President Bush Budget to 'Zero Out' Amtrak

Link to a News story that the Bush Administration proposed budget will cut off funding to Amtrak.
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20050202/us_nm/bush_amtrak_dc
Dan

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

RE: President Bush Budget to 'Zero Out' Amtrak, ns_sd70m, Feb-01-05, 09:31 PM, (1) RE: President Bush Budget to 'Zero Out' Amtrak, stationmaster, Feb-01-05, 09:35 PM, (2) RE: President Bush Budget to 'Zero Out' Amtrak, ns_sd70m, Feb-01-05, 09:38 PM, (3) RE: President Bush Budget to 'Zero Out' Amtrak, stationmaster, Feb-01-05, 10:15 PM, (5) RE: President Bush Budget to 'Zero Out' Amtrak, davereage, Feb-01-05, 11:03 PM, (6) RE: President Bush Budget to 'Zero Out' Amtrak, NW_611, Feb-01-05, 10:03 PM, (4) RE: President Bush Budget to 'Zero Out' Amtrak, singerbard, Feb-01-05, 11:12 PM, (7) RE: President Bush Budget to 'Zero Out' Amtrak, John_Reagon, Feb-01-05, 11:38 PM, (8) RE: President Bush Budget to 'Zero Out' Amtrak, wiscentral, Feb-02-05, 00:32 AM, (9) RE: President Bush Budget to 'Zero Out' Amtrak, smp11512, Feb-02-05, 00:38 AM, (10) RE: President Bush Budget to 'Zero Out' Amtrak, Darkviper, Feb-02-05, 03:33 AM, (11) RE: President Bush Budget to 'Zero Out' Amtrak, Michael18m, Feb-02-05, 12:34 PM, (12) RE: President Bush Budget to 'Zero Out' Amtrak, CAPFlyer, Feb-02-05, 01:47 PM, (13) RE: President Bush Budget to 'Zero Out' Amtrak, ns_sd70m, Feb-02-05, 01:55 PM, (14) RE: President Bush Budget to 'Zero Out' Amtrak, mdeming, Feb-02-05, 02:29 PM, (15) RE: President Bush Budget to 'Zero Out' Amtrak, MikeF, Feb-02-05, 06:36 PM, (22) RE: President Bush Budget to 'Zero Out' Amtrak, NW_611, Feb-02-05, 02:46 PM, (16) RE: President Bush Budget to 'Zero Out' Amtrak, jtr1962, Feb-02-05, 09:58 PM, (24) RE: President Bush Budget to 'Zero Out' Amtrak, NW_611, Feb-02-05, 11:56 PM, (25) RE: President Bush Budget to 'Zero Out' Amtrak, chucksc, Feb-03-05, 12:32 PM, (28) RE: President Bush Budget to 'Zero Out' Amtrak, jtr1962, Feb-03-05, 09:08 PM, (32) RE: President Bush Budget to 'Zero Out' Amtrak, buzzbenz, Feb-02-05, 02:58 PM, (17) RE: President Bush Budget to 'Zero Out' Amtrak, SD75i, Feb-02-05, 06:00 PM, (21) RE: President Bush Budget to 'Zero Out' Amtrak, singerbard, Feb-02-05, 06:40 PM, (23) Amtrak budget to "zero-out" President Bush..., KeltikSylk, Feb-02-05, 03:42 PM, (18) RE: Amtrak budget to "zero-out" President Bush..., ns_sd70m, Feb-02-05, 04:36 PM, (19) RE: Amtrak budget to, buzzbenz, Feb-03-05, 00:29 AM, (26) RE: President Bush Budget to 'Zero Out' Amtrak, runaway_b_unit, Feb-02-05, 05:30 PM, (20) RE: President Bush Budget to 'Zero Out' Amtrak, sstyrnol, Feb-03-05, 02:47 AM, (27) RE: President Bush Budget to 'Zero Out' Amtrak, bradhig, Feb-03-05, 12:34 PM, (29) RE: President Bush Budget to 'Zero Out' Amtrak, Macster, Feb-03-05, 01:28 PM, (30) RE: President Bush Budget to 'Zero Out' Amtrak, henry3, Feb-03-05, 05:48 PM, (31)

Conferences | Topics | Previous Topic | Next Topic

That's unfortunate.
But a rule that all successful businesses follow (in this case, the business is the US government) is that when something is losing money instead of making it, you need to get rid of it before you lose even more. I don't think that Bush wants to put any more money into a program that hasn't proven to be a good investment in the past.

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

From the article:
"Another senior administration official added: "Amtrak should be treated like any other form of transportation and funded like any other form of transportation. The other forms don't get operating subsidies." (emphasis mine)Oh REALLY? Do these guys even READ the budget????

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Also from the article:" Brian Riedl of the conservative Heritage Foundation said the move was long overdue."The White House is saving money for the taxpayers and hopefully serving notice to other agencies that they must be efficient and effective in order to continue receiving tax dollars," Riedl said. "

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

I would also point out that if Amtrak was "funded like any other form of transportation", we would probably have Superliners serving every branch line.

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

When was the last time a non-toll highway turned a profit?>"Another senior administration official added: "Amtrak
>should be treated like any other form of transportation and
>funded like any other form of transportation. The
>other forms don't get operating subsidies."
>(emphasis mine)

Dave Reage - Beta Tester
Halifax, Canada

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Bah! Better men than George W. Bush tried to get rid of Amtrak, and failed. Admittedly, President Reagan was up against W. Graham Claytor---and thus totally outmatched---but David L. Gunn may yet prove himself worthy of Claytor's legacy.Whining about two billion dollars per year and considering that an important cut is approximately like complaining about a broken toilet aboard RMS Titanic: Yes, it's a problem, but I can guarantee you that it shrinks in scope when you look at the big picture. Punctured hulls and billions of dollars spent on various social "rights" programs come to mind.* If he wants to control costs, I could think of better and more profitable places to start.** It's not like this President has been particularly fiscally responsible anyways.The President's own party---myself included---isn't wholly behind him on this. Even the senior Senator from his home State of Texas, Kay Bailey Hutchison, is bucking him on the question of Amtrak. Nevermind that the Northeast will throw an absolute screaming fit across party lines.Best thing to do is contact your Senators and Representative, and tell them that you support Amtrak. Go ask NARP for talking points, but make them your own.

* The late Senator Everett M. Dirksen's reputed quote aside.
** Various agricultural subsidies, entitlements, asphalt funding, any proposed Federal funds for ANWR drilling, etc., UN dues...

____________________________________________________________________
Norfolk & Western’s Radford Division, Pulaski District: Who needs the Marias Pass?

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

You better believe the Northeast states will scream, specifically the eight states served by the Northeast Corridor.Because they'll have the reps and senators of the OTHER 42 states saying "If we can't have ours we sure as hell aren't going to approve federal funding to operate YOUR private railroad--better get out the checkbooks in the state capitols of Maryland, Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island and Massachusetts."Also cf. the cost of the inland waterway system and the coastal waterway system.As well the cost of airports and air traffic control.And leave us not forget the cost of maintaining highways with zillions of trucks running on them.And for fairness sake, it's not like the FRA doesn't send at least some money to the freight railroads.

Kevin N Payne *aka* singerbard
Email: nikolaibard-*AT*-yahoo.com
Yahoo Messenger: nikolaibard
MSN Messenger: singerbard

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

There goes the Texas Eagle....

Checkout my Website:
http://www.freewebs.com/adn-trainsim/

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Amtrak had how many years to become self sustaining. Thats why Tommy Thompson, former Wisconsin Govenor, and Sec. of Health and Human Services, wanted to be Sec of Transportation. WHy? He is a HIgh Amtrak Bigwig, I think head of the board of Directors.
Its not the death of Amtrak, just more cutbacks

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Anyone think this is because of the Kerry Campaign train amtrak ran a bit back Shane

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

This is a sad development, If this goes through it will really hurt any dream of a better nationwide passenger rail system any time in the next century. Nobody other than the federal government has the capital to expand Inter-city passenger service in this country. You can't tell me that the people of this country don't want more passenger rail service than they currently have. They just don't want to pay for it. If the airlines had to make due with the amount of government handouts that Amtrak dose only a few would remain such as southwest, and all trans oceanic flights would be on foreign carriers. Likewise, If trucks and busses had to pay their fair share of all the government dose for them, we would have more rail traffic than our systems can currently handle, and there would be no such thing as an owner operator. The fact is that the freight railroads don’t rely heavily on the government to provide capital to help them operate, and the government expects the same from the passenger railroads, forgetting that you make twice as much money moving a trainload of coal 50 miles as you do moving a passenger train from coast to coast.Just down the road from the CSX/NS Buckeye Yard.
Visit the WVK&O homepage http://www.angelfire.com/fang/dark_viper/page6.html

WVK&O Version 1.0 in the planning stages

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

If this happens, Amtrak should do somthing really big.... They should have a day where ride Amtrak for the last time.... People ride amtrak a few times this year for the last time.Bush want the money that goes to Amtrak to go to Iraq.

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

It's too bad that you people can't see straight.1) Amtrack is losing money hand-over-foot. Much more than what the Government is putting into it.2) The airlines are not nationalized companies, so why should passenger rail?3) It's already been proven that long-distance passenger rail is dead. It's been dead for years.4) If the budget is cut off, all it means is that the Government won't try to save it. The result? The NE Corridor (and any other area which is self sustaining) will stay in service, most of the Amtrack long-hauls will shutdown for reorginization.Look, Amtrack has to become a private company to survive. They were given a chance to shape up, they haven't, now it' time to make them fix themselves.I'm sorry for those in the NE who don't understand reality and the fact that just because the GOVERNMENT isn't giving them money doesn't mean that the whole thing will shut down. Anyone who believes that doesn't understand CAPITALISM and BUSINESS.When people learn those two fundamentals (and not from some idiotic economist who'd rather see socialism in the US that you find at most universities) maybe we'd have less problems with the Government wasting money on domestic economy.BTW, no other form of transportation is GOVERNMENT RUN AND SUBSIDIZED. The airlines may get LOANS but those loans MUST BE REPAID. Amtrack has no such requirement from the money it's been receiving from the government, so yes, the statement IS CORRECT.

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

> It's too bad that you people can't see straight.> 1) Amtrack is losing money hand-over-foot. Much more than what the Government is putting into it.> 2) The airlines are not nationalized companies, so why should passenger rail?> 3) It's already been proven that long-distance passenger rail is dead. It's been dead for years.> 4) If the budget is cut off, all it means is that the Government won't try to save it. The result? The NE Corridor (and any other area which is self sustaining) will stay in service, most of the Amtrack long-hauls will shutdown for reorginization.> Look, Amtrack has to become a private company to survive. They were given a chance to shape up, they haven't, now it' time to make them fix themselves.> I'm sorry for those in the NE who don't understand reality and the fact that just because the GOVERNMENT isn't giving them money doesn't mean that the whole thing will shut down. Anyone who believes that doesn't understand CAPITALISM and BUSINESS.> When people learn those two fundamentals (and not from some idiotic economist who'd rather see socialism in the US that you find at most universities) maybe we'd have less problems with the Government wasting money on domestic economy.> BTW, no other form of transportation is GOVERNMENT RUN AND SUBSIDIZED. The airlines may get LOANS but those loans MUST BE REPAID. Amtrack has no such requirement from the money it's been receiving from the government, so yes, the statement IS CORRECT.Amen!
I couldn't have put it better myself!

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

>BTW, no other form of transportation is GOVERNMENT RUN
>AND SUBSIDIZED.
Interesting point but who builds airline terminals, hmmmm last time Ohare and midway were expanded it was with government money. Also our highway system, without which the trucking industry would be non existant, is built and funded with taxpayer money. I wonder how long the airlines and trucking companies would be in business with out that government support.

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

>
>>BTW, no other form of transportation is GOVERNMENT RUN
>>AND SUBSIDIZED.
>Interesting point but who builds airline terminals, hmmmm
>last time Ohare and midway were expanded it was with
>government money. I think you'll find most of those are funded with government bonds, not taxpayer dollars. The bonds are sold to the public to raise money. The bonds are re-paid (with interest) with a combination of incomes (including airport fees paid by airlines and special taxes on airline tickets). The local government is borrowing money from the public to build such a project, and paying it back.>Also our highway system, without which the
>trucking industry would be non existant, is built and funded
>with taxpayer money. True, but highways are also used by taxpayers. These are hard to allocate the costs. Certainly everyone that drives on such a highway benefits from using it, not just the truckers.>I wonder how long the airlines and
>trucking companies would be in business with out that
>government support. Let's hope we don't have to find out. The role of government is more than to just be 'run like a business'. Certainly a well maintained infrastructure is 'promoting the general welfare'. Everyone would pay much higher prices for food/commodities if the trucking industry had to pay all the costs of highways.The problem with government subsidising Amtrak is that it costs a lot for the number of public people that are served. Build an airport for the same cost and you serve 100's if not 1000's more people in a year.

Mike F

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Rubbish! I can see rather clearly, due to a new prescription in my contact lens issued late last year. Anyways, in response:1. So what if Amtrak's losing money hand over foot? That's what the modern Federal government, and the governments of most of the States, is good for. ("Providing for the common defense" being so gauche these days, you see.) Besides, if Bush wants to rein in Federal spending, he can start by cutting his own free-spending ways, which don't include Amtrak.2. Lack of de jure nationalization does not nullify the possibility of de facto nationalization. Remember that little chunk of change given to the airlines in late September 2001? Remember the fact that the airlines, by and large, aren't forced to pick up the tab (directly, anyways) for most of their infrastructure and operational support?3. Only "dead" because the Federal government chose to massively subsidize two or three other competitive modes. Let the user pay the real cost of airline or Interstate travel, and then we'll see whose mode of long-range travel gets in trouble. I bet you paying the real costs of flying a 737 makes the cost of operating a P42DC look insignificant. 4. Depending upon the accounting---a broad point for discussion---the Northeast Corridor isn't wholly solvent, or is. The multi-State trains will perish, because the chances of every State along the route of say, the Sunset Limited properly funding and operating the thing are probably slim-to-none. I love my Commonwealth and I believe it to be the greatest thing since sliced bread, but I wouldn't pay a plug nickel for the General Assembly of Virginia being relied upon to constantly cooperate in some regional compact for the fiscal support of the Crescent and Autotrain operations, if it had to deal with four other States' legislatures to keep those trains running. It is unfair on the face of it to ask Amtrak to fix itself, when they weren't the problem. The Interstate Highway Act from the 1950s and the Federal subsidies to aviation since the 1930s were, and the almighty Federal government did both of those. To steal from that corpse-faced John Kerry's "Pottery Barn rule", They broke it, they bought it, they'll pay for it.I understand the system of free enterprise just fine, thank you. I understand that the Norfolk Southern and others aren't chomping at the bit to revive the Powhatan Arrow and the like, because they're not the least bit interested in getting into a losing battle with Federally-subsidized modes of transportation. I quote (approximately) for you the words of Stuart T. Saunders, chairman of the Penn Central Transportation Company in the early 1970s: "We'd never invest (i.e., upgrade equipment) in a money-losing service like that. The board wouldn't stand for it, the shareholders wouldn't stand for it." When the board and the shareholders object to management's decisions, management either clicks its heels or updates the resume. That's corporate governance for you, Mr. Capitalism & Business. As David L. Gunn is reportedly fond of saying, "Myth #2 - The private sector is dying to take over our services. Remember why we were formed. We are what is left of a once privately run enterprise." Furthermore, I'm not entirely certain that Amtrak could at this point operate as your hallowed "private company", due to the actions taken by George Warrington's people to meet that ridiculous self-sufficiency mandate. I'd bet you the #1 reason anyone lends to Amtrak nowadays is because they know the Federal government's the ultimate backstop of the loans.I'm amused at the suggestion that I learned economics from a Keynesian or Krugmanite. As I remember, my economics teacher was rather fond of the basic system of free enterprise. He also wasn't on the take from the highway or airline industries, so I doubt he'd automatically come up with your conclusions. I'm awaiting repayment of the airline bailout given in the weeks after the 11 September 2001 attacks. Oh, wait. That was virtually no-strings-attached money, other than a reported set of limitations on executive salaries and curtailment of service. I don't remember the airlines having to pay back the money spent on air traffic control or the money spent by States and localities to build airports. Heh, the airport in my hometown was built entirely with funds procured from Washington, D.C., from what I can tell. Our member of the House of Representatives is quite fond of touting his ability to get that airport (and others) built, and he don't get the money from Wall Street. I'll be amused at being called a socialist as I read this morning's National Review. Oh, and there's no 'c' in Amtrak.

____________________________________________________________________
Norfolk & Western’s Radford Division, Pulaski District: Who needs the Marias Pass?

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

I haven't posted here in a while but this topic caught my interest (and my ire). Here goes:>Remember the fact that the airlines, by and
>large, aren't forced to pick up the tab (directly, anyways)
>for most of their infrastructure and operational support? Yes, exactly. And neither are the highways. Why must Amtrak do this when other modes aren't required to? Why the double standard?>3. Only "dead" because the Federal government chose to
>massively subsidize two or three other competitive modes.
>Let the user pay the real cost of airline or
>Interstate travel, and then we'll see whose mode of
>long-range travel gets in trouble. I bet you paying the
>real costs of flying a 737 makes the cost of
>operating a P42DC look insignificant. Another excellent point which nobody else here understands. There are plenty of indirect costs of running airlines and driving automobiles which the user never pays. For starters air pollution causes 650,000 cancer deaths annually, acid rain, property damage, possible long-term climate change, etc. Let the frequent flyers and auto drivers pay these costs and suddenly passenger rail travel, even the long-distance travel which far too many say is dead, suddenly looks economically viable. A real national high-speed passenger network would work under those circumstances, and would be a real alternative to driving and flying, even over cross country distances. Something like a TGV could get cross country in maybe 15 hours, which is not much more than flying once you count security delays. Also, for the segment of the population who won't fly or drive long distance rail is the only real way to get around. Taking away Amtrak essentially forces them to remain in their local area.>It is unfair on the face of it to ask Amtrak to fix itself,
>when they weren't the problem. The Interstate Highway Act
>from the 1950s and the Federal subsidies to aviation since
>the 1930s were, and the almighty Federal government
>did both of those. To steal from that corpse-faced John
>Kerry's "Pottery Barn rule", They broke it, they bought it,
>they'll pay for it. Quite true. The whole move to suburbia subsized by the federal government's building the Interstate highway system was the death knell for rail travel in the US, and also for a good deal of local public transit. How many viable trolley and commuter rail lines were bought up by auto and oil companies in the 1950's for the sole purpose of being dismantled and replaced with highways, buses, and autos? The government not only partially subsidized this, but also stood by and did nothing to stop it. Long distance rail travel works best with an integrated local public transit net. Dismantling that net helped bring about the demise of long distance passenger rail travel.>I'm awaiting repayment of the airline bailout given in the
>weeks after the 11 September 2001 attacks. Oh, wait. That
>was virtually no-strings-attached money, other than a
>reported set of limitations on executive salaries and
>curtailment of service. I don't remember the airlines having
>to pay back the money spent on air traffic control or the
>money spent by States and localities to build airports. Heh,
>the airport in my hometown was built entirely with funds
>procured from Washington, D.C., from what I can tell. Our
>member of the House of Representatives is quite fond of
>touting his ability to get that airport (and others) built,
>and he don't get the money from Wall Street. And I'm waiting for repayment as well. Given that the airlines are losing money like a sieve nowadays that won't be any time soon, either. And thanks to their lax security being the cause of 9/11, I feel the airlines should pay the cost of rebuilding downtown NYC but I won't hold my breath waiting for that to happen. People can criticize trains all they want. At least one can't bring destruction on the scale of an errant airliner. Think of all the government money being used to secure the airlines and also to secure the fuel for them. If Amtrak was subsidized on this scale we would have our national high-speed network in a few years, and believe me, lots of people fed up with flying on howling aluminum tubes or being stuck in endless traffic jams would flock to the trains.

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Now that I think about it, the fact that private corporations held out for half a century against relentless and ever-increasing pressure on the passenger service from an opponent with limitless resources (i.e., the Federal, State and local governments) is simply amazing. Where costs are concerned, another consideration: Deferred maintenance happens. Defer the maintenance on a P42DC, and at worst it's going to ruin its prime mover. Call another locomotive out, and the problem's solved. Defer the maintenance on a 737, and you can get a smoking hole in the ground. Look at the Metrolink wreck in California: A pretty nasty accident by all accounts, involving two loaded commuter trains and a parked freight. Eleven people are dead; something like 200 survive. Replicate that with jetliners, and the casualty rate's going to be in the neighborhood of 100%. I'll take my chances in a Kawasaki bi-level of the VRE, thank you.As for the trolley companies, I think it actually got proven in court a couple of times that the very thing you allege was done. I'd imagine that adjudicated proof of one implies several more. From what I understand, the lobbying effort by General Motors and other major industrial groups to pass highway bills pretty much buried anything the AAR could or would do. How did you fight GM, Ford, and the like in the 1950s? You didn't.On the other hand, I wonder what would have happened if James M. Symes, Alfred E. Perlman, and their brethren had gone on a "Harry and Louise"-style PR offensive against the Federal encroachment. However, I'm not sure that those men would have ever thought of it. Given the staggering number of hours reportedly lost to sitting in traffic jams or in crowded airports, I'd like to know exactly where the benefits are these days for the automobile- and airplane-centric system we have. I wouldn't be surprised if a meaningful increase in productivity could be derived from a modern passenger effort designed to serve the businessman. This is why I liked some of the things I read about the Acela marketing; "train time" is not necessarily "lost time" with today's modern communications infrastructure.For example: The man stuck on the Connecticut Turnpike in his car is merely burning time, money, and company resources. He could be on a new Merchants Limited with his laptop, taking calls and doing e-business all the way from Boston. Not so the man who's having to drive or keep his laptop & phone closed to protect against avionics interference. Likewise, he could relax in the comfort of an all-parlor car (heh heh heh) and arrive home ready for his evening activities. Less stress, less hassle, and probably less economic cost in the long run.

____________________________________________________________________
Norfolk & Western’s Radford Division, Pulaski District: Who needs the Marias Pass?

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

> I'll take my chances in a Kawasaki
>bi-level of the VRE, thank you.
>How the heck do you get those????? you must live on the F-Burg line, eh? I'm stuck, most of the time any more, in a recycled Metra PS gallery car or Maefersa Cabcar.... BTW that stuff is waisted over there on the F-Burg line (Old RF&P Main) as the CSX non-traffic dispatching system pretty much limits you to 30mph does it not....
No matter what the MAS is! Chuck Schneider
Chief Cook, Bottle Washer and (Virtual) CEO

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

>Now that I think about it, the fact that private
>corporations held out for half a century against relentless
>and ever-increasing pressure on the passenger service from
>an opponent with limitless resources (i.e., the Federal,
>State and local governments) is simply amazing. Yes, and this tells me that there is a huge market for state-of-the-art rail travel in the US if even a mediocre service like Amtrak can hold out for this long. There is a significant part of the population who is well aware of the near 100% fatality rate you mentioned in most airline crashes and will simply refuse to fly for that reason. I count myself among this percentage. It is this percentage of diehards who is probably responsible for the survival of long-distance passenger rail thus far.
>Where costs are concerned, another consideration: Deferred
>maintenance happens. Defer the maintenance on a P42DC, and
>at worst it's going to ruin its prime mover. Call another
>locomotive out, and the problem's solved. Defer the
>maintenance on a 737, and you can get a smoking hole in the ground. Indeed. And we all know in this era of airline price wars sooner or later some plane will crash due to shoddy maintainance.>On the other hand, I wonder what would have happened if
>James M. Symes, Alfred E. Perlman, and their brethren had
>gone on a "Harry and Louise"-style PR offensive against the
>Federal encroachment. However, I'm not sure that those men
>would have ever thought of it. Probably not, but it would have been nice to see autos and airlines forced to compete with rail on equal terms.>Given the staggering number of hours reportedly lost to
>sitting in traffic jams or in crowded airports, I'd like to
>know exactly where the benefits are these days for the
>automobile- and airplane-centric system we have.And I wonder the same thing. Instead of going from city center to city center directly and arriving in comfort, the choices now are to drive yourself and essentially waste the time, or to deal with security checks, the tensions of takeoffs and landings, as well as the hassle of getting yourself and your luggage 10 to 20 miles from the airport to the city center. In both cases you're smelling fumes from your chosen mode of transport. I have little doubt high-speed rail would take loads of customers away from airliners and autos. Over distances of 500 miles or less, it's definitely faster. Even at 1000 miles air only beats it by maybe an hour or two once everything is added up. In all cases it's way more civilized. Save the airliners for the transoceanic flights where they make the most sense.
>I wouldn't be surprised if a meaningful increase in productivity
>could be derived from a modern passenger effort designed to serve
>the businessman. This is why I liked some of the things I
>read about the Acela marketing; "train time" is not
>necessarily "lost time" with today's modern communications
>infrastructure. I thought this way 20 years ago when I commuted 70 miles each way to college. The trip took about 2 hours each way via subway and NEC commuter rail. Had that option not been available I never would have done so. The actual wasted time was very small since I was able to sleep or study a good portion of the way there. Incidentally, driving would have taken as long, cost way more, and been a completely wasted four hours each day. This is exactly what makes business rail travel so attractive. You get on one vehicle and do whatever you want until it arrives, and in many cases you're a few minutes from your destination. If you drive the time is totally wasted. If you fly there are good portions of your trip where you really can't get much work done such as the taxi or car ride to/from the airport, waiting to board, and takeoff/landing. It's probably 75% wasted time. It may even be completely wasted if you can't use your laptop on the plane for interference reasons.

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

> BTW, no other form of transportation is GOVERNMENT RUN AND
> SUBSIDIZED.Who pays for the roads, airports, Air Traffic Control, etc etc??
We the taxpayers do!Amtrak (no "c"), CANNOT survive without government subsidies - if it could, it would not have needed to be created by the government in the 1st place!BUT - ok, let's follow the model then used by the airlines and such to make Amtrak sustainable. Then you tell me which would be cheaper.If we take the national highway system for example, then what the government would do is build and maintain ALL the railroad tracks in the country. After all, why should freight railroads have to keep building and maintaining their own infrastructure when neither the trucking companies nor the airlines do? I bet Amtrak could do quite well if it didn't have to maintain the NEC or pay the freight railroads to use their tracks (which i really don't think it ought to have to do anyway - after all, the whole point of the government creating Amtrak is so that the freight railroads no longer had to sink money into passenger trains. In the end, not only do they no longer have to sink money into them, but they actually get INCOME from it - which i think is ridiculous).However, i am willing to bet it would cost a WHOLE lot more to do that than maintain Amtrak's subsidies.I am a huge fan of capitalism, believe me. But you can't play that game here, because the airlines already get bailed out by the government, land on taxpayer-paid facilities, and are directed by taxpayer-paid air traffic controllers. Trucking companies ship their goods over taxpayer-paid Interstate Highways and local roads.If we truly want to bring capitalism into national infrastructure, we must take the government out of the funding for ALL forms of national infrastucture. That means the interstates owned by private companies, as well as the airports and ATC. What a life, eh? Pay some company to use the highways. How much would a plane ticket cost if they had to pay landing fees to a private company NOT relying on subsidies??So, to be TRULY fair, we need to do one of the following:
- No government subsidies for ANY transportation.
- Government take over building and maintaining of ALL tracks in the US. Either of those, then if Amtrak survives or not is truly not the government's concern, as then they'll be on a level playing field with other transit modes.Or we just continue to fund Amtrak the way it is now (cheapest alternative).(BTW - WHY are RAILFANS here opposed to railroads???)----------- BUZZ -----------

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Here is a way to get profit.GET RID OF all matrak freight service. no railroad thats is high in class these days actaully turn a profit doing both frieght and passenger.why do you think class ones dont do passenger anymore

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Amtrak won't be self-sustaining. It shouldn't be required to be self-sustaining. Some things are worth paying for, though you need to set limits of course.Let's not even start on the list of government agencies that aren't self-sustaining.Like...ALL of them. None of them could exist without "subsidies" from the American taxpayers.

Kevin N Payne *aka* singerbard
Email: nikolaibard-*AT*-yahoo.com
Yahoo Messenger: nikolaibard
MSN Messenger: singerbard

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

might be a better idea!Paid for by "Southern Democrats for Secession"Frank MusickMoving America into the 19th Century!

www.kelticsylk.com

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

> (BTW - WHY are RAILFANS here opposed to railroads???)I've never been a big Amtrak guy. I've always preferred heavy-hauling freight railroads to passenger railroads. As far as having either having full government-controlled infastructure or none at all, isn't that a little extreme? I mean, it's the government's responsibility to construct a reasonable infastructure to facilitate the efficient transportation of goods and people. But I feel that they should do it in such a way that only the most basic forms are funded by our tax dollars. For example, they should be responsible for building the roads and regulating air traffic (things like this need to be standardized and of high-quality). But I feel that it would be better left to private companies to actually provide the transportation services. Yes, I know that Amtrak was created out of the failure of several private companies. But now Amtrak has proven that even it was a failure over the past few years. The simple fact is that people don't want to ride trains anymore when they can fly or drive (with the exception of some commuter lines). That is independent of who owns the railroads. It makes no difference. The government sees this and knows that the trend will only continue and as a result, they are cutting Amtrak's funding because they want to avoid losing even more money over the next few years.

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

LAST EDITED ON Feb-03-05 AT 00:31 AM (EST)

> full government-controlled infastructure or none at all, isn't
> that a little extreme?Well, then all that much the better for keeping things the way they are then > For example, they should be responsible for building the roads and
> regulating air traffic (things like this need to be standardized
> and of high-quality). But I feel that it would be better left to
> private companies to actually provide the transportation servicesUmmm.... Think that's exactly what i said. The government build and maintain all the rail like they do with roads and such, private companies run on them.> The simple fact is that people don't want to ride trains anymore
> when they can fly or drive (with the exception of some commuter
> lines). Not exactly true.
Actually, i think since the mid-80s, the number of passenger riding the rails has been INCREASING. Many more people ride Amtrak now than they did in 1971. Remember, millions of people ride Amtrak every year - not exactly "no one".But, MORE people WOULD ride the train IF we could actually spend the $$ to make it a viable alternative! One of the reasons that our passenger rail system isn't ridden by even more people is because we have NEVER spent the dollars to actually make it competetive!----------- BUZZ -----------

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Before Amtrak, the passenger railroad business was having serious problems and the government obviously wanted to save it. The company started with some very old equipment and very few people were using the trains. Since that time Amtrak was able to greatly improve service with what little they recieved and all the competition from airlines. I think they have succeeded with their original purpose to save passenger rail transportation and are doing fine. It is unfair to say that the government is losing money with Amtrak after everything they've accomplished. Two billion dollars per year is a small amout compared to what is being spent on airports and highways. These are all services the government is providing for the country and there is no reason to expect any of them to make money. I don't worry yet, I don't think congress would allow us to lose this resource.

C h r i s

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Well, I find it sad to see this "SYMBOL" go. On the other hand, as others already stated, it is unprofitable, unreliable and hasn't got a chance against the airlines.On the other hand - if I am not totally wrong - we see in other countries around the world that long distance passenger does indeed work. It may not be as Amtrak used to be, but it does work. See for instance the VIA "Canadian" (Vancouver - Montreal, Canada) or the NR "Indian Pacific" (Perth - Melbourne, Australia), the "Ghan" (Adelaide - Alice Springs - Darwin, Australia), the "Blue Train" (South Africa) to name a few. However, IMHO these trains are not meant to be "ordinary" trains, they are dedicated mostly to the tourist who wants a leisurely way of travelling. These trains are expensive, offer a high rate of comfort and service. Now, to me it would be an utter shame if the USA lost train symbols like the "Southwest Chief", the "Coast Starlight", the "Empire Builder" and what other trains with a proud tradition there exist. It is probably impossible to save them all. But if some could live on as "tourist trains" it would be worth bearing with the neccessary transition and loss.Cheers!Sebastian

Visit my "sebastian's trains pages" at http://www.freewebs.com/sstyrnol ...

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

St. Louis would likely lose all rail passenger service it has other then LRV's on Metrolink.

Riding on Supertrain.

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

LAST EDITED ON Feb-03-05 AT 01:29 PM (EST)

It surprises me that even AFTER 9/11 when the TRAINS were the only thing running and getting people moving in and out of New York and the entire Northeast Corridor; how Amtrak busted they're butts to get emergency and extra trains to fill the PLANES THAT DIDN'T fly and the amount of PASSENGERS that took rail since it was the ONLY option next to Greyhound...It amazes me that with all of that that Amtrak has done during those critical times that they are still looked down upon.That is why I don't like our so called "excellent" president.. you cut off an alt. to rail or bus and then you have effectively screwed yourself in a major event such as a repeat of 9/11. If it wasn't for Amtrak, the backlog of passengers trying to get back home to friends and family would have triple than what it was.During that time was the only time I have EVER seen every Northwest *Empire Builder, Coast Starlight, Cascades, VIA 1/2* sold out for more than 2 weeks straight... Tell me how passenger rail isn't important and isn't needed in this country after considering and reading all of that above...

______________________
http://Evergreentracks.tk

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

>It surprises me that even AFTER 9/11 when the TRAINS were
>the only thing running and getting people moving in and out
>of New York and the entire Northeast Corridor; how Amtrak
>busted they're butts to get emergency and extra trains to
>fill the PLANES THAT DIDN'T fly and the amount of PASSENGERS
>that took rail since it was the ONLY option next to
>Greyhound... BINGO! Apparently that's one "lesson" from 9/11 that was forgotten even before the smoke cleared. Henry

Alert | IP

[ Home | MSTS Forum | MSTS FAQ | How To... | File Library ] Copyright © 2004 by Nels Anderson. All Rights Reserved.