posted
Why can't Amtrak survive on it's own? There are a ton of people on this site who have traveled or worked on amtrak. Instead of complaining about losing funding, why doesn't someone try to turn the train system around?
Please resist the temptation to blame a single person or agency. I understand some of us feel that what is happening is unfair, will destroy Amtrak etc. Don't compare us to European countries, we are different. I'm not looking for that.
What I want to know is CAN it survive on it's own and why or why not.
I will say right off the top, a good marketing campaign wouldn't hurt train travel. When was the last time any of you saw an ad. for Amtrak? Where I live they are non-existent. (mich)
Another issue, is why doesn't someone at the top develop a plan to keep Amtrak going, fully funded now, but start decreasing the funding each year. A compromise ?
So, let's try to keep it positive. thanks.
Posts: 30 | From: michigan | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by canoe86: Why can't Amtrak survive on it's own? There are a ton of people on this site who have traveled or worked on amtrak. Instead of complaining about losing funding, why doesn't someone try to turn the train system around?
Well, if it was that simple, it would have been done a long time ago. The fact is that no passenger transportation system in the world can survive without government help. The difference with Amtrak, is that the funding goes to the service provider, whereas subsidies for highways, aviation and seaports go into the infrastructure. Railroads are different in that the infrastructure is privately owned, built and maintained without any public money (except for the Northeast Corridor, which Amtrak owns).
So instead of funding the infrastructure, we compensate by funding the service provider. I should add that only Amtrak has the legal right of access to the privately owned tracks, and the freight railroads aim to keep it that way.
quote:I will say right off the top, a good marketing campaign wouldn't hurt train travel. When was the last time any of you saw an ad. for Amtrak? Where I live they are non-existent. (mich)
Amtrak does advertise, mostly on radio and I've seen several ads in Parade magazine. But Amtrak really doesn't have much of an advertising budget, and it really doesn't need one. Most of its trains are already running at capacity. What Amtrak really needs is more capacity, so it can sell more seats. But that requires $$$$$, which is in short supply.
quote:Another issue, is why doesn't someone at the top develop a plan to keep Amtrak going, fully funded now, but start decreasing the funding each year. A compromise ?
Been there, done that. The Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act of 1997 attempted to do just that. It didn't work. Amtrak had to hock the farm to stay afloat, and ended up in an even deeper financial hole.
What is needed are the following: 1. A long term (20 year) plan for growth, based on market studies and projected population and travel patterns. 2. An assessment of capital needs for infrastructure and equipment needed to meet projected growth. 3. A stable source of funding, similar to the highway trust fund. 4. A Congress that recognizes the need for items 1-3.
posted
Thanks Mr. Toy, I knew I would get a few answers from you. I'm trying to get a handle on this and understand the issues.
Ok, a passenger transit system has not been able to survive without funding. Maybe AMtrak will have to be the first. The infrastructure problem is a big issue. But, do you think that the existing tracks that are used now will be shut down? If not, then at least we are dealing with a static infrastructure system. Then, how much of Amtraks operating cost go to the track owners?
Next, Amtrak is running at capacity. So, there IS demand for the product. Even though I hate to say this, a price increase should be in the works IF they are not going to increase the capacity. I would like to see more capacity for long term growth. Raising prices substantially will have people look elsewhere for their travel. So, maybe a small increase with a percentage of that earmarked for capacity increases. Plus, when a business is operating without the need to advertise, think how many more people might be converted if they just marketed.
I wasn't aware of the 1997 act you refer to.
I totally agree about needing a long term plan. Without seeing the actual numbers, I still think it could stand on its own just by the fact that Amtrak hasn't marketed.
I will be in contact with some congress people about this funding. Although I would like to see anything that depends on subsidies reduced, Amtrak should really be the last to go. Why? Amtrak is one of the few things I can think of that EVERYONE can use regardless of income, etc. EVERYONE can benifit, and that is not the case with most government programs.
Posts: 30 | From: michigan | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Amtrak does not run at capacity on all trains and the Zephyr and Chief are good examples. I just checked availability for eight adults in eight rooms round trip from LRC to LAX Feb.24 - Mar.4.- plenty of room. A year ago I went coach from GBB to SFO and there were six of us in the car the entire way. I upgraded to a room (half price)on the return and there were more vacant than occupied rooms. Another trip last year, I and six or eight others upgraded (half price)to rooms from GBB to SFO. We were all put in the same sleeper car and it still wasn't full. They need to reduce the number of LD trains between CHI and SFO and LAX from six each on the tracks at a time to four for starters. The sleeper fare for one person for the above Feb. 24 - Mar.4 trip is $714.00. People whom can easily pay such an amount do not expect the slovenly condition of these trains nor the often slovenly service they receive. Thus, they become one-time riders and communicate their disatisfaction to others thereby discouraging them from riding. Additionally, their not likely to support Amtrak to those whom can make a difference when the crunch comes. Happy rails!
posted
February is not July and one experience does not define the norm.
I agree 100% with Mr. Toy on this. The problem with the "National" system is that it is the barest skeleton both on points served and number of trains.
There are three parts to the equation: Trains, track, and stations. In other words, conveyance, conveyor, and access. The second two are the infrastructure referred to by Mr. Toy. For modes of transportation other than rail, the private sector funds only the conveyance. Governments fund the other two through taxes and tax breaks that are only partially borne by the users, and for the most part (except gasoline taxes) borne whether they use the conveyance or not.
In a few places, North Carolina and California primarily, the access points are state assisted, and some money for track is also forthcoming, although in North Carolina much of the track money actually comes from the money that NS pays to the state for use of the North Carolina Railroad (Morehead City - Raleigh - Greensboro - Charlotte) for freight.
Buying new trains alone will not solve the problem. There must be megabucks spent on improved track and stations. And the reason it must be megabucks is because for so long so little has been done to benefit the passenger hauling aspects of the system.
George
Posts: 2808 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fares on Amtrak, except for the "rail sale" bargains on the Amtrak website are too high for long distance rides and have discouraged plenty of potential train riders. Many air fares are cheaper and of course the air ride is much faster! Bus travel stinks altogether and is no substitute for rail rides and is not really any cheaper for the same ride. So what's to be done! It will just have to be accepted by the lousy Republicans that the governemnt OWES us a viable rapid rail system in a complete national form for our own national self-respect (as compared to the high speed systems in Japan, Germany, France, Spain and other places!) We have to hide our heads in shame when we compare Amtrak to other systems--our's is inadequate, too slow and has many things to be fixed along with the constant threat of bankruptcy and no funding. The government OWES us a transportation system! Air travel is lousy (especially in times of emergency and bad weather), bus travel is also lousy--we have NO choice, we need a viable national Amtrak rail system to fit our future needs. Also, what about the 25 million passengers that Amtrak does have! Don't they deserve a system in response to their ridership and loyalty.
Posts: 287 | From: Palatka, FL, USA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've written ideas on other posts but I feel the main reason that people do not use the train is that the schedule is not conducive to inter-city commuting. The fares and time does not make it benificial to leave the car home or even fly.
I believe only privitization will save passanger train travel....Frieght Rail system went back to private hands and has been successful.
the Passanger Ship buisness remade its self when it saw it could not compete with airlines as far as getting people from place to place.
What will work in the NEC will not work for the LD trains. We need knew Ideas not more committee meetings and reports
Posts: 516 | From: New Haven, CT USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tanner929: I believe only privitization will save passanger train travel....Frieght Rail system went back to private hands and has been successful.
Believing something does not make it so. Fanaticism has been defined as continuing to try the same things over and over after it has proved to be a failure. To privitize passenger rail in the face of the events of the last 75 years comes close.
I assume you must mean British freight, as American freight rail never left private hands. Freight never left ships either, by the way.
Posts: 2808 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
THE FOLLOWING IS A GROSS SIMPLIFCATION...BUT THEN AGAIN... A number of years ago my boss and I were visitng his parents in a small town near Columbia, Mo. where his dad was a carpenter. During a conversation at dinner my boss's dad asked how the airline we worked for was doing, was it making any money? My boss explained a myriad of reasons why the airline was losing money. When he'd finished his dad asked how much money the company took in over a year. A milllion? My boss said oh no, hudreds of millions. To which his dad replied: "You mean with hundreds of millions of dollars coming across the counter over a year you can't hold on to at least one?". Heck, we could have been working for Amtrak Rodger
Posts: 83 | From: MERRIMAC,MA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Pojon: It will just have to be accepted by the lousy Republicans that the governemnt OWES us a viable rapid rail system in a complete national form for our own national self-respect (as compared to the high speed systems in Japan, Germany, France, Spain and other places!) We have to hide our heads in shame when we compare Amtrak to other systems--our's is inadequate, too slow and has many things to be fixed along with the constant threat of bankruptcy and no funding. The government OWES us a transportation system! Air travel is lousy (especially in times of emergency and bad weather), bus travel is also lousy--we have NO choice, we need a viable national Amtrak rail system to fit our future needs.
A high speed railroad, like that in Japan, France or Germany, is simply infeasible in the United States.
Such railroads are about 200-300 miles in length, and connect cities of multi-million populations. That kind of population density simply does not exist outside of the NEC. At the distances that are the norm in the United States, air travel is, no matter how you look at it, faster, better and cheaper.
Think about the immense costs of building a high speed railroad between, say, Chicago and San Francisco. Such a railroad would bypass the vast majority of stops made by the current California Zephyr, eliminating one of Amtrak's biggest benefits of serving en-route communities that have few other transportation options. Such a railroad would be a huge terrorist target, to bring up the "homeland security" topic. It would require its own national police force, and a right-of-way heavily guarded and protected, including both ground and air support. Such a railroad line would include the relocation of hundreds of roads and highways, utility routes, and maybe even several cities (since such a high-speed line would have to be relatively straight).
And, with all of that investment, a Boeing 737 would make the trip in 1/3rd the time, using existing airports and air traffic control systems, and at an investment of only $40 million dollars, compared to hundreds of billions for the railroad.
Posts: 15 | From: Kalispell, MT - USA | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I quess another quirk of train travel is that with commuter trains the travelers would luv to have fast trains. With LD travelers while we all want to have smooth trips we would not want to miss the scenery. The problem in the states is finding that balance. Would more people take the train from say NY to Montreal if they could knock off 3/4 hours off the trip
Posts: 516 | From: New Haven, CT USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by wigwagfan: [And, with all of that investment, a Boeing 737 would make the trip in 1/3rd the time, using existing airports and air traffic control systems, and at an investment of only $40 million dollars, compared to hundreds of billions for the railroad.
And all these existing airports and traffic control systenm were spoken into existence by the divinity and exist free of cost?
NO!
These things the airlines are using free or at giveaway prices themselves cost hundreds of billions to build, billions more to keep and displaced thousands of people and occupy huge areas of land!
Have you forgotten the airline companies got more at one grab after 9/11 than Amtrak consumes in a decade?
George
Posts: 2808 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The same question should be asked of domestic USA airlines- They always have their hand out asking for help (and nobody ever seems to critisize that)..
Posts: 23 | From: dallas, tx USA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The big difference with the airlines is that there is competition that allows the consumer to price shop. The older airlines have the burdens of older operating under old work rules and of course some staid board room thinking they are not only competing with world competition but with new airlines with less price/seat differentials.
Posts: 516 | From: New Haven, CT USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Don't even try to compare trains to passenger ships. Oceanliners cruise at about 25 mph and generally don't go anywhere remotely practical (if they get there at all). After 9-11 the cruise ship industry was decimated and still hasn't fully recovered. After 9-11, Amtrak flourished. Indeed, 9-11 saved Amtrak!
Competition has definitely taken its toll on the cruise ship industry. So much so that supply has been sharply curtailed in the last year, thus increasing demand and profits. Up until recently (and after 9-11) the cruise ship industry was practically giving away tickets (and I know because I've been taking quite a few cruises in the past four years).
Traveler,
There may be room available in the sleepers, but trust me, the coach seats are pretty well packed these days. Just try finding a reasonably priced seat on a long haul a week before departure. (But wait! Maybe travelling coach is beneath your dignity....)
Furthermore, I don't find the conditions on Amtrak "slovenly." (Lots of slobs who don't clean up after themselves, however.) I find conditions pretty good actually, all things considered. I really don't know where you are coming from when you say such things.
Mr. Toy,
I don't know what Amtrak needs aside from a couple billion dollars a year to keep running. I'm actually pretty happy with the status quo and I'd be heartbroken if the system were to become any more skeletal than it already is.
Amtrak.... Social Security.... Terri Schiavo.... The current administration is making a whole lot of fuss about things that really don't seem to be a problem. But then I guess these issues help distract the American public from the things that really do matter.
Posts: 324 | From: Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
I was speaking of how the passanger shipping industry re-invented itself. Pre WWII ocean liners opperated similiarly to the trans-continental railroads and was the only way to go. A problem Amtrak and commuter lines is they never seem to be able to take advantage of a crisis or a period of increased passanger inquiries.
Posts: 516 | From: New Haven, CT USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tanner: I would say the main reason "Amtrak and commuter lines never seem to be able to take advantage of a crisis or a period of increased passenger inquiries" is lack of equipment. Amtrak intercity can easily fill more cars they do not have. Commuter lines frequently exceed their ridership projections when they open (here in Minnesota it was double).
Congress is involved in the decision to allocate equipment purchase funds. Amtrak funds are allocated one year at a time. An order of Superliners would take years from the time of decision until they were all in revenue service.
That is why rail needs a long term funding commitment to take advantage of potential revenue opportunuties.
Posts: 1572 | From: St. Paul, MN | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Get it straight--with all the taxes collected from us in many different ways for the lst 70 years, all the guys and girls that died in our foreign wars and the high price of gas and heating oil---the federal government, at least, OWES US A PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM ON RAILS TO FIT OUR NEEDS AND DESIRES.
Posts: 287 | From: Palatka, FL, USA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well in todays entittlement generation I think "fitting our needs and desires" would be: Limo pick up with free access to and from work in no traffic jam zones. The car shall be at our beck and call all day for our needs and that of our family.
But seriously, I hope the opening of ANWAR and other enviormental improvements will get away from our need for oil.
Commuters would love a fast, reliable, affordable and comfortable service that gives us flexibility to leave the car home. Same goes for Amtrak.
Posts: 516 | From: New Haven, CT USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You can't be serious about ANWAR, Tanner. The oil won't start flowing in the artic for quite a few years and even then it will only quench American's thirst for oil for about six months. When you say "improvement" I assume you are using that word the same way a Realtor would. Most of us who give a damn about nature realize that ANWAR is one of the worst possible thing that could happen to the environment.
Gas will soon be selling for about $5 a gallon, ANWAR or not. If American's gave a crap about the environment they would start using the city bus (or light rail) for local travel and AMTRAK for long-haul travel. Nothing is better for the environment than rail travel. Nothing. A passenger uses as much fuel to get from point A to point B on the train as he would if he were riding on a motorcycle.
To say Americans have a never ending love affair with the car is sort of crazy, Tanner. Americans have a love affair with the dollar and when the price of gas goes to $5 a gallon, as it will shortly, they will be jumping on Amtrak whether they like it or not. (Whether Amtrak exists when gas is that high is quite another matter).
By the way, brace yourself, the tickets on planes are about to skyrocket.
Unless you happen to be some sort of trust fund kid, I think you better get your head out of the sand. Unless you happen to be rich, the price of getting somewhere is soon going to be very, very dear and you'll be sorry Amtrak isn't around to schlep your argumentative little butt around.
posted
I ride a bicycle to work I drive a VW Jetta I will keep and save up to buy a Hybrid for my next car. When I travel in large cities I use Mass Transportation or walk. I use Amtrak for tips to avoid traffic and if my destination is along the rail lines. As far as ANWAR I think it is so arrogant for the United States to dip there drills in every 3rd world dictators oil fields while yapping about pristine areas of ours. If we are so intelligent we can find a enviormentally safe way to drill up in Alaska. How clean do you think the Oil Fields of the Capsian Sea are! I hope Hydrogen cell fuel cars are in the very near future. But the US still needs oil based products as well as fuel for Airplane Engines and Diesal Train engines. And for those who think its just that Texas Oil man in the White House is the problem lets remember the Oil flowing from Prudoe Bay is comming through the Jimmy Carter Pipe Line!
Posts: 516 | From: New Haven, CT USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
....the federal government, at least, OWES US A PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM ON RAILS TO FIT OUR NEEDS AND DESIRES.
Lest we forget, WE are "the Government".
You (and FAYK, I) want a " PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM ON RAILS TO FIT OUR NEEDS", but more people than not do NOT want such. Therefore, the USA lags behind all Western European nations and selected Asian nations with regards to developing mass transportation.
93% of "us folk" would just as soon hop behind the wheel for their transport needs. Another 6% on the tin bird. For the remaining 1%, that is where "the faithful" Members of this board fall in.
Posts: 9975 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Gilbert B Norman: YOU (and FAYK, I) want a " PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM ON RAILS TO FIT OUR NEEDS", but more people than not do NOT want such.
Whoa! I don't buy that for a minute. Polls consistently show, hovering around the 70% mark no less, that people DO want passenger trains.
quote:93% of "us folk" would just as soon hop behind the wheel for their transport neede. Another 6% on the tin bird. For the remaining 1%, that is where "the faithful" Members of this board fall in.
You are making the common mistake of quoting capacity and equating it with demand. Nobody really knows what the demand for rail is, because, outside of a few regional markets, nobody has done the necessary studies to find out. But sold out trains do offer hints.... Just 16 long-distance trains carried more people last year than the population of Oregon. That may be a small percentage of total trips, but it is not a number that can easily be ignored.
Posts: 2649 | From: California's Monterey Peninsula | Registered: Dec 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Many Amtrak critics, unfortunately make the mistake of confusing profittability with popularity. Rail travel is popular, but not profittable. Overhead costs make profittability impossible. Thats the main reason the freight companies got out of the passenger business. It wasn't because of empty trains, it was because of empty wallets.
Amtrak will never survive on its own. The price tag is too high. We should consider ourselves lucky that a train ticket doesn't cost anymore than it does now.
-------------------- Patrick Posts: 387 | From: Bakersfield, CA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Amtrak can't survive by itself for the same reason that airlines can't survive by themselves, or any other transportation system by itself, for that matter. Every transportation system in the world is subsidizied in some way. Even the Roman roads were subsidized--the soldiers built many of them. The Roman emperors understood that you can't have a country without a transportation system, and we can't have one, either. The movement of people and goods is essential to the economic life of this country--as it was for Rome--and Amtrak is but a cog in the huge wheel. And the government subsidy is the grease that keeps the wheel turning.
-------------------- Kiernan Posts: 155 | From: Santa Fe, New Mexico | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Travel is popular (yes?) well that's true but the art of getting where you are going no longer has charm does it. The aura and elegance of train travel transfered to the airlines today many people see dealing with the airlines is the worst part of the travel. It seems these days Travel is considered what you do once you arrive. The tranportation portion of the travel is the hardship. its a shame/
Posts: 516 | From: New Haven, CT USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kiernan: Amtrak can't survive by itself for the same reason that airlines can't survive by themselves, or any other transportation system by itself, for that matter. Every transportation system in the world is subsidizied in some way.
True, but funding is only part of it. The other reason government needs to be involved is for coordination and planning.
posted
quote: but funding is only part of it. The other reason government needs to be involved is for coordination and planning.
My response;
Funding, Coordinating and Planning eh, Uhm has the government been able to achieve that triumverent in anything they've ever done?
Posts: 516 | From: New Haven, CT USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, where I live, private companies do a better job plowing than the regular road comm. Plus, we are constantly throwing money at roads to repair them.
Just got back from a ride of the Texas Eagle and I think employees of Amtrak need to be very very careful. I understand the anger and even understand that it is directed at President Bush, BUT not every rider on the trains are democrats OR against President Bush. I found some of the commentary, given without my asking to be offensive.
Service out was GREAT. Kudos to Debbie our attendent. The trip back, however, was poor. The Amtrak folks were nice and our attendent was fine but they ran out of food, etc.
Posts: 30 | From: michigan | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
This could be a test; Here in Connectiut, the road repair capitol of the world. We don't build new roads just constently have work crews on the old ones.
I degress, anyhow, sometime in the future we will be building a replacement for the current bridge spanning New Haven Harbor. Being that this is CT it will be overbudget and overtimed. The already terrible traffic from shorepoints east of New Haven. About 7 years ago the state began commuter trains along the NEC Amtrak rails from NH to Old Saybrook. Question is will CT commuters finnally leave the car home? They've built new platforms and station houses. I have stated that to get people back on trains it will be through comuter systems, when people are happy with their commute they might small might, consider taking a longer train trip.
Posts: 516 | From: New Haven, CT USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
With what our government is spending daily in Iraq and Afghanistan for the military operations and foreign aid we could fund Amtrak 365 times over each year! More than 1.2 billion dollars is now being spent daily in two wars that some of us don't even believe are now still legitimate! If the government is "OF THE PEOPLE" how come the administration is not listening--not even to the 25,000,000 Amtrak riders last year? Too bad the Democratic Party can't get it's act together and win a national election---boy, do we need a change of administration! Maybe one that responds to importnat questions of providing public national transportation that we can respect and use. I am perpetually embarassed to explain our lousy rail system to my friends from Germany, Japan, France and Spain.
Posts: 287 | From: Palatka, FL, USA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by canoe86: Actually, where I live, private companies do a better job plowing than the regular road comm.
Plowing the roads is just one task out of many in a road system. It is easily subcontracted. But private companies don't do the highway planning, government does. They don't have to balance the needs of conflicting interests, as government does. Amtrak is a complete transportation system, not just a service provider. Don't get me wrong, there is a place for private companies in any public operation, but they can't do it all without some central planning.
Posts: 2649 | From: California's Monterey Peninsula | Registered: Dec 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Regarding the question of whether Amtrak can survive on its own: I don't think Amtrak can or should survive. Reason: is is an anachronistic and simply awful form of transportation. Why would any sane person want to continue a system typified by unacceptably late trains, constant derailments, decripit train stations in dangerous parts of cities with no secure parking, etc? I think it is important to see the American public giving a thumbs-down to Amtrak, not to a passenger train system. Amtrak is going to have to come up with some first-class prototypes to get the public interested in funding an entirely modern passenger train system..something equal to the European picture. I think it has to boil down to either modern passenger rail system or no system at all. Continuing Amtrak, as is, would seem to me entirely unacceptable.
Posts: 1909 | From: Santa Rosa | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yukon11, As has been pointed out in several other places, Amtrak has never really been given the funding to develop European style trains. There have been proposals for over a decade to develop higher speed rail here in the Midwest (see www.midwesthsr.org, and also the Wisconsin DOT website, for examples) but the main sticking point has always been federal funding. You have to have federal funding in many parts of the nation because if you leave it up to the states, it will be half baked - or not at all, which is what we have right now. How would you get high speed rail bewtween Chicago and Saint Paul without federal funding. If you think a legislator in an individual state is going to sign off on funding, you should think again.
-------------------- "Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one corner of the Earth all one's life." Posts: 506 | From: Wisconsin | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Amtrak was created as an emergency bailout following the collapse of the Penn Central. Administrations have come and gone Congressional power has changed hands and still the railroads are running like its 1971. I think many pol's and citizens see Amtrak as nostalgia rather then a viable mode of transportation.
Posts: 516 | From: New Haven, CT USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yukon, where is Amtrak going to get the money to build those first class prototypes? Its gotta come from Congress.
I agree that the status quo is unacceptable, but nobody has yet come up with a credible alternative to Amtrak that is acceptable to the various interested parties, particularly the freight railroads. It seems to me that there will not be a solution until all the interested parties - freight railroads, Amtrak, Congress, states, and passenger advocates - get together and hash out a solution. It can't be imposed upon them from the outside, as the self-proclaimed "reformers" keep trying to do.
People DO want trains. Last year there was an open house display in Salinas for the Colorado Railcars DMU. At the opening there were 200 people waiting in line, and the shuttle busses were packed all day long. Public interest is there. The trains aren't. Transportation planners know this well, but the people who allocate the money still can't get it through their heads. THAT is why we have this pathetic status quo, and it is NOT Amtrak's fault. I place the blame squarely on the majority of politicians who are absolutely clueless.
posted
Yukon said, "I think it is important to see the American public giving a thumbs-down to Amtrak, not to a passenger train system."
I don't know what you've been reading (probably Mineta's speeches) but from what I have read, America gives Amtrak an enthusiastic "two thumbs up!"
If you don't like Amtrak, then don't climb aboard. Plenty of people are waiting in line to take your seat. But don't hold your breath waiting for trains that travel at 180 mph, like the French TGV or the Japanese Skinkansen. Anyone who thinks America will have such trains is "smoking funny cigarettes," (in the immortal words of David Gunn).
So, quit trying to be a spokesman for the American public. You're doing a crappy job of it.
America loves Amtrak and it's here to stay, whether you like it or not.
Posts: 324 | From: Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
