AMTRAK: Do you support it?

[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]

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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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......

[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

[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 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

[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]

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?

[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]

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.

[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]

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 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


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


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

[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: 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]

[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]

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.....

[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]

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.

[willy6]

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

[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

[Anonymous]

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

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

[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!