------------------
Sing to the tune of Humoresque:
Passengers will please refrain,
From flushing toilets while the train,
Is standing in the station,
I love you.

I've written President Bush and Mineta several times and always get a response, even if I don't like that response. (It gives me an excuse to write them again)

All this Amtrak, etc is not as important as who do you feel will protect us from terrorist attacks and our way of life.

I appreciate your posting and have shared my feelings with the next President of the United States.

Amtrak is vital to the security of this country. It is also an important part of our transportation system, it uses a fraction of the fuel of an airplane and it adds immeasurably to the quality of our lives.

Furthermore, at only about $1 billion a year, Amtrak is a model of fiscal responsibility. Most cities cannot run their tiny transportation systems for the kind of money Amtrak spends to run its 30,000 mile network.

If it were not for 9/11, the Republicans would have killed off Amtrak long ago.

After terrorists destroyed the World Trade Center and all the planes were grounded, Amtrak trains were running on schedule.

People stranded in airports had a way to get home, assuming they lived in an area still served by a passenger rail service devastated by years of political neglect.

The expression "National Security" covers a lot of ground these days. One possible meaning is that the government will find its citizens a way home after their planes have been disabled.

Another possible meaning for the word "National Security" is that passenger trains can transport troops to a particular destination in times of war.

Aside from a recent pricing glitch that has been rectified, the cost of a ticket on Amtrak comes to a fraction of the price of an airline ticket.

Albuquerque to LAX, with a few weeks planning comes to $95 roundtrip, for example. Most of the time my travels cost me next to nothing because of rail sales and credit card perks, and I do travel quite a lot.

As far as time is concerned, I'm in no rush and I don't see why you're in a rush either. I make about $18K a year and I would think that anybody who makes more than that should be able to spent a little of his time enjoying a nice train ride through pristine country side.

On the other hand, some people just don't seem to know how to enjoy life these days, I suppose. All they do is complain.

If you left in January, your roundtrip train fare would be $274.50 and it would only take you two days to get to your destination.

Rhetorically yours,

Mr. Chucky

-for just $274.50 (in January);
-travelling just 4 days roundtrip;
-"schlepping" your way in coach;
-on predictably punctual Amtrak;
-one can go from PHL to Houston & back?

You have clearly shown rresor has overlooked a viable option to taking to the air on this business trip. And only for $72.50 more.

So what's your point? What have you or anybody else said that we haven't heard countless times before?

Just lay it on the line, baby... Do you want to abolish Amtrak? You conservatives are getting a great deal here, I don't know why you're making such a fuss: You get to go all over the country on a train (if you want) and it only costs every taxpayer $5 a year, or about $1 billion dollars collectively. No civilized country on earth can run a national railroad for less money than we are doing.

Or are you saying you want some sort of bullet train that will cost the American people hundreds of billions of dollars? Or better yet, maybe you want a maglev train that will cost trillions?

I don't give a damn if it takes two days to get somewhere. It's worth it to me because my eardrums would perforate if I took an airplane and believe me, you would not want me on that airplane when that happened.

People like myself need trains to get around.

$5 is not a lot of money to ask a taxpayer in order to guarantee them the opportunity of taking a long-haul train ride.

If you are so cheap that you cannot afford $5 a year then I would love to withhold the taxes I pay for your beloved pork barrel projects that cost far more, like going to Mars or fighting for oil in Iraq.

But to your question of "what's my point?" Well, it had nothing to do with politics, abolishing Amtrak, pork barrel projects, or going to Mars. Rresor gave an example of a business trip where he wouldn't consider taking Amtrak as an option. You responded. My subsequent post was to show how your response seemed to reaffirm rresor's original point. Based on the information presented for this particular business trip, I believe few would opt for the 4 day trip in coach. Regardless of the ticket price.

Last year I boarded Amtrak 18 times. Some trips were for pleasure, some for business. I often take corridor trains, but rarely take LD trains, for business. Costs, time, convenience,schedules and OT performance usually get me heading to the airport for long distance business travel.

For pleasure and discretionary travelling, most trips are by Amtrak. If I have the time to lollygag from Point A to Point B, I usually go by train. And I lollygag a lot, and enjoy it.

So, all the airlines are grounded and the troops have to get somewhere, duh, how are they gonna' get there?,da *** ?

You have discovered one of the idiosyncrasies of this forum.

American Airlines wants $400 roundtrip and its not even non stop, so I have to fly to Chicago.

or

Amtrak wants $50 round trip.

The game is at 7pm, and I could leave at 8am and be there at 1pm, or I could waste $350 and save an hour by taking the plane.

Decisions Decisions

Amtrak does help some people.

Kerry supporters have an opportunity to tell the candidate what they think about Amtrak. I was just trying to make that known to other folks here who support both Kerry and Amtrak. Bush supporters, who I respect but disagree with, may contact the President as they see fit.

------------------
Trust Jesus,Ride Amtrak.

[This message has been edited by espeefoamer (edited 07-21-2004).]

Amtrak tends to be a fairly bi-partisan issue these days. I spoke to Democrat Bill Richardson recently and he assured me that he supported Amtrak and The Southwest Chief "because it runs through my district."

Some Republicans have been very kind to our national railroad. One supposes that Amtrak owes its very life to Richard Nixon, since it was during his administration that it was created.

One contemporary Republican who has been a very strong proponent of Amtrak is Texas Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison who has proposed increasing its budget enormously.

HOWEVER, George W. Bush appears to be no friend of Amtrak. The record, as well as his 2005 budget proposal for the railroad, clearly indicates that he could care less what happens to it. It is totally inappropriate for any member of this board to even suggest that George W. Bush has stuck his neck out to preserve Amtrak.

Kerry, on the other hand, has come out very strongly on behalf of Amtrak. These are his words. Please read them carefully:

"I strongly support and will increase federal funding for Amtrak. I have been a vocal opponent of George Bush's proposal to gut the federal commitment to Amtrak [and] force cash-strapped state governments to pick up half of its operating cost.

"The nation faces a choice regarding rail service. We can choose to reform Amtrak and give it the resources to build a forward-looking national rail system, or we can choose to deny countless communities train service."

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chucky:

Just because Carter was an *** doesn't mean that Kerry will be one, as well.

---

I hope that word was d-o-g