AMTRAK: Do you support it?

[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.

[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]

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.

[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)!

[Anonymous]

I fully support AMTRAK...Greyhound stinks.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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......

[Anonymous]

I thought the government dropped AMTRAK last december?

[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?

[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 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.

[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]

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.

[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 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.

[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]

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.

[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]

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

[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]

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.

[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

[JoeUmp]

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

[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!

[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]

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!