posted
I respectfully disagree. Where I live right now, if the State didn't pay for train service, MKE would be down to just one or two train frequencies daily. the train gives people a transport option that they wouldn't have if certain politicians and NIMBYs ( who apparently cannot concieve of getting around in any other way than auto ) had their way. The train service gives people a choice. Would you rather have only two methods to get around, or would you like to have a third option?
One way to think of it is this: Would you go to an ice cream store with only two choices of flavors, or would you like the option of going to a store with several choices of flavors? Many people I know would rather have the choice of going to the ice cream store with more than two flavors.
posted
Excuse me if I don't understand your response correctly, CG96, but I don't think the original poster was suggesting that the feds pay only at the current level of support. I'm for an all federally funded Amtrak but with a level of funding much higher than it is today so that current routes can be maintained and new routes and frequencies can be added where appropriate.
posted
RMiller, what I was writing in the earleir post was that people want to have the option of having as much choice as they can get. The ice cream store was simply an analogy. Would one go to the store that carries only two flavors, or would one rather go to the store where there is the wider variety of thirty-one flavors from which to choose? based upon that analogy, would the citizens of a state be willing to pay just for the option of having the choice of being able to take the train, in addition to having the choice to drive or fly? What I was trying to state was that I think people would choose the option of having more choices in the transport marketplace, not less. Also, there should be a mechanism for a State DOT to have the option of providing for this additional service, should the governor or the local citizenry find additional service to be in their public (local) interest. This can be provided by either a private firm or a public agency.
[This message has been edited by CG96 (edited 04-06-2003).]
posted
CG96 I belive the more trains you run the more ridership you will have thats what i am trying to tell the State of Michigan before we loose our State funded trains.M-DOT took the ticket agents out of East Lansing Flint Port Huron stations ridership has droped.East Lansing took in more than $800,000 in the year 2001 there is only one train each way a day it serves MSU on a friday you could have over 100 passengers get on the west bound train.
posted
I'm a little confused. Are we talking about interstate trains, or intrastate and regional trains?
Interstate trains should be a federal responsibility. If they become dependent on the whims of 48 different state budgets there will be no way to hold the system together.
Regionals and intrastate trains (including the NEC!!!) should be paid for with an 80%/20% federal/state split, the same formula used so successfully for funding state highways.
------------------ Trust God, love your neighbor, and never mistake opinion for truth. -Mr. Toy
posted
The 80%/20% formula seems to be the most sensible one. A pennytax at the pump to help fund Amtrak definitely couldn't hurt either.
Posts: 498 | From: New Hope, PA, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
RE: posts by BNSF 1088 & Mr. Toy: We're kind of argueing different sides of the same coin here. I'm in favor of 403(B) trains. Just like a certain GBN, I'm in favor of having the Federal Gov't provide a backbone of service like the INTERstate trains, eg the Empire Builder. the INTRAstate trains may be left to the states where it is in the public interest (for example, CHI-MKE-MSN-MSP). it can be sold to the eneral public as "having more choice in the transport market." Onething I also think must be done is to point out that NO FORM of transport "makes money." All the forms of transport ( sea, air, road, rail) all have some kind of gov't subsidy - - except rail in the United States.
Posts: 506 | From: Wisconsin | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Although, I believe that the feds should ultimately responsible for running ALL trains, the can learn a great deal about management from the states.
Take Amtrak California for instance. Our California trains have been pretty darn successfull because Caltrans understands that you have to spend money to make money. Caltrans has invested millions and more than held up to its end of the partnership. California has pretty much purchased its own equipment.
Point being, the feds are ultimately responsible, but Amtrak can only benefit from individual states stepping up to the plate. Nonetheless-if states want to give Amtrak the finger-than the federal government should do what's necessary to make sure the system stays together.
------------------ Patrick
Posts: 387 | From: Bakersfield, CA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure what is meant by saying that "states will give Amtrak the finger." Here in New Mexico I'm not sure anybody even wants to take the energy to lift a finger, any finger.
Sen. Domenici said (in a letter to me) that he is for Amtrak and then votes against increasing federal moneys. Bingamen seems to be for Amtrak. In the House, Heather Wilson won't even respond to inquiries.
Democrats are solidly behind Amtrak but it's not like anybody here needs the train to get from Albuquerque to Gallup in the same way somebody want to get from San Diego to Santa Barbara.
Here in New Mexico it seems easier for politicians to just ignore the issue than to give the Southwest Chief the finger. If they give the Chief the finger then that would be news. If they simply ignore the issue nobody cares.
Meanwhile, I'm wondering if I will still be able to take the train from Albuquerque to LA or to Chicago in 2004.
[This message has been edited by Chucky (edited 04-11-2003).]
Posts: 324 | From: Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The question that LD train critics are missing is not whether Amtrak riders can make due without service between Albuquerque and Gallup, but whether we can get from Los Angeles to Kansas City or Chicago without having to change trains 3 or 4 times. Direct service between major metropolitan areas is needed. This is true whether the metropolitan areas are 200 miles apart or 2,000 miles apart.
No offense, but Amtrak can always decide to breeze the SWC straight through Gallup or Raton or Las Vegas. The train can role right through these town as passengers extend a one finger salute to all the hometowns of these "I can care less" politicians.
O.K-I'm sorry. I'll try to stop making one finger salute references. I just get so worked up on this subject matter.
Point being-If the states don't want to step up to the plate-then the feds need to take responsibility. We need to keep our nations metropli connected via one system. It's bad enough as it is that the Sunset is the only true transcontinental route (and it only runs three times a week ]: )
One other thing-there's not one nationwide passenger rail system in the world that runs free of subsidies. So let's stop buying in to this pipe-dream that Amtrak can be self sufficient!
------------------ Patrick
Posts: 387 | From: Bakersfield, CA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I also concur with Amtrakmaniac. It is very dissappointing to find out politicians who have no recollection as to why and when the private RR's left the passenger market. Certain national leaders then make statements to the effect that Amtrak should make money even though it doesn't have the capitol necessary to grow the business. Most parts of the country will never see an increase in ridership unless you increase the frequency of service. Starve the railroad of capitol, bankroll its competitors to the point where it can't compete in the travel marketplace, then place it on a starvation diet, then complain when it can't grow the business. Judging from the comments made by several individuals on CSPAN yesterday, it looks as though there is still a long way to go. One legislator remarked about how she was dissappointed with Amtrak's service to Louisville. What did she expect? she never appropriated the money to upgrade the line, she never appropriated the $$$ to purchase additional equipment with which to run several frequncies of train departures, and then she complains?
RANT MODE *off*
Sorry, everyone. I digress. The government should provide for a backbone of Nationwide service, then states should be able to provide for their individual needs - with something like a sales tax to reimburse the RR's for the expense of maintaning track to at least Class 5 standards for pass. trains. Where I disagree is the mention of closing stops in places just because a particular politician happens to be anti-passenger rail. The rail company has to have enough money, and passengers, to grow the traffic levels. Don't close the trains, instead, the Feds should double the service levels, and then it might provide for traffic levels to the point where the pols won't ignore it.
To get back to the original posters question: Yes the federal government should provide for service, but also at a level that allows for more than one frequency/day. States can reimburse the service provider for additional levels of service. Perhaps they can model the funding mechanism after the METRA funding scheme.
[This message has been edited by CG96 (edited 04-12-2003).]
posted
I believe that the federal government should fund a basic rail passenger network comparable in scope to the Interstate Highway system, reaching all major cities and providing an attractive level of service. If states want additional regional or commuter service, they could sponsor that on their own.
------------------ Steve Dunham Literalman@aol.com http://www.stevedunham.50megs.com/
Printer-friendly view of this topic
