bottom line-I use AMTRAK when it meets my wants or needs, I put my two cents in on forums like this and I drop a note to my government representatives urging their support of favorable funding bills.

The guy now running the place is doing the job better than most anyone could. That is a bright spot for those of us who want rail passenger service, and actually not a bad thing for those who would like to see less government spending for governent service

Jay

[willy6]

i believe the northeast and california,s L.A. would fold without amtrak.............i support them because i love to ride a train............

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: A story: When Dave Gunn appeared before Senator McCain's committee on FY 2004 AMTRAK funding, the Senator asked Gunn why he wouldn't eliminate the "big money looseing" long distant trains. Gunn replied that to keep or drop those trains is a political decision. You don't have to be a high end political scientist to get that. Congressional reps fron NE corridor states might get in trouble is the service shuts down and those who work for us folks in the hinterlands say OK but we need something to take back to our folks. The Senator told Gunn to stop calling it politics, as there was no reason that a "business" decision could not be made to stop wasting government funds. Now you might wonder why Senator McCain, whom we can assume is pretty intelligent, would ignore the "It's politics" issue s well as some other items such as a whole bunch of costs associated with shut downs. Would his basic campaign pitch that he is fighting to cut government waste have anything to do with it?

Jeaton, I respect Senator McCain's stance on government waste, but it seems to me he lacks insight on what's 'waste' and what is not. I've argued with people whom seem to feel that AMTRAK is a waste of taxpayer dollars...yet they support the ridiculous notion that the airline industry's Federal bailout was money well spent. HUMPF! Something wreaks.

The notion of politicians and folks whom have no value for AMTRAK service...and whom support it's demise...is arrogant and selfish. For routes that are costly and show marginal ridership--yet is still needed for those whom reside in smaller, isolated communities--would it not be better to simply curtail the frequency of train service to these towns, rather than shut down the route completely? Has our government become so out of touch with the public that it doesn't hear the outcry of everyday folk whom not only ride the trains, but in many instances rely upon it?

If our so-called leaders were true visionaries, they would undoubtedly realize that if money was appropriated to completely overhaul and expand AMTRAK, America would have a jewel to tout to the rest of the world. And just think of the other benefits: we'd create thousands of long-term construction jobs across the nation for those whom would be in involved in improving right-of ways, for example. Bridges and tunnels could be retrofitted, rehabbed or replaced where absolutely necessary. High speed ACELA trains could provide healthy competion to the airlines in high traffic corridors beyond the NEC--and the NEC could see further improvements, too. The benefits--immediate and long term--far outweigh the perceived atrocity of cost the government has regarding AMTRAK.

I don't have a beef with those who enjoy and prefer flying. I just find it bogus to think that planes are all we need--or our automobiles. Senator McCain would be well advised to take this under serious consideration.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton

SCF & ATG. I woke up this morning wondering if I might be getting flamed for .....

ROTFLMAO!!! Such is the way I wake up most every day. [:D]

[Anonymous]

Currently train travel in America is slow compared to train travel in Europe. Of course, the governments of Europe have invested into high speed rail, and providing separate tracks for passenger trains and freight trains. We can easily do the same. All it takes is the will of the American people and its government.......

The real waste is the government program to build free interstate highways...... The real waste is the goverment programs to support aviation..... To even think that the crumbs Amtrak gets from our government is waste is ridicious. Counting all of Amtrak's customers and comparing Amtrak's ridership with the airlines nationwide, Amtrak comes in seventh place..... 24 million riders last year.....

Compare this cost to the government costs of keeping an army of customs located in Miami serving even fewer cruise line passengers...... We have a bargain with Amtrak.....

[jeaton]

SCF & ATG. I woke up this morning wondering if I might be getting flamed for agreeing to a statement suggesting a specific source for AMTRAK funding. Like most everybody, I question the merits of many government spending projects. In fact, there are times that I would like to begin my letters to my various government representatives with the question "Have you lost your mind???"

What I was basicly agreeing with was the point that a great deal of government action today is motivated by reasons of other than demonstrable need. (How is that for an understatement). I was reminded of the movie " A few Good Men" where the sort of bad guy Jack Nicholson screams at Tom Cruise (something like) "You can't take the truth".
For politics today, it is sort of forget the truth, i.e., the facts or evidence, because all we have to do is hit the right emotional chords, get some big bucks for the campaign and election is assured.

A story: When Dave Gunn appeared before Senator McCain's committee on FY 2004 AMTRAK funding, the Senator asked Gunn why he wouldn't eliminate the "big money looseing" long distant trains. Gunn replied that to keep or drop those trains is a political decision. You don't have to be a high end political scientist to get that. Congressional reps fron NE corridor states might get in trouble is the service shuts down and those who work for us folks in the hinterlands say OK but we need something to take back to our folks. The Senator told Gunn to stop calling it politics, as there was no reason that a "business" decision could not be made to stop wasting government funds. Now you might wonder why Senator McCain, whom we can assume is pretty intelligent, would ignore the "It's politics" issue s well as some other items such as a whole bunch of costs associated with shut downs. Would his basic campaign pitch that he is fighting to cut government waste have anything to do with it?

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: As such, I'd probably make a more effective "back channel" operator. [:D] However, If YOU ever make it all the way, nd need a hard nosed, no BS minister of finance, I'd be honored to bring my pruning shears aboard.[^]

[(-D]Your nomination as Chief of Finance has been accepted and confirmed by me and the American People. Welcome aboard. Let's get to work! [:D]

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by SuperChiefFan

[8D] AntiGates I respect what you're saying. I guess the only route to travel from here is to have you run for the Office of the President. Win the election. Select an intelligent administration to assist you. Perhaps then AMTRAK will have a chance. You've got my vote on the spot if you're willing to support the future of passenger train travel in the United States--and I don't mean the NEC only. [8D]

Dude, you are FAR too kind (thanks though)[;)] I've got this problem where I'm too straight forward, too convicted with the truth, and unwilling to shut up when think I'm right. I'd never make it, the "wimp network" would cut me to shreds.

As such, I'd probably make a more effective "back channel" operator. [:D] However, If YOU ever make it all the way, nd need a hard nosed, no BS minister of finance, I'd be honored to bring my pruning shears aboard.[^]

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TheAntiGates

QUOTE: Originally posted by SuperChiefFan


I understand your point and it makes sense. Still--the amount approved for the purpose of humanitarian aid and the restructuring of a country was a staggering amount. AMTRAK hasn't asked for a third of that to cover both immediate and long-term improvements--and it has battled for it's share of what amounts to bandages for years, certainly long before the Iraq War ever started. Charity starts at home. We should cover the bases on our own turf first and then offer assistance abroad. We're $87B dollars late, but it can still be done.[:)]

Hey, I agree. I was out on the streets blabbering "Don't invade Iraq" with a passion, but did lil terpitude head listen to me? Of course not, he was too busy stroking the feathers of "good patriotic americans" with his war drums.

The amount of taxpayer dollars seeded into the economies of "aligned" nations is staggering, most of which will never produce 1 shed of true benefit to your average american citizen.

My opposition to HSR in this forum has been no little secret, but I'd go as far as to say if they could build the thing STRICTLY through roll backs in foreign "investment" aid, I'd be all for it, and the jobs it'd create ould turn this country around. "Sorry Ariel Sharon, we thought we'd lick our own wounds for awhile" etc

[8D] AntiGates I respect what you're saying. I guess the only route to travel from here is to have you run for the Office of the President. Win the election. Select an intelligent administration to assist you. Perhaps then AMTRAK will have a chance. You've got my vote on the spot if you're willing to support the future of passenger train travel in the United States--and I don't mean the NEC only. [8D]

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by SuperChiefFan


I understand your point and it makes sense. Still--the amount approved for the purpose of humanitarian aid and the restructuring of a country was a staggering amount. AMTRAK hasn't asked for a third of that to cover both immediate and long-term improvements--and it has battled for it's share of what amounts to bandages for years, certainly long before the Iraq War ever started. Charity starts at home. We should cover the bases on our own turf first and then offer assistance abroad. We're $87B dollars late, but it can still be done.[:)]

Hey, I agree. I was out on the streets blabbering "Don't invade Iraq" with a passion, but did lil terpitude head listen to me? Of course not, he was too busy stroking the feathers of "good patriotic americans" with his war drums.

The amount of taxpayer dollars seeded into the economies of "aligned" nations is staggering, most of which will never produce 1 shed of true benefit to your average american citizen.

My opposition to HSR in this forum has been no little secret, but I'd go as far as to say if they could build the thing STRICTLY through roll backs in foreign "investment" aid, I'd be all for it, and the jobs it'd create ould turn this country around. "Sorry Ariel Sharon, we thought we'd lick our own wounds for awhile" etc

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TheAntiGates

QUOTE: Originally posted by SuperChiefFan
we would all do well to recognize that our government does so annually without so much as a blink on things that most American's have no vested interest in. Does the rebuilding of Iraq come to mind? Did you appreciate $87 Billion dollars been approved for the rebuilding of a country that most of us will never visit? Give me a break. Let's spend our money on deserving projects right here at home. AMTRAK qualifies. Once again, my two cents worth, adjusted for inflation.

I'd second THAT motion in a heartbeat.

Only trouble is, with Bush's blunder sanctioning the Invasion and destruction of a soverign nation in the first place, We're kinda strapped to the wall in Iraq, ...we leave too big a mess behind, people will never let us forget it.

Would *that* be all that bad? don't think so, a little isolationist posture might do us a world of good

I understand your point and it makes sense. Still--the amount approved for the purpose of humanitarian aid and the restructuring of a country was a staggering amount. AMTRAK hasn't asked for a third of that to cover both immediate and long-term improvements--and it has battled for it's share of what amounts to bandages for years, certainly long before the Iraq War ever started. Charity starts at home. We should cover the bases on our own turf first and then offer assistance abroad. We're $87B dollars late, but it can still be done.[:)]

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by SuperChiefFan
we would all do well to recognize that our government does so annually without so much as a blink on things that most American's have no vested interest in. Does the rebuilding of Iraq come to mind? Did you appreciate $87 Billion dollars been approved for the rebuilding of a country that most of us will never visit? Give me a break. Let's spend our money on deserving projects right here at home. AMTRAK qualifies. Once again, my two cents worth, adjusted for inflation.

I'd second THAT motion in a heartbeat.

Only trouble is, with Bush's blunder sanctioning the Invasion and destruction of a soverign nation in the first place, We're kinda strapped to the wall in Iraq, ...we leave too big a mess behind, people will never let us forget it.

Would *that* be all that bad? don't think so, a little isolationist posture might do us a world of good

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by PNWRMNM

Superhief,

Do not put much stock in the support Amtrak got in response to your question. This site is by definition a railfan site, and a lot of rail fans know nothing but Amtrak. If you were to ask the general public, I would guess that 50-70% do not even know that Amtrak exists, let alone what it does or how much it costs.

It's a good argument that the majority of people in America DO NOT, in fact, have any idea about costs, etc. in relationship to AMTRAK service. I suspect many of the people who replied to this question don't have an accurate idea either and we happily call ourselves railfans. However, one cannot discount the emotional attachment that many folks have for a visible passenger train network in America. If one takes the Empire Builder out of Chicago, for example to Seattle, there are many people who view AMTRAK as more than "the big passenger train that comes through town"; for many, AMTRAK is a lifeline for destinations that need to be reached. Even with bus service, many people just downright prefer a trip by train. We're all entitled to our opinions, but one thing should be painfully evident: as a nation, it is fooli***o think that the only ACCEPTABLE modes of transit are the airlines and the automobile. That's absurd. Not everyone cares for planes and though many have cars, we're not all inclined to jump behind the wheel to travel long distances if we don't have too. Further, AMTRAK keeps thousands of hard working men and women employed on a daily basis. Eliminate this 'headache' and you eliminate jobs. My feeling is if you're going to do this, then our government shouldn't be so eager to show how partial it can be in regard to the airlines either, courtesy of my tax dollars and your own. AMTRAK, if the politicians had their way, would be 'railroaded' out of existence--and that's a pathetic commentary on how our boys in the Capital think. It's not AMTRAK's fault that it's infrastructure is crumbling and in need of a massive overhaul...or that it has to play second fiddle to freight traffic (for the love of God--goods BEFORE people???). Give it what it desperately needs to not only survive but to also prove all of the naysayers wrong--that properly managed and maintained, it can become a worthwhile mass transit alternative. In my eyes, it is--but it needs continued TLC. And lest anyone complain and moan about throwing away precious tax dollars, we would all do well to recognize that our government does so annually without so much as a blink on things that most American's have no vested interest in. Does the rebuilding of Iraq come to mind? Did you appreciate $87 Billion dollars been approved for the rebuilding of a country that most of us will never visit? Give me a break. Let's spend our money on deserving projects right here at home. AMTRAK qualifies. Once again, my two cents worth, adjusted for inflation.

[Anonymous]

I'm sorry Jeaton, you were trying to be constructive, not sarcastic like many of the otherss, and caught me off guard [#welcome]. Yeah, I see your point about the daunting prospect of having to start up a business against heavily subsidized competitors, such would suck.

Our government operates in ways that are most backhanded, a great deal of the time, and the way most of the subsidies got themselves in place is best described as "subterfuge" or dirty tricks (the DEFENSE highway system , or "saving the airlines" as a patriotic gesture against terrorism etc) and in many ways the ideas I've seen floated around here seem to read like "hey guys, what we need is a dirty trick of our own" targeting a passive taxpayer for the "loot" required. Leading me to the presumption of "hey, they're talking about me!" and it simply becomes a matter of feathering another special interest's nest, with my hard earned dollars.

In terms of value engineering, the railroads lend themselves to the process "more poorly" than any of the rest, due to the same huge cost of capitalization that the railroads once gladly abandoned "in place" just to escape with their skins, and that tells me something.

Maybe if our government could be totally honest for once (I know, I'm dreaming) and put some hard trade offs on the table to choose from (I.E. "Keep supporting Israel, or spend that $800 million/year refurbishing Amtrak?" etc) I'd feel much differently.

[jeaton]

Well, yeah, nobody would be happy about that, but they might like the tax cut. My point was that it would be difficult, if not impossible for an entrepreneur to make a profit on a passenger train if the users of other modes pay rates that don't cover the full cost of the services or facilities that they use. Would you open a business and try to compete with a company that used plant and equipment that it did not have to pay for?

Do I think that there will ever be a change in the use of taxes to fund highway and air infrastructure? When pigs fly. What about more public funding of rail service? There is a better chance, since it is being found that adding to rail capacity can be much cheaper than adding highway lanes.

About Amtrak-I guess you could put different people in charge or change the name or both, or split it into a different structure or have the states pay more of the deficit, or shut it down and just pave over New Jersey (that might have some support), but I would like to see it around because I am no longer limited in time away from work, don't want to be bothered with the flying hassle and driving is a bore.

[Anonymous]

Uh, Michaelstevens, my train is still going both directions, and I have no control over it. The world is coming to an end, or not.

Anyone see the Acela style diesil in florida in the special edition Trains Mag recently? is this the next step up on non-electric Amtrak? will these replace the "Genissis" AMD-103s? Anyone care?

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton

Ah yes, the old open access ideology. It worked quite well for electric power in California and nationwide electric rates are generating so much ca***hat the power grid is keeping years ahead of demand. At the same time security analysts are touting telephone companies as a must buy.

Based on worldwide evidence, including that of Great Britain with their failed effort to split off infrastructure and open access to private operators, there is no genuine regular passenger service making a real profit. Let me be more specific. Even if the railroads charged nothing for the use of their tracks, and there was no charge for use of station facilities, in todays competitive transportation environment it is not likly that passenger revenues would cover the costs of the equipment and all the other costs for running a train in regular passenger service. So, show me a potential entrepreneur who would be glad to operate passenger trains, and I'll identify a potentially bankrupt entrepreneur.

By the way, Amtrak is a private company.

In spite of this, the idea might have a chance. If airlines were required to surcharge passengers enough to pay for the full costs of airports used and the air traffic control system, and in lieu of the federal gas tax, the federal highway system was converted to a toll highway sysytem, it might be possible to set rail fares high enough to make the trains profitable.

Interesting, so if we just raise all the prices of transportation, then the railfans will be happy? Do I read you correctly in that presumption?

Well by all means then, lets not waste another second[:D]

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by tvb4848

Over the Thanksgiving holiday, my family rode the California Zephyr from Denver to Salt Lake City and back. For any railfan, this is a must trip. The accommodations - even in coach - were above average. The service was good, and the food was superior to anything the airlines serve these days. But, best of all, was the spectacular scenery. Colorado and Utah offer the best canyon and mesa views of anywhere in NA except possibly the Canadian Rockies. The 42 (?) tunnels were a marvel of engineering. Stops at scenic places like Glenwood Springs and Winter Park were mor enchanting that anything on the roadside equivalent. 16 hours each way can not be spent in any better way.

It will be a very sad day when the California Zephyr finishes its final run. I'm just glad my two children - ages 15 and 19 - had the experience. Don't miss this trip while it is still possible!

4848-

Did that take you past the Book cliffs in Utah? Thtough a little berg called Thompson Springs?

http://protophoto.com/picture.html?pic=3553

http://protophoto.com/subject.html?subject_id=313

[michaelstevens]

[8D]

Hey "trainheartedguy",

Back to serious issues.

Glad to see that you got pufffer's wheels & motion going the right way.

Happy Xmas !!

[:D][:D]

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by donclark

You keep harping about the price of your trip from LA to Waterloo, Indiana. Amtrak coach prices are comparable to airline coach tickets. However, you wanted and took a sleeper. This is first class service, and when comparing prices of airlines versus the train you should compare first class prices. For example an LA to Ft. Wayne first class ticket runs $1528.....next week without a Saturday night layover. First class airline tickets cost as much as Amtrak's sleeper accomodations...... Notice a first class airline ticket isn't the $360 coach price......

Bahhhhh! Your word play impresses me not, the only reason why the "sleeper" even becomes necessary at such outrageous cost, is because the modus of travel cannot connect the dots in one days time. SoI'm expected to pay through the nose to cover for the weakness of the means of travel? How is that a reasonable expectation?

And if rotting in some postage stamp sized compartment for 3 days while the bowels of the rust belt "clickity - clack" by my window is "first class", I'd sure hate to see what evil lurks in "tourist".

Being a railfan to some extent requires one to "live in the past", I've concluded same while reading all the forlorn laments of how "Diesel done steam wrong" Ya right we should ALL goback to steam choo-choo's to make the nostalgia buffs lifes seem worth living, and put the business world on notice that henceforth coast to coast travel shall become a 4 day proposition, simply to permit a segment of the population to live interminable yesterdays ,...case closed. sorry, no sale


Oh, and "waterloo" was not my destination, but you already knew this. Obviously Amtrak didn't care

[Anonymous]

You keep harping about the price of your trip from LA to Waterloo, Indiana. Amtrak coach prices are comparable to airline coach tickets. However, you wanted and took a sleeper. This is first class service, and when comparing prices of airlines versus the train you should compare first class prices. For example an LA to Ft. Wayne first class ticket runs $1528.....next week without a Saturday night layover. First class airline tickets cost as much as Amtrak's sleeper accomodations...... Notice a first class airline ticket isn't the $360 coach price......

[brilondon]

QUOTE: Originally posted by PNWRMNM

Superhief,

Do not put much stock in the support Amtrak got in response to your question. This site is by definition a railfan site, and a lot of rail fans know nothing but Amtrak. If you were to ask the general public, I would guess that 50-70% do not even know that Amtrak exists, let alone what it does or how much it costs.

I don't think it would be as high as 50-70% may be 20% at the high end would not know Amtrak exists. I would think that even the most cynical of people would know about Amtrak. Most people would know it for all the wrong reasons; derailments, crossing accidnts, route cuts or abandonments etc.

[brilondon]

If I lived in the United States I would support Amtrak no matter where it would run. If we loose this form of transport what would our highways be like. Our airports would be even more crowded and flights delays today would pale in comparision to what they are to day. I have to travel to New York on business and would love nothing better than to take the train. Unfortunatly the train takes all day to travel to New York and it is not much more expensive to fly and be there with in three hours. There has to be a faster way to process passengers when we cross the boarder to get into each country such as hire a customs officer to ride the train and process the cross boarder travelers.

[jeaton]

Ah yes, the old open access ideology. It worked quite well for electric power in California and nationwide electric rates are generating so much ca***hat the power grid is keeping years ahead of demand. At the same time security analysts are touting telephone companies as a must buy.

Based on worldwide evidence, including that of Great Britain with their failed effort to split off infrastructure and open access to private operators, there is no genuine regular passenger service making a real profit. Let me be more specific. Even if the railroads charged nothing for the use of their tracks, and there was no charge for use of station facilities, in todays competitive transportation environment it is not likly that passenger revenues would cover the costs of the equipment and all the other costs for running a train in regular passenger service. So, show me a potential entrepreneur who would be glad to operate passenger trains, and I'll identify a potentially bankrupt entrepreneur.

By the way, Amtrak is a private company.

In spite of this, the idea might have a chance. If airlines were required to surcharge passengers enough to pay for the full costs of airports used and the air traffic control system, and in lieu of the federal gas tax, the federal highway system was converted to a toll highway sysytem, it might be possible to set rail fares high enough to make the trains profitable.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Scottydog

Mr Antigates, I have really a tough time seeing what bids you so strongly against passenger rail travel. Do you own any freight rail stock? You say Amtrak is a hidden tax on the people, but if we were to be charge the true cost of air travel, it would be in the thousands. The cost of maintaining airports would have to be included as would the now large security costs. There would also have to be a charge for future airport expansion. As for the highways, if they were all turned into toll roads to produce enough true money for their maintainence, you wouldn't be able to travel on them. The government subsidizes all of these so why not rail passenger services. The ufortunate thing is, Amtrak needs congress to come across big time. Why do you think congress rushed in to bail out the airlines? Was it so we, the people could get to where we were going to in a hurry? Bull! It is so they can ride in big comfortable seats in first class drinking cocktails as soon as they board for free and eating off china plates all at the taxpayers expense. I don't hear you bitching about that. Passenger rail service must,and I say, must be preserved in this country.

I guess my intent isn't coming through all that well..[:)]

If I were to take a step back from the thread, take a deep breath (Ahhhhhhhh-hhhhhAAAA) and without respect to thread context, state my "beef", it would be that 3 wrongs don't make a right and adding another (HSR) as a forth sure don't either.

The Highway system is a given, it aint going away, no matter how misguided it may have been to sell it to the taxpayer under the guise of "The Defense Highway system", it's "there" and does not require the capitalization of a used SD-40-2 or of a new Dash 9 to use it. For better or worse, it's worth keeping

The Air Travel industry, serves the purpose of the impatient (look around you my friend, that quality suits most everyone you are likely to meet in a days time) better than the rail industry can hope to. If you read the "coast to coast by rail and air " article in the winter issue of classic trains, All the hardwriting you should ever need to see on any wall, is write there (excuse the pun).

I wanted to take Amtrak on the earlier outlined trip I took from LA to Ft Wayne In, but found the total price, including sleepers, to be way out of line, For some reason AMTRAK wants me to pay more for that bunk than Holiday Inn wants to charge for a room, and I said "phooey" . For less cost I could fly, and arrive the same day, forgoing the need for any lodging. and be at my destination.

I'll be the first to concede that both the highway and air systems are subsidized by my tax dollar. But, cutting even deeper into my pocket to better subsidize the rail paradigm of travel is a non starter for me. I DON'T WI***O PAY MORE OF MY HARD EARNED MONEY TO SUBSIDIZED MORE TRAVEL OPTIONS, when what we already have to choose from CAN suit my needs quite nicely.

It's NOT AMTRAK that I am against, it is the knowledge of who will be expected to fund an enhanced AMTRAK, ME.

Given the choice, My reply is "thanks, but no thanks"

And HSR? Evern worse because the entities who want the public Dole to put them in business in the first place, have been very careful to not let their identities , nor the level of their own commitment be known,. That in itself should tell you something

[Anonymous]

Over the Thanksgiving holiday, my family rode the California Zephyr from Denver to Salt Lake City and back. For any railfan, this is a must trip. The accommodations - even in coach - were above average. The service was good, and the food was superior to anything the airlines serve these days. But, best of all, was the spectacular scenery. Colorado and Utah offer the best canyon and mesa views of anywhere in NA except possibly the Canadian Rockies. The 42 (?) tunnels were a marvel of engineering. Stops at scenic places like Glenwood Springs and Winter Park were mor enchanting that anything on the roadside equivalent. 16 hours each way can not be spent in any better way.

It will be a very sad day when the California Zephyr finishes its final run. I'm just glad my two children - ages 15 and 19 - had the experience. Don't miss this trip while it is still possible!

[Anonymous]

These say it all:

Images from http://www.slamtrak.com
Have been seen in Trains Mag. (i think)

[Anonymous]

I have a question for all of you who express support for Amtrak. Is it necessarily Amtrak, or just passenger rail in general you support? If it's the latter, then you really should be hoping that the operating portion of Amtrak cease operations, while the oversight portion of Amtrak guarantees the rights of any private operators to run over any of the nation's rail infrastructure. Why is it necessary for the government to be running trains, when it would be more efficient (and cheaper for the taxpayers) to just partially subsidize the private operators (maybe by a few cents of the diesel fuel tax). I do believe it is possible for passenger rail to be quasi-profitable in the USA with the right incentives thrown in, but I absolutely LOATHE Amtrak in its current state.

Of course, this would be alot easier if the feds would just break up the Class I's into separate operating and infrastructure companies, aka AT&T-style, aka OPEN ACCESS!. Then it would be easier to justify using federal monies to upgrade our nation's rail infrastructure, which would then aid in allowing private operators to attempt to run passenger trains. I'll bet there's lots of potential entrepreneurs who would love a chance to run passenger trains over the nation's rail grid, if only they were given a chance.

[PNWRMNM]

Superhief,

Do not put much stock in the support Amtrak got in response to your question. This site is by definition a railfan site, and a lot of rail fans know nothing but Amtrak. If you were to ask the general public, I would guess that 50-70% do not even know that Amtrak exists, let alone what it does or how much it costs.

[Anonymous]

I'll start by making it clear that I am an Amtrak supporter. It is an insult to all of Amtrak's employees and customers that Washington continues to keep Amtrak in a state of perpetual limbo. Washington has never provided Amtrak with more than enough funding to make it a viable alternative to other forms of transport. It is not seldom that Amtrak's survival has come down to the wire been "saved" by a late night session because no president wants Amtrak to die on their watch. Enough with the soapbox.

As a recent college graduate who makes very little money, I continue to spend any extra dough on rail travel every chance I get. Even in its state of underfunded quasi-survival, Amtrak still provides experiences not attainable aboard any other form of transportation. Even first class airline passengers lack the option to dine at a table. Good luck getting a flight from a nearby town. To the vast majority of Americans, an Amtrak community is closer than an airport that receives real airliners. Even if airliners had big windows, they don't do much good at 20,000 feet. The grand canyon just isn't grand when it looks like a crack on the surface of freshly baked cornbread.

Amtrak will not die anytime soon. So long as the political climate remains stable and Americans continue to remain apathetic about its future, Amtrak will be kept on financial respirators. The railroads hate Amtrak but support it because it's familiar and predictable. Washington gives Amtrak enough money to stay alive because Washington politicians do not want to have to answer to their consituents about it. According to all the studies performed in the laboratory and on the rails, it is possible to put Americans on trains. Acela Express proves it, Amtrak Cascades proves it, and all the high speed systems in Europe prove it. Apparently, it takes more than proof to convince Washington that investing in Amtrak upgrades nationwide is worth the money.

[Anonymous]

When I posed this question...I had no idea it would generate such responses. It's painfully evident that we don't always agree on HOW Amtrak should be restructured...or funded...or SAVED, for that matter. What is evident is the fond attachment Americans do appear to have for the continuation of passenger train service. As for those of you who feel that Amtrak is simply a decrepit old horse that should be shot while grazing aimlessly in the pasture...well, I suspect you're entitled to your feelings as well (although I disagree strongly with your view!). What's more disturbing is that in a 'civiled, first-rate country,' our government shows absolute ignorance when pondering what to do about Amtrak. If any of our boys in Washington cared to look long and hard enough, we could examine passenger train systems in other countries that DO work...ask intelligent questions of appropriate individuals in these countries about the secrets behind their rail success stories...and then implement what we've learned right here at home, at whatever the cost.

America is very much a country of diversity: people, interests and lifestyles. This undeniable blend is what makes our nation so interesting and fun. Their is variety, in other words...cultures, interests, activity groups...all coexisiting with many others, each bringing something fresh and vital to our nation's table. Why, then, can we not strike a balance in respect to transportation modes? How does one favor the billion dollar bailout of lanquishing airlines...yet chide Amtrak for having the unmitigated gall of requesting assistance--assistance, I might add, which doesn't come close to what the airlines rather arrogantly expected to receive? Why do we continue to build and rebuild an Interstate system that continues to see more and more congestion...when, running parallel to our freeways in many cities, are underused railroad right-of-ways that could transport thousands of road-weary drivers to their destinations in relative comfort, ease and efficiency? When will we cease with the outdated notion that gasoline will ALWAYS be available for our SUV's...so why take a train or bus?

Balance, folks. Balance.

I've read every single one of the posts and my spirit is buoyed by those of you who do care about Amtrak. Thank-you! It is my prayer that Amtrak will not wither away and die. I want to see it grow stronger and survive. Let's be optimistic that given the will to see something succeed--and by doing OUR part to give success a chance by actually riding the trains--Amtrak will be around for future generations--in much better health and stamina than ever before.

[Anonymous]

I support Amtrak,I dont really care for the service they provide,but I believe in rail transportation.I have used Amtrak in the past and will be riding this month to go to Michigan{actually Toledo Ohio,Because Amtark goes to East Lansing Michigan,via Chicago.about 200 miles out of my way...they would bus me to michigan from ohio,but if I wanted to experience Greyhound..I would have taken it in the first place..}so someone will pick me up in toledo...This could be a sample of whats Wrong with Amtrak..I lived in the United Kingdom for 3 years..You know You can travel to almost any village in the country by train there? im talking inter-city 125 trains that travel 125 MPH.If only the United States would return to Rail Service...Wouldn't that be nice.The snow storm we had last week left airline passengers stuck at logan Airport for up to 16 HOURS..Amtark was delayed 2 hours{Due to a tresspassing snowmobiler who was struck by an acela train}We are expecting another storm this weekend...I'm glad I'm not Flying...I'll stick with the Train anyday...Hope Too See You at the Station.

[espeefoamer]

Yes![8D]I wholeheartedly support Amtrak.[:D]I have traveled well over 200,000 miles on Amtrak[:p]I ride it as often as I can,and will continue to do so as long as I live![:p][:)] "I will give up my Amtrak when they pry my cold dead fingers from around it".

[michaelstevens]

[:D] Hey fellow AMTRAK supporters,

Check out today's news-wire -- it contains some very encouraging ridership-count-info.

[^][^]

[Anonymous]

I am all for passenger rail travel in the US, in fact I think it is totaly unfair that the government spends billions a year on interstates, which trucking and bus companys use , yet spends a fraction on railroads which keep this country alive. Wouldn't you just love to see convoys of 400 or more dumptrucks loaded with coal heading down the freeway to your local powerplant. Countrys like Japan, France , and Germany have huge rail budgets and serve most if not all citys with high speed rail. In these countrys nobody would dream of flying a short distace like New York to D.C. as it is much faster to ride the trains. Here we have one high speed line on which trains can only actualy run high speed in a few places. I would ride amtrak all the time If I could but since I live in columbus ohio and would have to drive 2 hours or more to get to the closest amtrak station it is not practical. I hope that this changes in the neer future. If amtrak is going to survive, I think it needs to bring service back to more of the country. I know that it is faced with upgrading the NEC and other large projects but that is why I belive that the government needs to spend more money on amtrak and other railroads.

[Anonymous]

Yes I do. In fact my family is going to take our second trip this year on amtrak in a few days.
Do you know that between New York and Washington DC more people take Amtrak than fly. You provide frequent on time service and people will use it. For the price of one interstate interchange in Madison, WI ($250M) the state of wisconsin could fund its total commitment for the Midwest Regional Rail Initiative.
What Amtrak needs is a stable funding source and the states need to be given the option of using federal transportation funds for Amtrak. Insteed of it all going to pave our whole state and country. (And then our taxes go up because we cannot afford to maintain them.)

[Anonymous]

I just found this comic that has an interesting stand on this topic, it is at [:D]http://www.empirewire.com/images/amtrak.jpg [:D]

And on another note, Theantigates: what about AMTRAK stations that, like the one in Altoona PA, doubles as a Greyhound Station[;)]

[Anonymous]

Mr Antigates, I have really a tough time seeing what bids you so strongly against passenger rail travel. Do you own any freight rail stock? You say Amtrak is a hidden tax on the people, but if we were to be charge the true cost of air travel, it would be in the thousands. The cost of maintaining airports would have to be included as would the now large security costs. There would also have to be a charge for future airport expansion. As for the highways, if they were all turned into toll roads to produce enough true money for their maintainence, you wouldn't be able to travel on them. The government subsidizes all of these so why not rail passenger services. The ufortunate thing is, Amtrak needs congress to come across big time. Why do you think congress rushed in to bail out the airlines? Was it so we, the people could get to where we were going to in a hurry? Bull! It is so they can ride in big comfortable seats in first class drinking cocktails as soon as they board for free and eating off china plates all at the taxpayers expense. I don't hear you bitching about that. Passenger rail service must,and I say, must be preserved in this country.

[Anonymous]

As a regular passenger, I whole-heartedly support Amtrak. When I was a college student in a city with no Amtrak service (Decatur, Illinois), I lamented the fact that I could not walk to the old Waba***erminal downtown and catch the Cannonball or one of the other classic streamliners which zoomed right through the middle of Millikin University's campus in the 1960's. Instead of simply lementing it, I paid friends with cars to drive me to Springfield, Lincoln, or Bloomington to catch one of the three trains to Chicago whenever I went to visit my parents or to Alton to visit my girlfriend. As a result, I have seen the direct result of the half-baked attempt the Bushies and Blagojevich (Illinois' illustrious Democratic governor) have made to turn the Union Pacific single-track between Joliet and Springfield into a high-speed line for Talgo trains. The brand-new signal system got shorted out in a rainstorm and delayed the Texas Eagle I was riding for an hour. The only diamonds in Chicagoland not protected by an interlocking forces all trains to stop then proceed regardless of cross traffic. What about the talgo trains? They have yet to be ordered, let alone delivered.

I can understand the situation. The freighters and the grangers hate Amtrak. Amtrak hasn't the funding to buy the equipment necessary to provide the new service. Washington doesn't care about trains that don't originate or terminate in their lovely city of ostentatious architecture and abundant pork barrel money. Regardless of the fees Amtrak pays to other railroads for paths on their mainlines, the railroads do not like having to deal with trains that require top priority, require higher standards for maintenance of way, and wear down their rails because of the ever-higher speeds Amtrak passengers desire.

This is merely the dream of one young and feisty railfan who has spent too much time riding the fastest trains on earth, but please bear with me. Amtrak is flawed. Everybody from Bu***o Blagojevich to David Gunn know that Amtrak cannot continue to function as a viable alternative to road and air travel in its current form. The freight railroads and the Government grudgingly support Amtrak because it's "The devil they know." Killing Amtrak would cause political, economic, and social chaos in Washington and every one of the 500 plus Amtrak communities in the country. Washington would have to answer to Mayor Daley, Mayor Bloomberg, and the respective mayors of every other major city where Amtrak is a major source of employment.

High speed rail will not solve the problem. High speed rail means the Freighters and Grangers must still sell priority routing to Amtrak. High speed rail means corners can be cut in infrastructure development. If I remember correctly, Amtrak's flagship Acela-Express trainsets only have clearance to bury the speedometer needle over less than 40 miles of its route. The rest of the time, it runs little faster than the old metroliner trains from the 1960's. High speed rail requires the construction of high speed lines or the upgrade of existing routes to high speed standards, both of which cost about the same as modern Interstate construction. High speed rail means running no faster than 79 miles per hour in large cities because of heavy population and pounding diamonds with other tracks.

The solution I see as the most viable is a multiphase route-for-route replacement of existing Amtrak routes with Transrapid Maglev trains. I cannot say for sure, but I am fairly confident that a railroad would gladly allow the construction of elevated Maglev guideway on air rights over their mainlines in order to kiss Amtrak trains good-bye forever. If not, Dwight Eisenhower conveniently left wide green belts between the two sides of interstate highways that would do a great job of providing an already-federally-owned strip of land on which elevated maglev guideways could be built. The twists and turns of interstates are not a problem for maglev trains which can handle 10 % grades and tighter turns than standard railroads while maintaining a 300 mph speed. The fact that the green belt running down the middle of interstates is already federal property means that the acquisition of right-of-way is cheap and politically streamlined. The fact that building maglev guideways over existing railroad rights-of-way means that the route is already flatter and straighter than necessary for maglev trains means a smooth ride for passengers.

For the PR guys, it's a quick sell. I have often looked out the window of the Texas Eagle and watched the train race the traffic on Interstate 55...and lose. Nothing advertises fast trains better than getting buzzed by one while driving on a parallel road. Furthermore, maglev solves many of the other problems lagging in the shadow of Acela's success. Maglev does not touch its guideway. Maglev trains cause the same amount of wear on the guideway at 300 miles per hour as they do at 20...none. High speed trains pound their rails to death, and the problem only gets worse as the speed limits are increased. Maglev has no wheels. Wheels were the cause of some serious accidents in Germany concerning their flagship ICE trains. Maglev has no Yaw Dampers. Yaw dampers were a major safety issue for Acela recently. Maglev does not use existing infrastructure. Although this causes the initial cost of construction to be higher, the end result is an uninterrupted network of maglev guideways, free of interlockings, bottlenecks, and competing freight traffic. No corners can be cut when building it.

Replacing one Amtrak route at a time with Maglev will allow Washington to replace Amtrak with a system that is faster, more reliable, cheaper to maintain, and attracts more passengers. Due to the distances involved in the US, the high speed Maglev can attain makes it the only viable competition with airline traffic. With 300-mph top speeds, one-night transcontinental service is possible with real beds and real tables for dinner and breakfast. For regional travel, Maglev can compete directly with air travel times and give airlines the opportunity to focus on routes that only they can do...transoceanic flights and daytime transcontinental service.

For the economists, consider how many jobs were created by the construction of the Interstate system. Consider the amount of economic stimulation the interstates caused. Every transportation system in the United States is clogged. The economy is suffering a stroke and a heart attack at the same time. The economy of this great country improves every time America has invested in a new transportation system from the Erie Canal to the first transcontinental railroad to the Interstate system to the air traffic control system. Building a nationwide maglev transit system will increase capacity on the freighters and grangers. It will necessitate the construction of domestic factories to produce guideway sections, trainsets, and support equipment. New jobs will be created nationwide, including skilled labor, ticket agents, train attendants, traffic controllers et cetra.

Now that I have spent a fair amount of time on my soap box, I will say again that I support Amtrak. I support Amtrak because the plans I just outlined above are unlikely to materialize in the current political climate. I support Amtrak because it's all we have until a better alternative (maglev) comes to fruition. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have a train to catch.

[DICKK]

I strongly support AMTRAK!!! Being retired from 30 yrs in the U.S. Navy and having seen the world, AMTRAK is the absolute best way to see America. I travel at least twice a year cross country on various routes and have seen parts of America I would have never seen before. A recent plane trip from LA to PITT reinforced my love of trains vice airplanes. If you want to enjoy yourself, use the train. If not, fly. Stop on your trip and visit some areas of the U.S. and then get back on.

[Anonymous]

After traveling by auto and airplane, we discovered the pure pleasure of rail travel. We were able to make friends and visit, to dine, and to totally enjoy the incredible scenery that awaits as you travel this wonderful country we are priveledged to live in.
We will go west again this winter, and are so looking forward to the adventure. My husband tell all his friends, "AMTRAK is the only way to fly".
Roy and Gloria Haller
West Falls, NY

[Anonymous]

I have been on many Amtrak trains, and have enjoyed the experience. However, I now live in Florida and the departures are terrible and coupled with the fact that many trains offer no accommodations for smokers i find it better to fly, even though they don't accommodate smokers. the travel time is much less. I love trains and only wish we had the type of rail transportation available in Europe. Both of my children lived there for many years and I have traveled extensively throughout Europe on a great system that also accommodated smokers. If the US every can get convenient schedules and provide for all I would again utilizing Amtrak-- but until then forget it.

[Anonymous]

I travel fairly extensively on business and havefor years. Air travel is fine for long distances, but if you figure an hour to get to the airport, and our to check (and be checked) in, a two hour flight, and an hour to get to town at your destination... I would much rather be on a train for four to five hours. As A passionate train lover, stretch that to six to seven hours in some cases. There is a lot of travel that falls into this category.

The problem, as has been pointed out ad nauseum, is the cost. Need I remind that the airlines have been bailed out constantly with our tax dollars? Why, because it is considered by the powers that be that air travel is necessary for the good of the country. Well so is train travel, in my view, and if those bozos in Washington could abandone tunnel vision (no pun intended) for a few moments, they might have a chance to get off their false alternative and do something that makes sense on rails. Think of the national savings in terms of lower back disorders if we could get from Houston to Dallas or San Antonio and back by train? And we are talking about three of the, what is it, seven largest cities in the USA. No, they would rather tear up the highways again to solve a traffic problem that won't be solved anymore by the time the project is finished.

This whle subject makes me see red. Commen sense is so far down on the political list of priorities one can't help but wonder how anything manages to function at all.

Do I support AMTRACK? In a word, yes. Railroads built this country - freight and passenger - and passenger service will continue to help it grow if the pols will only stop tearing up unused rail to make room for more pork.

E-mail me if you want to know what I really think.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by donclark

The reason why Amtrak doesn't serve Dayton or Cedar City is because its routes have been drastically reduced from the early 1970s, to a bare bones structure. There used to be a train running from LA to Salt Lake City and a train running from Cleveland to Cincinnati....Basically Amtrak operates most of its long distance trains outside the NEC from Chicago, except for the Sunset Limited and and Coast Starlight. Even the Lake Shore Limited, Three Rivers, and the Capitol are based from Chicago. Why? To reduce operating costs......

But that air flight from Cedar City to Dayton took 9 hours. Add the additional two hours before leaving, and the hour waiting for luggage and grabbing a rental car, the flight actually took 12 hours..... Notice with a proper high speed rail network, the parralegram I have proposed, two legs could be traveled in that time.... some 1800 miles......not the 200-400 miles someone posted above...... We already have a high speed rail line in America that is 450 miles, it is called the NEC.....

Here is a map I drew using a federal map showing population density. The four legs of my parralegram would include Philladelphia to Chicago, Chicago to Texas, Texas to Florida or Georgia, and DC to Florida/Georgia. There are more than four lines on my map, showing different possible routes. I am not very choosy, either would be a great start, eventually I would like to see the others completed at a later time..... The four legs is less than 4,000 miles, adding branches to Minneapolis, Toronto, to Miami, crossing the parallegram from Chicago to Atlanta, and adding the west coast lines would bring the total to 7,000 miles......Adding aa second line through the east, south, and midwest, and to Denver would bring the total to 11,000 miles. Add another 1,000 miles and one transcontinental line could be built, preferrably LA to Denver..... I am sure many of the forum members can find other lines that they would liked to be built.... But 12,000 miles is plenty....

Costs vary, but the average would probably run close to the Tampa to Orlando HSR in Florida, which is an average of $12 million per mile. Times 4,000 miles, the price of HSR is $48 billion, times 8,000 miles, the price of HSR is $96 billion, times 12,000 miles the price is $144 billion. The US DOT spends nearly $80 billion per year. I support a moratorium on federal airport and highway spending two years to build a HSR network the envy of the world. Afterwards, we won't need to spend so much on highways and airports.....

http://homepage.mac.com/donclark/.Public/DonHSR.jpg

That is a nice map, K?

And I agree with you that Amtrak has been crippled by faulty thinking coming out of Washinton. Based upon the reading I've done, I've concluded it is intentional, part of the master plan to make Amtrak as undesireable as possible to pollute public sentiment from the moment the "fuse" to the mandated profitability a started burning when the fed took the headache off the private railroads. All that 20 or 25 year period to "build profitability" was, is a conveniant time delay in which to sway public sentiment against something they would have killed on the spot if they thought they coulda gotten away with it. (congress, that is)

Bugt still Don,using these stilted, demeaning summations of those of opinion not like your own, as when you postulated why Anti Amtrak people only use large cities in their compairisons of AIR to RAIL is little more than hyperbole, as I've illustrated not even "little city to little city" is something amtrak can even do, let alone being "advantageous" compared to Air travel,. all little towns taken into consideration.

it's just something about guys living in glass houses that I don't particularly care for in your attempt to argue you side. I understand your point, it's just the way you present it as an absolute right awash in a sea of wrongs, and it just don't stand up.

Nor does expecting every tax payer to bankroll a new private entity into a profit seeking enterprise(HSR)just cause it sounds "cool". None of these aspiring beneficiaries of public investment has been even willing to let themselves be known on a concrete basis, let alone make known what kind of financial commitment they themselves might be willing to put on the table, in feathering their own capitalistic good fortunes.

Boiled down to bare essance, the only HSR proposals I've seen floated out look like "any suckers out there yet?" prospectus' from blue sky entities.

Let the folks hoping to hold the key to the farebox put some meat on the table, and then tell me what they expect in matching commitment, before asking me how deep my pocket might happen to be for a pipe dream. The prospectus is being floated back axwards

[Anonymous]

I do support Amtrak. In fact, my wife and I have reservations to leave Erie, PA on August 28th via the Lakeshore Limited and onward to California via the Zephyr. It will be our third trip, and we can hardly wait for August 2004 to roll around. We have never had a bad trip on Amtrak!

[Anonymous]

As for luggage, its been my experience with the airlines that if the flight is not non-stop, the luggage don't arrive at your destination when you do....

Obviously, Amtrak has not been given the funds to become the best passenger train service in the world..... We haven't even given it the funds to bring the NEC up to speed.... Maybe we should give Amtrak the funds needed to operate a state of the art service before we kill passenger train service in America.....

[Anonymous]

I support U.S. Passenger trains, but not so much in the non-functional method called AMTRAK. We mean well, but the method of execution is inherently flawed.
Govt ownership has not equated to efficiency, functionality nor profitability which is why this system has brinked on failure.

If you want AMTRAK or any other passenger rail system to work it must have :
- Functionality. The Trains need to go where we go. They must be convenient
- Reliability (the trains need to be on time in order to be a real option for a traveller.) (notice how Europe and Asia run their systems or look at innercity rail systems or light rails that have right of way)
I humbly submit that the Passenger industry or AMTRAK invest in it's own private rail lines or right of way (very costly from freight industry). This would allow the speed increases needed and thus solve the reliability and punctuality issues.

We all know we love the car and if we want to challenge it, we must have a real viable option.

Simply put, we would ride the system if it was efficient, available on time, everytime.
My last experience on a US train was from New Orleans to Pensacola. This 200 mile plus trip took well over 7 hours ! By car it takes around 3.5 hours or so. This was way too painful. The right of way was not reserved for us, thus we had to stop endlessly to allow local freights through and we never built a real head of steam! Talk about a long trip.
Compare to Europe - I took an overnight train from Naples to Venice aboard a sleeper.
This was truly a treat. The train had right of way, thus it was able to really move fast and be punctual. The service was stellar and the whole trip enjoyable.
Do it right and they will come!

Respectfully,
R Green

[Anonymous]

The reason why Amtrak doesn't serve Dayton or Cedar City is because its routes have been drastically reduced from the early 1970s, to a bare bones structure. There used to be a train running from LA to Salt Lake City and a train running from Cleveland to Cincinnati....Basically Amtrak operates most of its long distance trains outside the NEC from Chicago, except for the Sunset Limited and and Coast Starlight. Even the Lake Shore Limited, Three Rivers, and the Capitol are based from Chicago. Why? To reduce operating costs......

But that air flight from Cedar City to Dayton took 9 hours. Add the additional two hours before leaving, and the hour waiting for luggage and grabbing a rental car, the flight actually took 12 hours..... Notice with a proper high speed rail network, the parralegram I have proposed, two legs could be traveled in that time.... some 1800 miles......not the 200-400 miles someone posted above...... We already have a high speed rail line in America that is 450 miles, it is called the NEC.....

Here is a map I drew using a federal map showing population density. The four legs of my parralegram would include Philladelphia to Chicago, Chicago to Texas, Texas to Florida or Georgia, and DC to Florida/Georgia. There are more than four lines on my map, showing different possible routes. I am not very choosy, either would be a great start, eventually I would like to see the others completed at a later time..... The four legs is less than 4,000 miles, adding branches to Minneapolis, Toronto, to Miami, crossing the parallegram from Chicago to Atlanta, and adding the west coast lines would bring the total to 7,000 miles......Adding aa second line through the east, south, and midwest, and to Denver would bring the total to 11,000 miles. Add another 1,000 miles and one transcontinental line could be built, preferrably LA to Denver..... I am sure many of the forum members can find other lines that they would liked to be built.... But 12,000 miles is plenty....

Costs vary, but the average would probably run close to the Tampa to Orlando HSR in Florida, which is an average of $12 million per mile. Times 4,000 miles, the price of HSR is $48 billion, times 8,000 miles, the price of HSR is $96 billion, times 12,000 miles the price is $144 billion. The US DOT spends nearly $80 billion per year. I support a moratorium on federal airport and highway spending two years to build a HSR network the envy of the world. Afterwards, we won't need to spend so much on highways and airports.....

http://homepage.mac.com/donclark/.Public/DonHSR.jpg

[Anonymous]

I would like to be able to support rail travel, but the schedule to places I want to go is not alway convenient for me. Amtrak was set up to fail and will continue to do so until the govt and the people deside to spend more money to built it up a viable travel alternative. Until then Amtrak will continue on life support. The problem with rail is that it doesn't interface well with the other transportation systems ( car, bus, air). Rail was around before all these forms of transportation were developed and was made to only interface with other rail carriers and station stops. The way we travel has changed since the rail system was developed. The highway and airport systems were developed at the same time and were designed to work with each other and for the way we travel now. The difference between Rail in the USA vs rail in Europe is that Europe's rail system was designed to work with auto and air travel as a whole system to provide more efficient travel between locations. There are some USA commuters and reginal rail sevice that are getting it right. Those that interface with airports, public transportation, and private auto seem to make it work. These agencies are usually funded heavily by states and local communities. But in turn are also used by those same local people. There needs to be a clear distinction for funding and management of commuter, regional, and long distance rail systems. Commuter rail seems to be working in some places provided the locals put in money to update the rail and stations. Regional does compete with air and car in the NEC and could do a better job if the money were invested by local states that use the corridor invested money to update the system. The focus does not need to be if we should keep or lose Amtrak. The focus should be on how to improve our overall transportation system. That includes air, auto, and rail. In some case investing in rail will make sense. In others it will not.

[Anonymous]

I would support any kind of train travel. The highways are choked with unregulated diesel running trucks. The problem with Amtrak is there seems to be no one that can make the thing make money. Find a chief!!!!

[jchnhtfd]

bandy32 -- the 'goofy' schedules aren't really Amtrak's fault. That 35mph bit is imposed by the host railroad. The start times in Chicago and Toronto are related to efforts to make connections a little more reliably -- also related to enroute delays which are largely out of Amtrak's control.

As for customs... let's not go there.

[Anonymous]

WE support Amtrak in our household, but Amtrak makes it very difficult. We live in DeKalb, Illinois, the only city in Illinois with a State University, the second largest, NIU, and no Amtrak Service because the UP/CNW fought it off years ago.
My wife and I ride the International about twice per year between Chicago and Toronto. Sometimes the train is a capacity train, and sometimes it is about half full much of the way. Now they want to discontinue it. Since we have been riding it, the start time out of Chicago has gotten later by about an hour nad the start time returning from Toronto has moved back almost two hours or so earlier. The train is poorly advertised and Customs/DHS loves to hassle people coming into the US. Now it will be discontinued unless someone fights for it and gets Mr. Gunn and Congress to reconsider. It will be the second train I know of to be discontinued recently, the first being the Louisville train out of Chicago with its goofy schedule at 35mph through Indiana. How can Amtrak survive when it manages like this?

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by donclark



Amtrak doesn't serve either city,

That would have sufficed as the answer...4 Times the luggage handling and lets not forget cab fare from the Amtrak station to Greyhound...."Greyhound"? LOL!!!

[Anonymous]

Living in Switzerland, but visiting the USA at frequent intervals, I expect to find decent, reasonable, functioning passenger trains, and have been delighted to use AMTRAK trains for business and leisure on many occasions. I've ridden the Corridor many times (land at Newark, NJ, 30 minutes later be at the station booking the next train to Baltimore and Washington) , taken sleepers to Jacksonville, Chicago to New Orleans, west to Oakland, ridden the Pacific coast trains, and had many memorable rail trips. They were regrettably not all comfortable, well organised or punctual!

The automobile is not the answer to mobility needs. Individual vehicle mobility is demonstrating everywhere its power to destroy even the biggest reserves of highway space, and much of the Eastern USA has no more highway space. Unpredictable journey times, disruption through weather, congestion and accidents, and the appalling realisation that accidents increasingly happen to people like us (and not just the anonoymous others), are with time changing our civilization away from the individual automobile. But at the same time, many in the USA are still thinking in terms which increase the reliance on the automobile: commuter housing outside the beltways are a classic example, where the owners then resent paying taxes to provide commuter trains...

Global warming is society's next threshold.

So all ways round, the USA needs a soundly based, well managed, market and sytem-based passenger train network and must be prepared to facilitate it . But that facilitation, over the existing freight network, which is only provided by its owners to handle, with rigorous singlemindedness, their own freight traffic, and where capacity additions cannot justify capital even today, is a puzzle which needs the very best of you to solve it.
And who manages the trains? Is AMTRAK the only way to organize it? European experience would suggest that a mixture of local entrepreneurs and efficient public authority might be the best way to start searching....

Bryan

[dmikee]

Those who wi***o kill off Amtrack are indirectly supporting high cost air travel and the highway lobby.

If Amtrack had the equipment available, it could easily develop inter-city rail travel that would be much more convenient and attract large numbers in ridership. As it is, the current funding only allows meager service (except for the NE corridor) and only supports long-distance trains which are revenue losers.

[Anonymous]

Delta can do Cedar City to Dayton in 12 hours at $522 with three stops, and in 9 hours at $1156 with two stops roundtrip. Why the huge variance in price?

Amtrak doesn't serve either city, but to get a picture of the pricing policies of Greyhound and Amtrak, the above can be done in two days with $337....roundtrip....

The trick is that with Amtrak you get to see the Colorado river valley and the Rockies up close, not to mention the bread and corn baskets of America's midwest. With Delta you fly over the clouds.

Scenery score: Greyhound and Amtrak 100, driving your own car 50, Delta 0.....

[PNWRMNM]

Dave,

So why do we do it?? Because the politicians think it helps get them reelected. They are trying to buy our votes with our own money. The galling part is it sems to work!

[daveklepper]

Subsidies for Amtrak are a pittance compared to subsidies for other forms of ground transportation. This 1.7 Billion Dollars for fuel-cell research is USA subsidation of GM for personal car transportation and all totally unnecessary for an energy independent USA because hybrid technology already works fine and will do the job by itself without any Hydrogen. Dave Klepper

[PNWRMNM]

Datalor,

Amtrak exists because the US Govt would not let passenger trains die the unnatural death that the Govt caused. By 1960 all passenger trains were loosing money and investement had stopped. This was the result of our national transportation policy which was to subsidize haighways and airports. The subisdys were hidden but basically involved the Govt funding the fixed plant and charging the carriers far less than full cost to use them.

Meanwhile the Govt held rail rates down and required the railroads to operate money loosing passenger trains. In 1971 the Govt said we will run the trains, you give us the equipment and the right to run our trains on your tracks for next to no money. Most railroads took the deal and expected Amtrak to fold in a few years. Congress has never had the guts to kill it. Its the old deal of buying your vote with your money.

An example of the political doublespeak that surrounds Amtrak. Before Amtrak the US Govt forced BN to continue to operate 6 pairs of trains across Washington State. When Amtrak took over they cut it to one. Not even the US Govt waste its own money the way were forcing BN to waste stockholders money!

[JoeUmp]

I'm all for AMTRAK, or any other transcontinental passenger service. I just wi***hat they stopped here

[Anonymous]

I've ridden both Amtrak and aircraft and know some of the benifits and detriments of both. My own problem, however, is that I dont know why Amtrak came about in the first place or why the private lines shut down their passenger services. If anyone has any tips on where to find reading material on both topics, I'd appreciate a reply or an email to [e-mail].

Thanks,

MM3 Spurlock, USN

[Anonymous]

Absolutely! I don't understand the reluctance of Congress unwilling to provide the needed funds for Amtrak. They treat her like a *** stepchild. Airlines & highways always have their hands out, especially after 9/11. I rode Amtrak from Little Rock, Ar to Austin, TX in September. It was wonderful! I'm flying to San Antonio for my family's Christmas and I'm mad as hell my wife doesn't want to rede Amtrak.

[RudyRockvilleMD]

The question should be, passenger rail service do you support it? My answer is some.

I support commuter rail service because people have to move farther away from the city center beyond the suburbs ans into rural areas to find affordable housing. Since the commuting distances are longer you need a faster mode of transprtation to get them to their jobs into either the suburbs or the center city.

However, when it comes to intercity passenger rail servixce I do not support the long distance trains. Most travelers, especially business travelers, need to get to their destinations as quickly as possible, and since this country doesn't have. and it probably wont have a high speed passenger rail network anytime soon your only choice is to fly for appreciable distances, say 300 miles or more.

I would like to see high speed passenger rail service where it makes sense tripsof 200 - 400 miles through heavily populated areas where trains can average 150 - 160 mph. however, entirely new and dedicated track is necessary so where will the money comf from? The Acela Express cannot be considered high speed passenger rail since it takes 3 -1/2 hours to run between New York and Boston which is an average speed of only 66 mph.

I personally don't support Amtrak, I don't use it , and from the political standpoint most of the public could care less about it. One point: you cannot compare rail passenger service in the United States with the rail passenger service in Europe (I mean the Continent excluding Great Britain) and Japan because of the differences in population density, geography, and economic conditions in those countries.

[Anonymous]

Aboslutely I support Amtrak. I take Amtrak on whatever trip time and funds allow. We, as a nation, have asked Amtrak to do the impossible for over 30 years and what is remarkable is how well thay've done it with what we've given them to work with

[mike-65]

Absolutely! And whenever possible. Primarily the Capital Corridor and San Joaquins, here in California.
I, and my two boys love the whole trip experience: waking up early and going to the station, waiting for the train to appear, from tiny, distant light to huge, snorting, throbbing beast - everything about it. They usually argue about which view is better - the view from the upper or lower seats - but both agree it's much. much better than the view from the backseat ...
I think these trips do just as much to foster a love of rail as do steam excursion trips, or rail museums; there is more of an 'immediacy' about Amtrak, it's not some old, nostalgic prattle about 'When I was your age....", although they love the Sacramento Train Museum, and when we head up there, they always ask about growing up on the WP line in Hayward. I only wi***hat Amtrak used the old WP line through Nles Canyon.

As far as Amtrak's survival, I think there needs to be more advertising about it - all too often, when someone I know is planning or has returned from a trip, I ask about Amtrak, and they always say they never thought of it. The few people who have taken my suggestion loved it, and all agreed it was much more enjoyable than driving or flying.

[Anonymous]

I would like to ride Amtrak, but the closest station is a little over a hundred miles away and only goes through at 2a.m. and is a flag stop. I would like to see Amtrak expanded to include more cities.

[Anonymous]

Amtrak makes sense between Boston & Washington and a few other corridors. The long distance trains are lumbering dinosaurs- hugely inefficient and too costly. The only reason they haven't died is because congress doesn't want to mess with all us RR fans who are sentimental about the remaining passinger trains. Also the rather small number of people who won't or can't travel any other way would make a huge stink. I love to ride a train every now and then. I love to see the big California mixed trains dragging their big, awkward, funky, old butts past my house every day in and out of Chicago. But I don't think it's reasonable to ask taxpayers to keep subsidizing our dreamtime. Tony Phillips

[Anonymous]

Yes I support it. My wife and I took the Amtrak from Yuma AZ. to Vancouver WA.
The people were very nice and very helpful, amd we would do it again in a heart beat. I know it has soom problems. We do need to do what we can to keep passenger service going, and I think it would be a great loss to loss it. The room on the train is not crowded at all in fact it's very confortable.

[f14aplusfl]

Hell yeah! Instead of the $10 one way Chinatown Boston to Chinatown NY bus I take AMTK. More leg room, i can explore the train, get food, use the facilites, etc... its definately worth it. Besides... i got to see a few of AEM&s which look better than the HHP-*s, sorry I guess how i think electric locomotives oughta look. Here at the university when I'm in class (depending on where) we see the NYC bound Acelas, metroliners, and egional trains. Not counting the MBTA trains.

[Anonymous]

Yes I support Amtrak and enjoy every moment except for the ride from LA to Dallas, TX. It has to be the worse piece of track in the world. I am aware that Amtrak is not to blame as they say SP owns the right of way. I can see why there are so many wrecks these days. We had to escort many senior ladies to the diner and back to their rooms. I still look foreward to my next cross country trip on Amtrak. Hang in there Amtrak, we need you.

[jttigges]

Yes I do support Amtrak and will continue to do so as long as it exists. After this coming summer I will have logged almost 20,000 miles on Amtrak and while that is not an astronomical number, I'm rather proud of it. And if one considers additional passengers with me at the time, I am responsible for 45268 miles. Only 2 of the trips were by coach, the rest I had a room and that is the only way to travel.

I love rail travel. It's relaxing which is something I can't say for flying. The food is actually good which is something you defintely can't say about plane food (unless you're in 1st class I suppose). It would be a sad day for our country if long distance passenger rail service ended.

Support Amtrak. Keep it rolling cross country. Don't let it die.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by PNWRMNM
The US Govt on the other hand boured billions, now hundreds of billions into highways and rode the PRR and NYC into bankruptcy.

...and even then, the German highways are a lot better! Trust me, I've been on the Autobahn and American highways, 2 different classes of roads. And no toll charged for the Autobahn.

[GRR7315]

1st time cross-country travel this past June. Past Yard Conductor/Trainman at local tourist RR. It was an experience to say the least. Sleeper from Chicago WEST; 270 BoyScouts on their way to NM; 5 cars away from DINER-you want to Rock & Roll, ride this baby... U won't get to the Viewliner, see a movie; U will on makeup time-have your
coffee cup move on the table like on a ship in high seas!!! Staff was O U T S T A N D I N G; the Diner crew had to sleep for a few days after the tremendous service they provide. Wanted to cash-in ticket at end of WEST run; made a few changes according to timetable and EASTBOUND was more enjoyable!!!!! BoyScouts were now tired and couldn't wait to get home. Got to the Viewliner as well. SLEEPER rates pricy.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by donclark

As I have posted before, I'm for federal investment into a 7,000 mile network of TGV-ICE style of high speed rail. Whether Amtrak operates this system I could care less about. But since the creation of Amtrak back during early 1970s, Amtrak has been the operator of our national passenger trains. Amtrak is government owned and operated. I don't see how another government owned or subsidized agency could do better. The problem rests with those who wi***o kill Amtrak once and for all, by underfunding Amtrak operations and maintenance....in a vain attempt to turn this service into a profit.....while at the same time providing billions upon billions to the highway and airline lobby.....

I didn't want to get personal, but those living in the large cities such as Los Angeles do not realize their cheaper air fares compared to those of us who live in small cities and towns. Since deregualtion of the airline industry, the major airlines have built hub and spoke systems providing those who live in the large cities cheaper air fares. However, those of us who don't live in the large cities are paying more......for less service.....

You complained that Amtrak charged you $350, about the same price as an airfare, to travel from Los Angeles to Fort Wayne, actually Waterloo Indiana. I wonder whether you could drive the distance for less.....and get there quicker. Yes, Amtrak sleepers are priced high, because the supply and demand aspect of the sleeper accomodations are high. For one person the sleeper costs are astronomical, but for two persons sharing a sleeper the costs reflect the price of staying in an urban hotel, such as a Holiday Inn.....

When the day arrives when TGV-ICE style high speed rail is a reality in America, there would be no reason for a train to operate at night, except for a transcontinental run. A train averaging over 150 mph with stops can easily travel the distance from Dallas to Chicago in less than 9 hours, from Dallas to Atlanta in less than 9 hours, from Chicago to New York City in less than 9 hours, from Atlanta to New York City in less than 9 hours. Catch a train early in the morning at 6 am and be there by mid afternoon at 3 pm. With two legs of the parrelegram I have proposed, one could reach New York City before midnight from Dallas. There would be more frequency, as the same number of trainsets operating today on Amtrak's routes could run the distance not of once per day but at a frequency of every two to three hours in both directions.

It would be nice if private industry would build this high speed rail network of 7,000 miles in America. But there aren't any businesses with the ca***o do so.... The only entity able to do so is the federal government. The feds can sell the bonds needed to raise the capital, and if necessary acquire the land right of way at a reasonable cost.

For those opposed to this network of high speed rail with federal government investment, I have to ask, "Why do you think a private company can fund and build this 7,000 mile network of high speed rail when your local transit agency has to fund and build a small 20 mile network of light rail in a large city?" I have not heard of any private company building and funding light rail anywhere...... Think about it a little......

For example, the city of Minneapolis and Saint Paul placed their new light rail sustem up for bid. Several private corporations bidded on the contract to build and operate light rail in the Twin Cities, along with the local public transit agency. The public transit agency won the bid, mostly due to the fact that it had much lower insurance costs......the private corporations couldn't compete with the local transit agency because they had much higher insurance costs......

I'd be willing to bet the same result would occur at the national level......

OK small cities at BOTH ends ehhhh? what would Amtrak charge from Cedar city Utah to Dayton Ohio?...or Colorado Springs Colorado to Terre Haute Indiana?

[Anonymous]

I thought the government dropped AMTRAK last december?

[Anonymous]

As I have posted before, I'm for federal investment into a 7,000 mile network of TGV-ICE style of high speed rail. Whether Amtrak operates this system I could care less about. But since the creation of Amtrak back during early 1970s, Amtrak has been the operator of our national passenger trains. Amtrak is government owned and operated. I don't see how another government owned or subsidized agency could do better. The problem rests with those who wi***o kill Amtrak once and for all, by underfunding Amtrak operations and maintenance....in a vain attempt to turn this service into a profit.....while at the same time providing billions upon billions to the highway and airline lobby.....

I didn't want to get personal, but those living in the large cities such as Los Angeles do not realize their cheaper air fares compared to those of us who live in small cities and towns. Since deregualtion of the airline industry, the major airlines have built hub and spoke systems providing those who live in the large cities cheaper air fares. However, those of us who don't live in the large cities are paying more......for less service.....

You complained that Amtrak charged you $350, about the same price as an airfare, to travel from Los Angeles to Fort Wayne, actually Waterloo Indiana. I wonder whether you could drive the distance for less.....and get there quicker. Yes, Amtrak sleepers are priced high, because the supply and demand aspect of the sleeper accomodations are high. For one person the sleeper costs are astronomical, but for two persons sharing a sleeper the costs reflect the price of staying in an urban hotel, such as a Holiday Inn.....

When the day arrives when TGV-ICE style high speed rail is a reality in America, there would be no reason for a train to operate at night, except for a transcontinental run. A train averaging over 150 mph with stops can easily travel the distance from Dallas to Chicago in less than 9 hours, from Dallas to Atlanta in less than 9 hours, from Chicago to New York City in less than 9 hours, from Atlanta to New York City in less than 9 hours. Catch a train early in the morning at 6 am and be there by mid afternoon at 3 pm. With two legs of the parrelegram I have proposed, one could reach New York City before midnight from Dallas. There would be more frequency, as the same number of trainsets operating today on Amtrak's routes could run the distance not of once per day but at a frequency of every two to three hours in both directions.

It would be nice if private industry would build this high speed rail network of 7,000 miles in America. But there aren't any businesses with the ca***o do so.... The only entity able to do so is the federal government. The feds can sell the bonds needed to raise the capital, and if necessary acquire the land right of way at a reasonable cost.

For those opposed to this network of high speed rail with federal government investment, I have to ask, "Why do you think a private company can fund and build this 7,000 mile network of high speed rail when your local transit agency has to fund and build a small 20 mile network of light rail in a large city?" I have not heard of any private company building and funding light rail anywhere...... Think about it a little......

For example, the city of Minneapolis and Saint Paul placed their new light rail sustem up for bid. Several private corporations bidded on the contract to build and operate light rail in the Twin Cities, along with the local public transit agency. The public transit agency won the bid, mostly due to the fact that it had much lower insurance costs......the private corporations couldn't compete with the local transit agency because they had much higher insurance costs......

I'd be willing to bet the same result would occur at the national level......

[jchnhtfd]

Deutsche Bahn passenger service, while run by a private entity, is heavily subsidised both by the Federal and Lande parliaments. Ditto UK, France, etc. etc. etc.

[PNWRMNM]

Floks,

Amrtak is the result of 125 years of govt. schizophernia. Since the 1880's they have regulated railroad rates to a greater or lesser degree. They have prevented the carriers from exiting unprofitable services - read passenger here, and worst of all have poured untold billitions of capital investment into competitive modes, barge, air, highway. Rail Passenger Miles peaked about 1920. Our Federal highway building program started in 1917. Do you think that is a co-incidence?

I believe that German Railways are state owned. I know that Germany was an economic wreck in 1945. I suspect that the Germans were smart enough to figure out that they could fix up their railroads a lot cheaper than build new roads, and would get a lot more transportation for the Mark.

The US Govt on the other hand boured billions, now hundreds of billions into highways and rode the PRR and NYC into bankruptcy. Only when faced with no more stockholder's money to steal and the real threat of shutdown did they relax their stranglehold and take the Northeast Corridor.

The problem with the NEC is lack of investment. You can date it to WWII. Even the management of the railroads figured out by 1960 that the passenger train would never pay. Remeber the Interstate higway act was 1957 or 1958. Imagine what the NEC would be if the money that went into I-95 had gone into the NEC. The problem is we have been rich and stupid. We have invested many hundreds of billions in nonrail modes and we have a most ineffecient and inneffective transportation system.

The problem is no body even knows what we did, including most of you, who should know if anybody would.

You will not see decent passenger service in this country until our entire system of subsidy collapses. Amtrak is just the poster child. Even some politicians can see that it makes no sense. Do I think they will pull the plug? NO, they are too committed to the status quo, even if it makes no sense.

[CG9602]

I support Amtrak . . with my own dollars, by purchasing tickets and riding it. One way to think of it: we have basically 2 choices in this country if we want to travel - flying or driving. Passenger rail presents a third choice in the transport marketplace. So does The bus, but that's outside the scope here. Let me put it this way: would you go to the ice cream store that offered only two flavors, or would you like to have the option to have a store thaqt offered more than 2 flavors, with the chance to choose between the stores. If you are like most people, they would like to have more choices in the marketplace.

Passenger rail, in the form of Amtrak, represents a third choice. I take the trains when the opportunity presents itself. The accomodations may be spartan, or utilitarian, but it is a valid choice for me at times. As for the air vs rail arguement: it would cost me several hundred dollars just to go from MSP - MSN via air, while amtrak offers a price of under $100, round trip.

[jeaton]

ICEtrain. I may be wrong, but I think the German Government built the railroads and bought the equipment. If not, Senator McCain, (R, AZ) would replace that service for the Sunset Limited as the poster boy for his let's stop wasting government money on passenger trains campaign.

[jeaton]

Back to cpbloom. Your'e right, and especially if the person is employed full time. Vacation days and holidays are precious and are not to be wasted for travel time on longer trips. However, in many cases, there is an automatic assumption that use of the personal vehicle is faster than the train. For example, if you are in good health, able to drive 14 straight hours with no more than three 10 minute stops, you might beat the time of Capital Limited from Chicago to DC.

[Anonymous]

I fully support AMTRAK...Greyhound stinks.

[Anonymous]

PNWRMNM stated that AMTRAK causes freight delays, but who is complaining about AMTRAK delays. The Capitol Limited passes through my town on CSX tracks, but runs through eastbound (From Chicago) on average 2 hours late because CSX owns all the track. There have also been many days where it came through around 9 pm (Its due at 11 am)!

[jeaton]

While the fun of foums is the argument, arguing the all merits of one mode of transport over the other would probably exceed all the space on this server and several others. Bottom line, I think, is when a person is ready to go some where, two primary thoughts go in, convenience (departure time and travel time) and cost-make that out of pocket cost. Usually it private vehicle vs. bus, rail or air. I make occasional trips from Southern Wisconsin to Washington, DC. I have in the past, and probably will in the future choose any of three of the four modes. If the only choice is bus, I'd rather walk. I think we would all like to see better service, probably at lower cost, on any mode, but don't plan on finding that under the tree this Christmas. By the way, for the greatest convenience, the limo-private jet combo is absolutly the best for 100-150 miles and up, although it is a little pricey.

[cpbloom]

I support AMTRAK but railfans alone can't help it. I agree with TheAntiGates; the prices are somewhat high especially if you get sleeping car "accomadations". And then I found out later that its still not enough because the Govt. has to subsidize "X" amount of dollars for what every passenger pays. I still would want it around, but it needs work.

[jeaton]

Just for the record, in FY 2002, Amtrak paid $102 Million in "rental" fees for the use of private railroad tracks. Does that cover the marginal cost? Depends. Wear on the rails-probably. Dispatching costs-maybe, if absent Amtrak, dispatcher roster could be reduced. Extra fuel and crew cost for the delay of freight trains-maybe not, that would depend on the frequency of occurance. Loss of a slot that could be used by another freight train-that's an oppurtunity cost, and depends on the the new train itself turning a profit. By the way, BNSF CEO Matt Rose said the $20 million they picked up in Amtrak on time bonuses just took discipline and was worth 3 cents a share to the BNSF owners. Doesn't sound like "I've been robbed" to me.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jchnhtfd

Relax, gentlemen (and ladies)![:D]

[:I] LOL! *this* is relaxed for me.....I just have a strict set of ethics when it comes to someone trying to hardnose me, and frame concepts as mine of origin when such is not at all the case [;)]

[Anonymous]

I support all passenger rail, including Amtrak. However I have a question.

I used to live in Germany. The Deutsche Bahn (their national railway) had a perfect network. Extremely high frequencies of regional and HSR long distance trains. Great service, too. On top of that, the ticket prices were dirt cheap! The most memorable example of the inexpensive price was the weekend pacakge. 1 family (2 adults and 3 children), any regional train (does not exeed the speed of 160km/h) in Germany, Saturday and Sunday...only 15 Deutsche Marks (less than 10 dollars!!!!!). My point is, how can they charge so little and work out fine, and passenger rail in North America cost so much and still have financial problems?

The only difference I can think of...Deutsche Bahn is private. But doesn't that mean Amtrak gets more government funding?

I know, I sound naive, but could someone please explain this to me?

[jchnhtfd]

Relax, gentlemen (and ladies)![:D]

I think a quick read of the various posts above will illustrate one thing, and, in truth, one thing only: moving people from point A to point B is a very highly political, and very highly personal, topic.

It is impossible, or virtually so, to obtain a dollar figure for each mode of transportation mentioned above (highway, rail, air) on a fully comparable basis. The various financing arrangements are complex beyond belief; the various hidden subisdies boggle the imagination -- in ALL the modes. Where it is most obvious is with air fares: is the 'true' cost of a flight from city A to city B (pick any pair, large or small) what you can find on Travelocity three months out? What you can get on Orbitz, a week out (but with a Sunday stay)? What you would pay if you showed up at the terminal three hours in advance for a business trip? You tell me, gentlemen -- I haven't a clue. But I can tell you the numbers differ by a factor of 10... and how much of my income tax should I add in for support of the air traffic system? And my local property tax (or somebody else's) for the airport? And highway to get to the airport?

Is the 'true' cost of my bus ticket what Greyhound charges me? Or should I add in the subsidies for the highway and fuel?

The same thing is true of Amtrak -- except, of course, that it pays taxes to local communities, rather than being paid by them (in most cases!) -- either directly or indirectly -- but there are lots of subisidies there, too.

You will never get agreement on the economics. You will probably never get agreement on the value to the community.

Further, it is unlikely that any amount of shouting or pulpit pounding will change the minds of most folks.

So, as I say, relax, gentlemen.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by donclark

Those who wi***o kill Amtrak have done their very best to underfund it. They will probably get their wish when the bridges fall from a lack of maintanence on the NEC. Amtrak has to purchase/lease specially made electric locomotives because the electric lines of the NEC have 3 different voltages. Any other country with high speed rail would have already made necessary changes to operate on only one voltage.

Yes, Fort Wayne is a small city. However, in your presentation Los Angeles isn't. If I were you I would check the airfares from say Santa Barbara to Fort Wayne to understand what I meant about flying to and from small cities. Obviously, you haven't a clue..... In my internet search, Expedia, the cheapest fare is $570 on the redeye with connections in Los Angeles and Chicago for a 9 hour flight later this week without a Saturday night layover, short notice. Ahhhhhhhhhh, big cities have cheaper rates than smaller cities and towns........ Makes you wonder what the price of a flight from Salt Lake City to Fort Wayne is....the cheapest I found was $530...... Just living in Los Angeles provides airfares $200 less than living in Salt Lake City or Santa Barbara....... We can play this game forever...... Notice that those opposed to Amtrak always use flights connecting the big cities..... never the smaller cities in both cases....

Don, I think you are being unkind in your assesment of my "not having a clue" and I'll tell ya, if it's really a flame war ya want, pack a lunch, as I have formidable skilz as a troll. Don't threaten me with a good time.(Just let me know, I'll be *there*)

And, you are extremely misguided in your innuendo that I might be "anti Amtrak" as I assure you that is not the case, I am anti-nonsense. And the pricing policy I experianced with Amtrak when first hoping to book a trip via rail with sleeper service WAS PURE NONSENSE. Sorry I can't hold a grudge against only parties you deem fit, but that's your job, not mine.

There is no way in hootin' holler that the cramped quarters in an Amtrak sleeper merit higher cost than a night in a standard Holiday Inn, You see, it was overnight sleeping accomodations I desired, not an opportunity to buy into an accelerated depreciation schedule, for which I'd abandon my equity in the second i stepped off the train (talk about giving a new meaning to time share) but that's what the nonsense (pricing policy)from Amtrak seems to reflect.

I'd like Amtrak to get it's act together with value related pricing, comensurate with what I receive, rather than what some boneheaded congressman thinks I might be willing to pay, if I were not adverse to nonsense.....

But adverse to Amtrak? I assure you, most certainly not!!

[michaelstevens]

Just like American politicians, you are avoiding the question and thereby withholding the "support" which a nationalized passenger rail system (AMTRAK) urgently needs.
Its starting to be gridlock out there on the Interstate highways. Probably the "post 911" consciousness is the biggest cause -- people are driving instead of flying.
AMTRAK exists. It needs fixing. It presently has its first decent manager in years. With adequate funds for modernization, added equipment and improved bribes for the class 1s, America could restore a decent passenger rail network, in pretty short order.
Note that Florida is moving ahead with its Tampa to Orlando system -- but it will take the Feds (i.e. AMTRAK) to bring that to e.g. Atlanta -- which makes all the sense in the world.

[Anonymous]

Those who wi***o kill Amtrak have done their very best to underfund it. They will probably get their wish when the bridges fall from a lack of maintanence on the NEC. Amtrak has to purchase/lease specially made electric locomotives because the electric lines of the NEC have 3 different voltages. Any other country with high speed rail would have already made necessary changes to operate on only one voltage.

Yes, Fort Wayne is a small city. However, in your presentation Los Angeles isn't. If I were you I would check the airfares from say Santa Barbara to Fort Wayne to understand what I meant about flying to and from small cities. Obviously, you haven't a clue..... In my internet search, Expedia, the cheapest fare is $570 on the redeye with connections in Los Angeles and Chicago for a 9 hour flight later this week without a Saturday night layover, short notice. Ahhhhhhhhhh, big cities have cheaper rates than smaller cities and towns........ Makes you wonder what the price of a flight from Salt Lake City to Fort Wayne is....the cheapest I found was $530...... Just living in Los Angeles provides airfares $200 less than living in Salt Lake City or Santa Barbara....... We can play this game forever...... Notice that those opposed to Amtrak always use flights connecting the big cities..... never the smaller cities in both cases....

[Willy2]

PNWRMNM: I, happen to think that Amtrak does have the skill and the will to do highspeed rail service. What would be useful to them and help them greatly would be the boost of money that they need from the government. If they had the money that they need they could fix track, upgrade service, and create a very efficient highspeed rail network throughout the northeast. If only they could get it I would be plenty happy, although I'm sure you would be spitting nails, since you're so ready for Amtrak to just leave this country and never come back.

I assure you that without Amtrak this country would not be the same. Railservice is essential in my opinion and in the opinions of many others. We should do everything we can to save Amtrak instead of saying that we wouldn't mind if it went away.

[Anonymous]

The comments you make about maintenance cost and facilities/ plant rental is 100% true, but I wouldn't go so far as to call the travel cost differential a "myth", case in point, the "LA.- Ft Wayne Indiana" trip we talked about earlier.

Ft Wayne IS a smaller town, and the round trip airfare was $350.00 and connected my ACTUAL destinations within that price.

Amtrak wanted $325.00 rountrip for coach (add a sleeper and the cost skyrocked) took 6 days instead of 2, and dropped me off 32 miles out in the boonies.

This latter item gives thekiss of death to your representation, as even if I give it the most liberal of ground, that add on of roundtrip shuttle adds more than $25 to the farebox price, andall you will find at the Waterloo In "amtrak station" is a concrete ramp, a rain shield, and a pay phone (with no phonebook) just try and turn *that* into a rental car at 11 PM, I dare ya. No cab service in Waterloo, they roll up the sidewalk at sundown and put it away in this town of 2,200 people, so you are literally stuck in a corn field at midnight, unles you contract ahead with a shuttle, (hint for more than $25.00 round trip)

So, it's not exactly a myth...

[PNWRMNM]

Don,

Amtrak pays only avoidable costs to freight railroads. The on time bonus is peanuts compared to what Amtrak costs in freight train delays. They made no contribution to the joint costs of keeping the railroad in business. They are robbers!

Imagine the Government told you you had to take in a boarder. They will get one of your bedrooms which you do not need because your kid just left for college. They get to use the kitchen whenever they want and use the phone whenever they want and invite in whomever and whenever they want. For this you will be paid avoidable cost. What is your avoidable cost?? You are already paying the mortgage and taxes so that is not avoidable. Maybe they use a few more gallons of water and a bit of electricity, so the govt will pay you $25 a month. Of course if you dont keep the house clean enough for them, they will female dog and moan and all thier friends will call you a dirty rotten, you fill in the rest. How would you like that deal? Amtrak is in the position of the favored family and the freight railroads are in your shoes.

On the NEC the shoe is on the other foot. The commuters pay Amtrak only avoidable cost. That was one of the things the commission, sorry I forgot the name, that formally declared that Amtrak would never make money pointed out. They claim Amtrak gets stuck for $500 million a year on this account. That is probably true and probably in the ball park of what the freight railroads get stuck supporting Amtrak.

I think an honest case can be made for the NEC. I can see no case for robbing the freight railroads to support Amtrak.

Second point. Amtrak will never be able to do the high speed rail that you so ardently desire. They have neither the skill nor the will. If that is what you want, make an honest case for the NEC with a new owner who can charge the commuters market rates. Then you have a chance to expand on a rational basis. Amtrak is an albatros.

[Anonymous]

What theft PNWRMNM? Amtrak pays a fee to the private freight companies to use their railroad tracks, and a very nice bonus if the trains arrive on time 90% through the private's dispatching. Yes, the privates could earn more if they dispatched their own freight train through a slot instead of an Amtrak train. However, I don't see the railroads giving back any FRA funds provided by the feds.... I don't see the railroads giving back their federal gasoline tax exemptions either....

Have you seen Amtrak's budget? Take a look at it..... Amtrak spends millions to use the right of way of the private railroads. Amtrak spends millions leasing former private railroads depots and stations. Amtrak spends millions contributing to the railroad workers retirement fund, the same one the privates use.

Amtrak also owns some right of way, the all important NEC. Amtrak needs to spend billions to get this track up to snuff, including rebuilding some tunnels and draw bridges along that route. Congress was supposed to have funded this ten years ago when Amtrak contracted out to lease the Acelas. Well, Congress hasn't.....

Since you are so opposed to funding the upkeep of Amtrak's own tracks, I supposed I will have to be opposed to funding the maintanence of any highways you use daily..... WE'LL SEE HOW LONG YOUR ROADS LAST!

Those opposed to Amtrak funding like to show a myth about how much cheaper it is to fly from Phoenix to Orlando. What they never show is how much cheaper it is to ride a train from Alpine Texas to Orlando...... Frankly, it is more expensive to fly into small towns than it is to ride Amtrak half way across America...... And I don't see the airlines changing their ticket prices policies any......

[Anonymous]

I ride Amtrak often. With my inner ear condition, I hate to fly. I am of an age where driving across the country isn't a kick anymore. When I ride the trains I get rest and relaxation. When I drive I need to take a day of rest when I get there, with the trains I rest on the way there.

Of course I could take a bus. Well that's what the folks who want to kill Amtrak say. However, Greyhound no longer serves my town with a scheduled service of once a week anymore, much less every day. So much for the bus...... At least Amtrak offers daily service in both directions in a town nearby. The closest airport with a scheduled service is two hours away. The train depot is a half an hour away.....

Yes, I ride Amtrak often. It happens to stop nearby, The service may not be the best, but it beats the bus.

[JoeKoh]

I hope not.i was hoping to take matt to chicago on it from toledo bryan or Fostoria.
stay safe
Joe

[PNWRMNM]

Scottydog,

I visit this forum because I am interested in railroading. Amtrak is a hidden tax on the railroad system that never should have happened, and never would if the railroads had been allowed to quit the business in the 1960's which would have been the case if we had a rational transportation policy, which we do not.

Now you have the government taking private property, the railroads' capacity, without compensation. That is theft, sanctioned by your US Congress of course. Meanwhile the govt provides right of way for highways, barge operators and airlines with massive subsidies and nobody even knows what is going on.

Further, if you really want decent passenger service you will never get it from Amtrak. It is a political creature. As such its mission is to spend your tax dollars, not to provide a service that people will buy. Amtrak must go.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton

Yes, for my mother, who is now in her late 80's and for which there is no other means of long distance travel to visit family and friends. For myself, age 63 and retired, because I have the time and no longer find ANY pleasure in driving long distances. For any of the 75 million baby boomers who will reach retirement age in the next decade and be in a situation somewhere between mine and my mother's.

I have brought up this same thing in other threads about Amtrak and passenger service. My mother is in her mid 80s, had never flown and NEVER WILL. We must keep and improve Amtrak. I believe where the tracks are crowded that the government should help add trackage. This not only would help Amtrak stay on schedule but would help the freight railroads as well.

We must do something and start now for the furute or it will just get worse.

[jeaton]

Yes, for my mother, who is now in her late 80's and for which there is no other means of long distance travel to visit family and friends. For myself, age 63 and retired, because I have the time and no longer find ANY pleasure in driving long distances. For any of the 75 million baby boomers who will reach retirement age in the next decade and be in a situation somewhere between mine and my mother's.

[jchnhtfd]

Better believe I do! In both senses -- as probably the best approach (in general -- see below!) to have passenger transportation in the US, and as a way to get from place to place -- if there is a train going my way, I'll take it in preference to any other mode.

Michael's comment on the real time involved in flying is right on -- particularly from the centre of any sizable city. You have to get to the airport. You have to get your boarding pass. You have to clear security. You have to be there ahead of time. Your plane is late leaving. Then you have to do the whole thing in reverse at the other end (assuming you don't fly to Chicago to get from New York to Miami, for instance) (does anyone but me know the airline hub joke: when you die, you have fly to Atlanta to change planes to get to heaven or hell!)

Passenger trains, however, do not and never have made money (so far as I know, anywhere in the world!). Therefore, they need public support. At the present the funding for Amtrak -- not Amtrak itself, but the funding for it -- is a continuing bad joke. That aspect of it I do NOT support!

[kenneo]

I think the original question, when it was asked "do you support", support was intended to me RIDE the National Railroad Passenger Corporation's products.

Do I? Yes. Have since inception. Have introduced others to the pleasure of riding a train as opposed to driving a car, riding a bus or an airplane.

At the end of October, I took a group of 11 from Posrtland to Seattle roundtrip on the TALGO. UP split a switch in Albany and delayed the train (#500) which originated in Eugene by 1.5 hours. They all thought that it was a really great experience - I was mortified by what was going on. AMTK bussed as many of the Portland passengers as they could to Seattle since most of them were going to a Mariners game. (Mariners and Seahawks stadiums are next to Kink Street Station in Seattle) Still, the train was SRO out of Portland and return from Seattle (#509) with about another trains capacity on AMTK charted busses.

On our return, we were spiked by the Columbia Draw for a tow to pass and arrived back in Portland 15 minutes late. Had we been able to leave Vancouver OT we would have been 10 minutes early.

Point of all this? We have a situation in the US at this time of "Run the Train - THEY WILL COME" as long as the schedules are reasonable and that service is advertised and otherwise promoted well.

Where there was .5 (as in every-other-day 6 days per week) trains per day in 1972 between Eugene and Seattle and none between Seattle and Vancouver BC, there are now 12 per day - 12 PORT-SEA (includes the 6 Eugene trains), 6 EUG-SEA, 2 continue on the EVerett and one more on to BC. That is the same number of trains running in 1960. Sparse ridership in 1960, full most of the time now. State supports (US, WA and OR) is close to break-even at $11 per seat, and the runs earn their costs when they are full.

I rest my case.


YES, I ride AMTK. So do a whole lot of others.

[Anonymous]

Why would anyone, who does not support Amtrak as our only remaining passenger service, write or even visit these forums? Surely Amtrak is as much a part of railroading as any freight. It astonishes me.

[michaelstevens]

I use Amtrak regularly, here in the North East -- e.g the Acela between Phila and NY.
Increasingly, I perceive, rail is becoming the preferred mode anywhere between DC and Boston.
Almost certainly, a majority of North Eastern voters support Amtrak and/or publicly subsidized passenger rail transportation.
Its a cultural thing, however, because elsewhere (e.g. Pittsburgh) people don't even consider taking the train. There are two each day, to Philadelphia -- but Amtrak takes over 7 hours, when flying only takes 1 hour.
Now if Pittsburghians, Harrisburgians, Lancastrians, Altoonans etc. were to agree with me, in sufficient numbers, that
(i) It actually takes at least 4 hours to fly, by the time you've got to & from the airports, checked in 2 hours early etc.
(ii) I don't want to risk being hi-jacked to save 3 hours
(iii) Politicians might be persuaded to invest in faster trains.
Then Pennsylvanians and other Americans might have the option -- as do Europeans, everywhere -- of travelling 350 miles (by train) in well under 4 hours.

[Anonymous]

I support AMTRAK and will ride it when I can. I hate flying anymore. The hub system has taken me miles and hours out of my way and the arilines pack you in like sardines. The last time I flew down to Houston from Chicago, I spent the return trip with my back bent at a 45 degree angle because the guy next to me resembled Jobba the Hut and the seats on airplanes are designed for anorexics! By the time we landed at O'Hare, I was in serious pain and didn't stop hurting until the next day.

I do think that the track and ROW maintenance ought to be publicly funded and improved substantially. I'd also like to see some more high speed corridors in other parts of the country. Right now it takes me 4 hours or so to get to the Des Moines area to visit my sis and the train station is in some little tank town. It would be so much better if the train could average 90 mph and stop in downtown Des Moines!

[Willy2]

YES! I do support Amtrak 100%. Where would our country be without Amtrak? Amtrak is the last remaining passenger service that can get you from one end of this country to the other. It's late sometimes, that's true, but so what?! Without Amtrak railfans would be heartbroken ( at least I would be ) and we would all have to fly. Do we all want to fly everyplace we go? NO! There is a terrorist threat, and some people would rather watch the scenery go by the window in a dome car then watch the scenery go by thousands of feet below them. I happen to be one of those people. Amtrak can make it with the help of all of its loyal supporters! Support Amtrak!

[Anonymous]

Do I support Amtrak?

YES, YES, AND YES.

If Amtrak dies there will be no other passenger service in this country. The railroads won't allow it. We must continue to have Amtrak and improve its funding so it can compete with bus and air travel.

I have ridden Amtrak and look forward to this coming summer. (John get ready.)

[PNWRMNM]

I would be happy to see Amtrak go.

[Anonymous]

I support it. That doesn't matter though. Becasue Amtrak cannot survive if only readers of this forum support it. We need to get message through to all Americans. We if they have good enough resons to give up their RVs, motorhomes or air travel they will use our pasenger rail system.

[Anonymous]

For the record: when I posed this question, I wasn't questionning the legitimacy of Amtrak by any means. I'm a big supporter of passenger train travel in America, and I really want Amtrak to succeed. When you look at the congestion on our interstate system, plus factor in the hassle (and, for some of us, fear) of flying, Amtrak shines. Improvements are needed of course--and if given the funds necessary to implement changes, Amtrak could prove itself a most attractive option to other modes of transportation. Right now, it's a diamond in need of polish. Let's hope the government recognizes the gem it has in it's grasp and opts to restore the luster it deserves. Come what may, I'll be a loyal supporter to the very end.

[Granny74]

I fully support Amtrak. I know it has its problems I am looking forward to feeling better so that I can take my trip to Seattle on the Coast Starlight.
Bob from AZ

[Modelcar]

....Sure I want rail travel..such as Amtrak to survive, but I believe we can all agree if it is agreed that we will continue with it, it does need some tuning up and changes to the system to do a better job of moving passengers. We all know it needs a solid method of funding too. Surely there are enough smart minds in this country to figure out how to bring that about. Perhaps it could be structured to be morphed into high speed rail when society and the country is ready for it too....

[Anonymous]

Authough I myself do not ride AMTRAK, I support it all the way. I believe that someday, people will realize that the railroad is still the best way to travel, and Highways will be lined with rail. OK, I'm dreaming, but AMTRAK may be our last chance at keeping passenger rail alive. Hey, if they can do it in France, Germany, Japan, Canada, and Britain, So can the United states.

AMTRAK - Antonym~ American Made Trains Real And Clean[:p]

[Anonymous]

I certainly do! If it goes where I want ot go, I will use it.