posted
The following is a good piece on Amtrak from the Minneapolis newspaper. It might go to subscription access only, but for now I could access it without being a member.
Here are some excerpts in case the link doesn't work:
"The Empire Builder, now in its fourth consecutive year of ridership growth, also is popular with summer tourists eager to see Glacier National Park, with winter travelers who want to avoid icy roads, and with people of all ages seeking regional connections.
"Lately, Amtrak has updated service on the Empire Builder, adding fresh-baked cookies and wine and cheese tastings in redecorated sleeper cars, and an at-seat food and beverage service in the coaches, among other perks. The upscale amenities are a response to critics who thought Amtrak should be more profitable.
"In its annual report issued Thursday, Amtrak announced that ticket revenue stands at $1.37 billion, the highest ever. Nationwide, Amtrak carried 24.3 million passengers in the fiscal year that ended in September, an increase of 300,000 over the previous year.
"Minnesota railroad union leader Philip Qualey and other Amtrak proponents say that ridership would be higher yet if Amtrak had enough money to add coaches and sleepers to the Empire Builder.
""Somebody needs to start talking about adding the second train along that route," said Rick Harnish, executive director of the Midwest High-Speed Rail Association. He and other Amtrak fans say that Minnesota also could sustain regional business routes linking larger cities like Rochester and Fargo with the Twin Cities."
""With some really aggressive advertising, it would be scary how many people would get on this train," said Empire Builder conductor Cordt Rose, a Lakeville resident and a longtime Amtrak employee."
The writer was Kevin Giles of the Star Tribune 10/28/06.
Posts: 1572 | From: St. Paul, MN | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
David Strom, president of the Taxpayers League of Minnesota, disputes that Minnesotans ride trains because they can't find other transportation. He thinks most of them are attracted to rail nostalgia, which he said is why he favors ending Amtrak service, including the Empire Builder route, and preserving only Amtrak's heavy commuter routes on the East Coast.
"I'm not insensitive to people liking trains," he said. "The question becomes, 'Why is it that a small group of people to whom the romance of trains is attractive is entitled to a subsidy that the rest of the people pay?' "
It's not that I can't find other transportation, it's that trains are my choice. I don't want to drive (tedious and costly gas, and I don't own a car anyway, so I'd have to rent), and I don't like flying, I prefer the train (going to Florida next March). Not to mention that trains are more evironmentally friendly.
David Strom, what an @$$hole.
Posts: 134 | From: New York, New York USA | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
David Strom is a local nutcase who rants about all taxes. He was the most vocal opponent of our highly successful Light Rail line, and opposes all local rail proposals.
His "Taxpayers League", composed only of the very rich, takes out radio ads filled with blatant falsehoods. One ad said state employees "never pay a dime for health insurance". I am a state employee and my health insurance costs me thousands a year in large payroll deductions, co-pays and deductibles. When I retire, the PREMIUM alone will be $1300 a month to retain coverage. The League also thinks it's just fine that the state tax rate for the very rich here is 8%, while it can be as high as 11% for the middle class.
I think, Mr. Limited, you have chosen an appropriate name for this guy.
Posts: 1572 | From: St. Paul, MN | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:The upscale amenities are a response to critics who thought Amtrak should be more profitable.
This relates to a point I made on another thread. If these amenities are designed to help Amtrak make money, why are they being cut back on other routes?
As for Mr. Strom, who I know nothing about, I would ask him to talk to ordinary people about trains. When I do that, I don't hear anyone say "we don't need trains." What I hear is "When are we going to get our train? They've been talking about it for years." or "Why can't we have decent train service?" or inquiries about what services are available, fares, etc.
Posts: 2649 | From: California's Monterey Peninsula | Registered: Dec 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
As expected, when we address LD's, I hold a contrary view.
I honestly could care less about the $300M (that is just my gut estimate) in avoidable costs the LD's take out of the cookie jar each year. That is just a minnow in the ocean of a $3T budget.
But I do worry about needlessly burdening the railroads with scarce track capacity being directed towards an ancilliary activity that earns them nothing and contributes little if anything to a region's overall passenger transport needs. Not for one moment do I think LD's run about empty (remember I ride 'em myself), but the passengers carried is quite simply minimal.
Further, only the S-II's and Viewliners have any appreciable remaining economic life; where is the funding coming from to replace the S-I's and A-II's? The S-I 'rehab jobs'look nice, but somehow I think they are little more than a cosmetic job.
The Bush administration was determined to 'win one for the Gipper' and somehow they "won" with Amtrak by wresting control of its affairs from any other branch such as Congress (maybe the "Marionetta *** and Pony Show' was effective after all). But I think that victory was quite a Phyrric Victory and analagous to Mussoulini conquering Abyssinia/Ethiopia during the '30's (never mind the big ones the Gipper has evidently lost...uh, we best not utter EYERACK). I believe the incumbent administration is in favor of rail passenger service - but that means Corridors, preferably locally funded Corridors, and where there is potential traffic volume to justify such with an actual contribution to a region's passenger transport needs, i.e.we have this rail resource - we need less highways as a result.
Would a Clinton (Rodham if her handlers have a sudden change of direction and Bill gets the Dear John) administration be different? remember where the lady's political base is - it ain't Hope no more!. How 'bout a McCain?......well. Obama? let's address that one in '16 (hopefully "we the people" will be ready someday, but that someday is not today). In short folks, any upcoming administration is not about to waste a farthing of political capital on LD's.
Congress somehow yanking Amtrak affairs away from the Administration and in the process ushering in a new Golden Age of LD Trains? don't think so. Lest we forget "Congress funds, the President runs" - or at least the last time I checked, that is what Separation of Powers is all about.
Just my thoughts being reiterated.
Posts: 9980 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
