I really think we should reject the whole "Nixon-conspired-to-fail-Amtrak" theory.
History doesn't add this up. I sure would like to know how they were able to immediately purchase Turboliners and continue the Metroliner if that were really true. And the E-series electrics, and AEM-7, and Amfleet series one and two, and Viewliner, and Superliner.
Oh, and while I'm at it, allowing a pro-passenger-rail firebrand like the great Graham Claytor to run the system at all.
I really think this theory should be laid to rest.
Amtrak was built on the recognition by the USA that other countries already realized: that passenger rail is subsidized just like all other passenger modes are and should not be allowed to become extinct.
I for one still believe that Amtraks biggest problem was the far to early retirement of the cars they received from the RRs at the beginning of Amtrak.
Canada has proven that the Budd cars that were built in the 1950s can serve well today just as the did when first purchased. They are are going through a second extension of life at the present time which should keep them running until at least 2035. The bodies have held up extremely well and the interiors though expensive are easily replaced. HEP was already installed in these cars years ago and even all liquid waste is contained within the cars and pumped out in route at certain station stops. .
Amtrak was to anxious to show the world that they could bring new equipment to the public when certain routes should probably be still operating with Heritage equipment. For one thing we would not be wasting money on additional Viewliners. We would still have plenty of 10-6s in service to meet any needs for holiday rush and additional sleepers would be available for eastern trains. The Capitol Limited could still be operated with Budd consists instead of Superliners freeing up those cars for western trains.
For very little money from Amtraks budget they could make minor track improvements that would speed up a number of trains making it possible to speed up certain western schedules. I am thinking of the Coast Starlight in particular. Thers is no reason that four sets of equipment should be tied up for this train when with a modest speed up three sets of equipment could do the job. Look at the timing of the train today between Oakland and Portland. The SP Cascade and Shasta Daylights operated on faster timings then todays Coast Starlight and that was in the 1950"s. Other than the Coast line ther is not much scenery to be seen on this route and a substantial speed up would free up one set of equipment and encourage more people to take the train than do today because of the trains time keeping.
The Southwest Chief could also be speeded up another route that does not match the time keeping of the 1950 era Super Chief or El Capitan. Even the Empire Builder could be speeded up to match the time keeping of the 1954 train at least.
The California Zephyr is a different story it is a train that promotes scenery and should be sold with that in mind. One Superliner lounge on this train between Denver and Salt Lake and Reno and Oakland does not do the train justice. A second Superliner lounge should be added to each train for the two portions of the trip I mentioned. Everytime I have traveled on the California Zephyr there are people just waiting to find a seat in the lounge to view the scenery. It is always overcrowded. By speeding up other trains in the west it should be possible to come up with four additional Superliner lounges for the California Zephyr. I don't know how many times I have heard passengers travelling on the California Zephyr complain about having spent all that money on the trip and can't even get a seat in the lounge to see the scenery. Maybe Amtrak should have kept the other two former Santa Fe lounges and rebuilt them for the Oakland - Reno part of the trip on the California Zephyr. Something seriously needs to be done about the lack of lounge space on this train. If people just want transportation between Chicago and San Francisco they will fly. Remember even Greyhound is faster than the California Zephyr or Coast Starlight.
Al - in - Stockton
Dam..., oops! I had better say "Darn", to keep the SD-MN-WI moderators off my a**. Such silliness! Anyhoo, your post is great! I travel on the "Empire Builder" a lot. I do like the "Superliner" sleepers. I also prefer the "Viewliner" sleepers, with their limited capacity a given, and the surly attendants, in the east, a given, too. The "Viewliners" could do without the in-room TV's, IMO. Our "Superliner" 'Sightseer Lounges' are rarely filled, given the price of beer ($5.50 / bottle!), but the NPS volunteers give a bit of a break, getting the kids to look out the windows, instead of playing board games. "Wow! An antelope!", "Wow! A cow!". I was a Budd "Slumbercoach" fan. Lots of capacity, compared to the "Viewliners". Cheaper, too. Is there a "Retirement Home" for such cars? Canada has truly demonstrated that they aren't ready for retirement. Amtrak's full-dome car, that runs on the "Adirondack" during the fall foliage season, could be added to the CZ. It does need a new paint scheme, but they could do that when they take the plastic wrap off of it. Ugly, that was! There are other "full domes" around. The "Capitol Limited" doesn't need "Superliners". You can tell SEN Byrd that! Lot's of luck!
Okay. What/where are the old cars in the "boneyard"? Might even pry Mr. Boardman out of DC to look at them (doubt it!). Has he ever been on an Amtrak train? David Gunn, he is not! Maybe if he gets a permanent appointment... Just some thoughts.
Yes, its a known fact that Amtrak was designed to relieve American railroads of having to run passenger trains. And that it was thought that with huge sums of monies going to highway and airline maarketing, why, then, the passenger train will just fade out of existance. It was a payoff to big business railroading to rid them of the albatross so that they could capture the gold of freight traffic with no encomberance. What the solons of public service failed to realize was that the public wanted and needed rail passenger service despite thier efforts to sell them the alternatives. Nixon and company crafted the machinery to remove the burden of passengers from the private sector with the idea that it need not be funded, peopled, or otherwise supported because it was supposed to just go away. Those who were selected to serve were chosen for the publicity of thier past endeavors, given a rah rah cheer, then litrally turned loose. When these leaders came back to the Feds with the story that passenger trains and passenger services were both needed and wanted, they lost favor and were soon gone.
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
So now we can blame Bush for the lack of leadership in Amtrak----
And we now have people who think governments have a role in HSR----
Any argument carried far enough will end up in Semantics--Hartz's law of rhetoric Emerald. Leemer and Southern The route of the Sceptre Express Barry
I just started my blog site...more stuff to come...
http://modeltrainswithmusic.blogspot.ca/
1. I agree about the Budd 10 and 6's, especially since many already incurred the expense for conversion to head end power and retention toilets. That money should not have been wasted, and those cars kept as a reserve fleet. Ditto Budd coaches. And diners and lounges.
2. I too was a Slumbercoach fan, rode them on the Denver Zephyr, the de-Pullmaned Century, after Amtrak's start the Broadway, the Backhawk, the Mainstreeter or North Coast Limited, a B&O train between Pittsburgh and Washington, the New England States many times, the Wolverine, and the "Steel Fleet" predicessor to the Lake Shore. But Amtrak found converting to retention toilets was to be extremely expensive and amount to a major rebuilding. I have to forgive them.
3. Most of your other comments make sense. Some of the best scenery between Portland and Oakland is now at night anyway.
I am all for high-speed rail, but I favor an incremental approach, that improves freight capacity at the same time, and that gets the most for the whole country for each amount spent. I continue to think a national network remains absolutely necessary. I also favor lots of coordibnation with buses.
When people point and shake thier fingers at us pro rail passenger advocates, be it HSR or what, for comparing the US to European or Asian systems and tell us we are not Europe or Asia, I can only think that they are more interested in saving thier status quo butts rather than meeting the world head on. I mean if Europe or Japan or China can run high speed passenger and higher than our frieght speeds, then why can't we have a duel system. I hate to point to the legal trade as placing fear in the pocketbooks of railroads and government, but that is often the case. If you don't want to run a company to provide the service you are named for, then go make pizzas!
henry6 When people point and shake thier fingers at us pro rail passenger advocates, be it HSR or what, for comparing the US to European or Asian systems and tell us we are not Europe or Asia, I can only think that they are more interested in saving thier status quo butts rather than meeting the world head on. I mean if Europe or Japan or China can run high speed passenger and higher than our frieght speeds, then why can't we have a duel system. I hate to point to the legal trade as placing fear in the pocketbooks of railroads and government, but that is often the case. If you don't want to run a company to provide the service you are named for, then go make pizzas!
Good rant here! The only problem here is that this sounds more like a 'teen's waah about the fact that everyone else is wearing Tommy Hilfiger and why can't I?!?!?
I want to see a business model that'll work without necessarily wacking the taxpayer such that whatever economic benefits aren't clobbered by the tax rates needed. There seems to be a lot more people living in Europe than here remember-----
blownout cylinder henry6 When people point and shake thier fingers at us pro rail passenger advocates, be it HSR or what, for comparing the US to European or Asian systems and tell us we are not Europe or Asia, I can only think that they are more interested in saving thier status quo butts rather than meeting the world head on. I mean if Europe or Japan or China can run high speed passenger and higher than our frieght speeds, then why can't we have a duel system. I hate to point to the legal trade as placing fear in the pocketbooks of railroads and government, but that is often the case. If you don't want to run a company to provide the service you are named for, then go make pizzas! Good rant here! The only problem here is that this sounds more like a 'teen's waah about the fact that everyone else is wearing Tommy Hilfiger and why can't I?!?!? I want to see a business model that'll work without necessarily wacking the taxpayer such that whatever economic benefits aren't clobbered by the tax rates needed. There seems to be a lot more people living in Europe than here remember-----
Thank you! I can't stand the argument of "Europe and Asia have high speed rail, so America should too."
An "expensive model collector"
Its not a matter that we should have it because others have it but because we need it. We need it to stay competitive with the rest of the world. We hear from so many rah rah Americans who are just feeling good about themselves and thier past rather than seeing the future for those who haven't arrived yet. I know, I know, if we need it, then somebody who can make a buck doing it should do it; and if he can't make a buck, we don't need it. I just don't buy into that self serving complacency. We send jobs overseas, we import parts and whole products, we borrow money from overseas, we are allowing overseas to overtake us. When are we going to take our own fate into our own hands? If we don't, then we don't have to worry about paying for it as we will be some other country's constituants.
henry6 Its not a matter that we should have it because others have it but because we need it. We need it to stay competitive with the rest of the world. We hear from so many rah rah Americans who are just feeling good about themselves and thier past rather than seeing the future for those who haven't arrived yet. I know, I know, if we need it, then somebody who can make a buck doing it should do it; and if he can't make a buck, we don't need it. I just don't buy into that self serving complacency. We send jobs overseas, we import parts and whole products, we borrow money from overseas, we are allowing overseas to overtake us. When are we going to take our own fate into our own hands? If we don't, then we don't have to worry about paying for it as we will be some other country's constituants.
How do you think that the goverment will fund a HSR project? Much like everything they do these days, is will be with borrowed money from overseas. So right there is a reason to not build it. Having HSR or not has nothing to do with being competive on the world market, that is a sham that HSR cheerleaders like to shout, but in the real world means nothing. Your are right however, that this county has some serious problems, but the lack of HSR is not one of them.
But it is a matter of coming up with something that some of us could sink our teeth into!----give me some kind of business plan or summat. How would you finance the dang thing---and I am not doing this to be self complacent for pete sake. All this is doing is starting to come across like there is really no plan. 'rah rah americans'? self serving complacency? Where? A prophecy of economic doom if we do not do this right away. Again---prove to me that there is a NEED. As if HSR by itself will rescue the US from certain doom----?!
'When are we going to take our fate into our own hands' Prove to this little one that doing it the way Europe is is taking it into your own hands. Why does everything have to be done like right now? This does not work--all this is doing is still coming across like a 'teens 'waaah!!'
Sheeesh
Why should the country and its population be deprived of one type of transportation but favored with others? And one of the things that I am saying is that the whole transportation systems has to be revised and integrated and portioned and partitioned and whatever else. Accept that we subsidize all the other forms of transportation and therefore, there should be no reason not to include rail. And also accept the fact that a lot of rail has been subsidized or othewise supported by our governments since 1830. Our whole transportation system has to be almost reinvented. The way we've thought about trains and roads and waterways and airports has to be rethought. In Europe private enterprise operates airports and water ports, but all you guys spout is the socialistic way they run thier railroads! Get real!
henry6 Why should the country and its population be deprived of one type of transportation but favored with others? And one of the things that I am saying is that the whole transportation systems has to be revised and integrated and portioned and partitioned and whatever else. Accept that we subsidize all the other forms of transportation and therefore, there should be no reason not to include rail. And also accept the fact that a lot of rail has been subsidized or othewise supported by our governments since 1830. Our whole transportation system has to be almost reinvented. The way we've thought about trains and roads and waterways and airports has to be rethought. In Europe private enterprise operates airports and water ports, but all you guys spout is the socialistic way they run thier railroads! Get real!
Look. If you want to subsidize a train so that a few people can get to some place like Bradley SD then go ahead.
"Our whole transportation system has to be almost reinvented. Sheeesh! Panic Redoing for Panic Times is it now? The whole system is now so bad that some have even advocated the total tearing up of all the rails, airports and highways to build everything a la The Jetsons for crying out loud.There was a kind of squawk going on by all these people like Barry Schumaker back then in the 1970's that small would be the key in the future--because even then the transportation system was in ICU. I do believe that, like a certain poet once said, it is arrogant of a generation to believe that it is going down to destruction in front of the greatest forces unleashed by Nature, God or whatever. So lets cut the pre-apocalyptic rhetoric. There really is no need for this type of rhetoric in the first place.
Electrification of all the rail system, VHSR, I'm going to throw out heliports for VTOL shuttle craft, Wire by Remote cars, all kindsa stuff being looked into. Solar Power short commute vehicles----we really do not need to feed into some giant existentialist angst bucket now. I've worked with one fellow back in the early '80's who went across the US with a Solar Powered trike that he wired up for computers even then---and he emailed me all over the place. Maybe we also should encourage private--there is that dang word again ---innovation as well?
aegrotatio I really think we should reject the whole "Nixon-conspired-to-fail-Amtrak" theory.History doesn't add this up. I sure would like to know how they were able to immediately purchase Turboliners and continue the Metroliner if that were really true. And the E-series electrics, and AEM-7, and Amfleet series one and two, and Viewliner, and Superliner. Oh, and while I'm at it, allowing a pro-passenger-rail firebrand like the great Graham Claytor to run the system at all.I really think this theory should be laid to rest.Amtrak was built on the recognition by the USA that other countries already realized: that passenger rail is subsidized just like all other passenger modes are and should not be allowed to become extinct.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
So, Blownout, why should I pay for an airline flight that I'll never use and only one person a week uses? Or a highway in northsouthnowhere that not only will I never use myself, but is only used seasonally by two trucks. Your arguement cannot hold up! But I do agree, and my major point is, that our transportation system has to be all but reinvented. That doesn't mean that everything has to be thrown out but rather that it all has to be reorganized and reapportioned, totally rethought.
henry6In Europe private enterprise operates airports and water ports, but all you guys spout is the socialistic way they run thier railroads!
In fact, European rail is becoming even less socialized than before. For example, DB AG is the company that operates most of the rail transportation in Germany and through subsidiaries in other European countries. Since its inception in 1994 as a stock corporation (with all the stock held by the government), it has run under a business model.
It clearly is turning a nice profit. Later this year or early next, it will have an IPO.
"Peter Ramsauer, Germany's transport minister said that the timing of a partial privatization of Deutsche Bahn AG would depend on a capital market recovery. He added that an initial public offering would depend on “how the situation on the capital markets looks.” He added that any privatization must be partial, with certain assets kept under government ownership. He also said, “The network and infrastructure must stay permanently in the hands of the state.”" (Business Week, 11/11/2009)
Perhaps that sort of an arrangement, with some modifications, could work for Amtrak here.
Here is a link to financial figures for 2007:
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
henry6 So, Blownout, why should I pay for an airline flight that I'll never use and only one person a week uses? Or a highway in northsouthnowhere that not only will I never use myself, but is only used seasonally by two trucks. Your arguement cannot hold up! But I do agree, and my major point is, that our transportation system has to be all but reinvented. That doesn't mean that everything has to be thrown out but rather that it all has to be reorganized and reapportioned, totally rethought.
OK--and who is going to be doing the decision making? A czar from within some transportation ministry? Or will the taxpayer be consulted in some way? I think my concern here is that much of what we are discussing will not amount to a hill of beans if the whole debate is centered on the 'urban' side of the coin. Those who are in smaller/rural areas/communities also get clobbered with the same tax burden hence----
Some kind of IPO is a possibility here as well. I'd be willing to entertain that as a possibility b/c it is a voluntary procedure. Unlike some 'forced' taxation process that is imposed from on high.
henry6 Why should the country and its population be deprived of one type of transportation but favored with others?
Why should the country and its population be deprived of one type of transportation but favored with others?
I will be looking for your posts on boatnerd.com about highspeed ferries that need to be brought run from Milwaukee WI to Michigan City IN.
henry6And one of the things that I am saying is that the whole transportation systems has to be revised and integrated and portioned and partitioned and whatever else. Accept that we subsidize all the other forms of transportation and therefore, there should be no reason not to include rail.
Please show me where anyone here has argued that passenger rail is NOT subsidezed.
henry6 In Europe private enterprise operates airports and water ports, but all you guys spout is the socialistic way they run thier railroads! Get real!
And that seems to be a growing trend in the U.S. as well. Midway airport in Chicago is leased out to the private sector. The Chicago Skyway and Indiana Tollroad are leased out, and I am sure that there are others.
n012944henry6And one of the things that I am saying is that the whole transportation systems has to be revised and integrated and portioned and partitioned and whatever else. Accept that we subsidize all the other forms of transportation and therefore, there should be no reason not to include rail. Please show me where anyone here has argued that passenger rail is NOT subsidezed.
Perhaps you misread what henry6 was saying. He never claimed that anyone on this site has argued that passenger rail is not subsidized. Rather, that ultimately all forms of public transport in the US are subsidized in one form or another to varying degrees, so why the opposition to rail.
schlimmn012944 henry6And one of the things that I am saying is that the whole transportation systems has to be revised and integrated and portioned and partitioned and whatever else. Accept that we subsidize all the other forms of transportation and therefore, there should be no reason not to include rail. Please show me where anyone here has argued that passenger rail is NOT subsidezed. Perhaps you misread what henry6 was saying. He never claimed that anyone on this site has argued that passenger rail is not subsidized. Rather, that ultimately all forms of public transport in the US are subsidized in one form or another to varying degrees, so why the opposition to rail.
n012944 henry6And one of the things that I am saying is that the whole transportation systems has to be revised and integrated and portioned and partitioned and whatever else. Accept that we subsidize all the other forms of transportation and therefore, there should be no reason not to include rail. Please show me where anyone here has argued that passenger rail is NOT subsidezed.
Because all of passenger rail is subsidezed versus a very small percentage of airline flights. Because for the mosst part people would rather pay to have the freedom of the auto versus being tied to a passenger rail schedule. Because passenger boat operations is but a blip on the radar in this county, and the same could be said for over the road bus operations. HSR outside the northeast, and for the most part passenger rail in general besides commuter, is viewed as pork.
n012944 schlimmn012944 henry6And one of the things that I am saying is that the whole transportation systems has to be revised and integrated and portioned and partitioned and whatever else. Accept that we subsidize all the other forms of transportation and therefore, there should be no reason not to include rail. Please show me where anyone here has argued that passenger rail is NOT subsidezed. Perhaps you misread what henry6 was saying. He never claimed that anyone on this site has argued that passenger rail is not subsidized. Rather, that ultimately all forms of public transport in the US are subsidized in one form or another to varying degrees, so why the opposition to rail. Because all of passenger rail is subsidezed versus a very small percentage of airline flights. Because for the mosst part people would rather pay to have the freedom of the auto versus being tied to a passenger rail schedule. Because passenger boat operations is but a blip on the radar in this county, and the same could be said for over the road bus operations. HSR outside the northeast, and for the most part passenger rail in general besides commuter, is viewed as pork.
No two people have the same perception of what is pork and what is ham.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
n012944 [ Because all of passenger rail is subsidezed versus a very small percentage of airline flights. Because for the mosst part people would rather pay to have the freedom of the auto versus being tied to a passenger rail schedule. Because passenger boat operations is but a blip on the radar in this county, and the same could be said for over the road bus operations. HSR outside the northeast, and for the most part passenger rail in general besides commuter, is viewed as pork.
[ Because all of passenger rail is subsidezed versus a very small percentage of airline flights. Because for the mosst part people would rather pay to have the freedom of the auto versus being tied to a passenger rail schedule. Because passenger boat operations is but a blip on the radar in this county, and the same could be said for over the road bus operations. HSR outside the northeast, and for the most part passenger rail in general besides commuter, is viewed as pork.
But part of my point is that we must rethink, redesign, and remarket our enitre transportation system...for passengers and frieght...to meet the environment, space, and social needs of the future. Because what was, was, and will have to be can't be what was! We must unshackle the past procedures and thinking and almost start anew!
henry6 Because what was, was, and will have to be can't be what was! We must unshackle the past procedures and thinking and almost start anew!
I can see where this would come from--an impatience with a reluctance to jump into change--
The only issue here is how this change should come about. Do we as citizens of a country participate in a dialog of what and how this change should come about, or do we find a czar who knows the truth and can do the work themselves? Combinations? What?
The overall tone seems more like a Futurist Manifesto --except now I detect a hint of --"Oh! This merely material world! I want to be shed of it!" rejection of the past. BTW---a scribe in the 3rd dynasty of the Egyptian court of that era wrote something to the exact same refrain: "Oh for words never spoken before by man!!"
There are SOME aspects of said past--remember the comments regarding Single System Zoning in urban development and what that done?---that are still useful. How you going to get people to go HSR or Green when people live 15 miles from a grocery store because the single system zoning placed residences that far away from retail? The 'new' is not so easily taken after those gaffs!
Think new. Yes. But also think smarter--just because something may have come from the--ohno ohno--past should not render it bilgewater
henry6 So, Blownout, why should I pay for an airline flight that I'll never use and only one person a week uses?
So, Blownout, why should I pay for an airline flight that I'll never use and only one person a week uses?
One could argue the same thing the other way as well. I have been paying federal income tax since I was 15 years old, so a total of 16 years. In that 16 years, and for my 31 years on this earth for that matter, I have never ridden Amtrak as a paying passenger. How much have I been taxed in that 16 years for something that I have never been on besides a road review that my employer requires?
BTW I would love to see this one person a week flight that you reference.
n012944henry6 So, Blownout, why should I pay for an airline flight that I'll never use and only one person a week uses? One could argue the same thing the other way as well. I have been paying federal income tax since I was 15 years old, so a total of 16 years. In that 16 years, and for my 31 years on this earth for that matter, I have never ridden Amtrak as a paying passenger. How much have I been taxed in that 16 years for something that I have never on besides a road review that my employer requires? BTW I would love to see this one person a week flight that you reference.
One could argue the same thing the other way as well. I have been paying federal income tax since I was 15 years old, so a total of 16 years. In that 16 years, and for my 31 years on this earth for that matter, I have never ridden Amtrak as a paying passenger. How much have I been taxed in that 16 years for something that I have never on besides a road review that my employer requires?
We pay collectively for a host of governmental services we may never directly or indirectly or only slightly use because that is what it means to be a citizen. For examples: fire and police protection, schools, parks, many museums, state universities and community colleges, most highways and streets, ATC's for general aviation, and on and on. And yes, Essential Air Services, because without them, some people would have no service. So it is hardly surprising that many believe more and improved subsidized transit and passenger rail systems would benefit many, especially in the more congested parts of our nation. Not everyone benefits directly, individually or equally, but there is a benefit to the citizenry as a nation.
BTW, I have been loyally paying my income tax, property tax sales tax, etc. for over 40 years, as have many of you even longer.
We, in Montana, are blessed with the "Essential Air Services" boondoggle. The services go, mostly, to burgs already serviced by Amtrak (eg.: Wolf Point, MT) and fly empty, which they don't in the winter. Mostly, they don't get off the ground! Unfortunately, my representative supports this waste of taxpayers monies. Yar!, he sports facial hair, so I don't trust him much (even though I vote for him).
The "EAS" passenger load figures are available, somewhere. I saw them, but didn't save the site.
The cost of the DHS Airport Security Screeners (24/7), for these "Flights-to-Nowhere" are not shown in the EAS budget. Truly amazing! Janet loves it!
As a retired soldier (33+ years), I have great respect for the U. S. Army's "Combat Engineers". The, so called, 'Army Corps of Engineers' is a different matter. It is a political, civilian-operated boondoggle! They 'maintain' waterways for barge traffic to compete with private enterprise and are a complete failure, dam and dikewise, not to mention the poor fish populations of our rivers. Ask anyone who lives in New Orleans, St. Louis, or Bay St. Louis, MS. They are total incompetents, currying political favor (from both sides), and run barges into our railroad bridges, with abandon. I have seen them, at thier worst, especially on the east coast of Florida and New Jersey. Does the word "groins" strike a familiar note? Barge canals, and locks, on the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers, as well as obscure Lake Champlain, and the vaunted Tombigbee come to mind. The "Cross-Florida Barge Canal"? Har!!! "Begone!", methinks. The sooner, the better!
Hays
BNSFwatcher We, in Montana, are blessed with the "Essential Air Services" boondoggle. The services go, mostly, to burgs already serviced by Amtrak (eg.: Wolf Point, MT) and fly empty, which they don't in the winter. Mostly, they don't get off the ground! Unfortunately, my representative supports this waste of taxpayers monies. Yar!, he sports facial hair, so I don't trust him much (even though I vote for him). The "EAS" passenger load figures are available, somewhere. I saw them, but didn't save the site. The cost of the DHS Airport Security Screeners (24/7), for these "Flights-to-Nowhere" are not shown in the EAS budget. Truly amazing! Janet loves it!
More misinformation.....First of all, there are no DHS airport security screeners, they are TSA. Second I highly doubt that they are there 24/7, O'Hare does not have 24/7 screeners scheduled! If the second busiest airport does not have screeners 24/7, how does a little podunct airport that only rates EAS service?
blownout cylinderhenry6 So, Blownout, why should I pay for an airline flight that I'll never use and only one person a week uses? Or a highway in northsouthnowhere that not only will I never use myself, but is only used seasonally by two trucks. Your arguement cannot hold up! But I do agree, and my major point is, that our transportation system has to be all but reinvented. That doesn't mean that everything has to be thrown out but rather that it all has to be reorganized and reapportioned, totally rethought. OK--and who is going to be doing the decision making? A czar from within some transportation ministry? Or will the taxpayer be consulted in some way? I think my concern here is that much of what we are discussing will not amount to a hill of beans if the whole debate is centered on the 'urban' side of the coin. Those who are in smaller/rural areas/communities also get clobbered with the same tax burden hence---- Some kind of IPO is a possibility here as well. I'd be willing to entertain that as a possibility b/c it is a voluntary procedure. Unlike some 'forced' taxation process that is imposed from on high.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.