posted
Let's remember 1 thing you take just 1 train off you will cripple a lot of people who can only travel by train or Amtrak is the only way in or out of that town/city.
If people want to add routes then we need to push the Government to add routes but not at the cost of cutting routes to gain a route.
Think of the passengers that use Amtrak ether because of medical condition that won't let them fly or take a bus or what i mentioned above about Amtrak being the only service thru that area.
Matt Marderosian Director of Save Our Trains Michigan/Save Our Trains Mississippi
posted
I'm taking a considered liberty in posting the same material here that I did at Railroad.Net:
First Mr. Marderosian, I think the term "adversely affect' should be used in place of "cripple'.
I realize that I am hardly the strongest advocate at this Forum of continuing, let alone EXPANDING, the LD system for any reason, and I further wish to point out that access to public transportation is not a right; it is a privilege that is afforded to regions, invariably urban regions, where the voters have choosen to support such with their Sales and Income Tax $$$. Persons who had best limit their driving (that includes myself) and desire to be mobile should consider relocating to an urban area where there is a sufficient population base to support mass transit.
Regarding the Amtrak LD system, I'm not so concerned about the $300M or so it costs taxpayers (they'll just find something else to pi** it away on), but rather the interference it causes to the Class I's from performing their vital role in moving freight traffic.Posts: 9975 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Ok, there's a first time for everything, although I can't believe I'll be the first person you've ever met to state, for the record, the loss of Amtrak will cripple my ability to take a very distant vacation. (With tongue ironically in cheek, he continues.)
Business travel? Well, they pack me on a plane with 18" wide seats and 16" of legroom with 200+ of my new closest smelly friends, shoulder to shoulder, in cattle car class to make (at most) a 2 hour flight anywhere in my teritory. Forget the fact that I now have to pack my tools and send 'em off freight days before hand now (and back again); that physically, I swell up (like all older folk) in that type of atmosphere, so basically it's very uncomfortable to fly, but I get along and survive it. (survive, overcome whatever.)
Vacations? that's another story. Pleasure. right? Long distance travel for me, that's San Diego to New Orleans (home town/relatives) Michagan(relatives), Virginia (relatives) by car is out of the question, by personal choice, because I just don't want to deal with the "other" type of people who have been allowed any sort of vehicle licence, who are out there on the road these days. Should I mention gas prices now? And there are so many other reasons why I'm physically unable to drive or sit through a long distances car ride. Have you seen the rest stops lately? Been there, done that. Ugh!
Busses? Riiiiigghhhhght! Oh, Pleeeaaase! Ok, then, but enough about me.
My wife is capable of driving long distances. However, she cannot fly due to what I call the triple threat. 1) she cannot physically handle the change in cabin pressure. Hell, she cannot handle going over mountains without something happening to her inner ear! She can't equalize the pressure. 2) She cannot handle the claustrophibia of being together with that many people. 3) she cannot handle the sometimes violent motion which occurs during flight (probably has a lot to do with a fear of flying in general, being 35,000 feet above ground without a net) I've never flown with her, but I've been told they had to pry her fingers out of the arm rest of a Michigan flight and she had to be sedated at her destination.
Now, approximately what percentage of the US population is in my boat? (boat, oh yeah, that right, we can't get on the water either!) Let's say less than 1%.
A lot of figures have benn thrown about, but as a general rule can we agree that the passenger railroad (by whatever name you want to give it) is given less than 1% of the total federal budget, and does fairly good with that. It might even become more popular if the passenger railroad (and in it's current form, that's Amtrak) is provided more resources to perform to a higher standard. (and others have gone over that subject)
Pay for it, one might say. OK how does $4,000 for a subsidized (?) coast to coast trip (sleeper by the way) in September sound to ya. Hurts my wallet. However, the railroad is providing, not a cruise, but a transportation system for me to get from point a to point b.
What am I looking for? A balanced transportation system that includes all 3 modes. (water borne is probably out of the question) Good things come in threes (he said, bibically).
Oh, and I've never had to sleep on the floor overnight in a railway station. Denver airport floor was not comfortable.
So, hopefully you can take this into consideration; a small percentage of us need the alternate rail form of transportation system, and it takes only a small percentage of the total federal budget to provide it. Going private is not going to change the issue, even IF the class 1's were wanting to provide, which they proved they did not 4 decades ago.
Thank you for your eyes and ear, in listening/reading this somewhat humourous explanation.
v/r
Posts: 30 | From: San Diego, CA, USA | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am playing devil's advocate. All the civielized ( and some not so civilized) have a passenger rail system what is the big deal over this country having one. I remember hearing Queen Elizabeth's speech to the opening of Parliment last Nov. in which she said that her government was providing more monery to the railway. I wish the politicians (note I did not say statesmen as in my opinion we don't have any) would stop playing politics with the trains. I guess Amtrak can't buy them off the way other industries do. I can no longer drive, I don't"do" planes and one cross country bus trip was sufficient. I am angry that the Government is trying to prevent me from taking coast to coast trips.
Posts: 1577 | From: virginia | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Ask not what you can do for your country, Demand what your country has to do for you."
Posts: 516 | From: New Haven, CT USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
one thing I can do for my country is remind the congress of the remarks of Theodore Roosevelt who stated that Congess should remember they are the servants of the people not their masters.
Posts: 1577 | From: virginia | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Welcome to the board, earmond! I hope you will post more of your thoughts in the future. I enjoyed reading your words and can sympathize with your wife's situation: Not only am I unable to fly (because my eustacian tubes are collapsed and won't equalize the pressure between the outer environment and my inner ear) but I have been told, in no uncertain terms, that the airlines don't want me on board (because they don't like the way I scream in pain once my eardrums perforate).
train lady, the barbarians are certainly way ahead of us when it comes to train travel. I do believe that the Chinese have invested over 13 billion dollars in 2005 alone to improve their rail infrastructure.
And Mr. Norman, I find some truth in your words but I think that politicians seem to dislike long haul trains more than the freight companies. Although the freight companies do occasionally sideline us for a few hours, I don't hear an outcry for the elimination of passenger rail service from their corner. I'm thinking that they must be relieved that they no longer have to pay for passenger trains and also must feel a surge of nostalgic pride every time an Amtrak train passes them by.
For my part, Mr. Norman, I'm ashamed of the city of Albuquerque for not allowing Amtrak into the brand new station they are about to complete for the Belen-Bernalillo commuter train scheduled to open soon. Instead of allowing Amtrak to use their facilities, they roll out the red carpet to Greyhound. Granted, Greyhound is willing to fork out the bucks for that privilege, but I wonder how the city of Albuquerque will feel when train travel enjoys its inevitable renaissance and Amtrak decides to locate their service stop elsewhere.
-------------------- Please visit "Chucksville" at http://www.chucksville.com and sign my guestbook! Posts: 324 | From: Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
You live close enough to Boston. Should their citizens not have demanded a traffic solution called the Big Dig? Their prior highway system through downtown did move traffic. It was good enough in 1966. If the citizens did not want to crawl through downtown at 5mph on a highway designed for 70mph, then don't move there.
How about that public and government owned airport in Denver? And how about the one their asking for in San Diego? Drive to LA I say, I like my small town. Oh wait, the highway is so crammed they'll miss their plane.
New Orleans (and the gulf coast) is crying for better levees and storm control protection. Well, those levees were state of the art in 1950's. It was good enough before. If they didn't want to live below sea level, or at the coast, then don't move there, right?
Busses and streetcars, by the way, in New Orleans, through the 1970's, were provided by a quasi-public (government) utility that also provided gas and electricity service, ironically named the New Orleans Public Service Incorporated. NOPSI. And therin lies the irony. Government has an obligation to provide a public service, when there is no large private entitity willing to provide such things on their own, especially when there is no profit. (by the way, delivery of those services was like reliable clockwork during those earlier years. Since handing these services over to privitation, Entergy New Orleans has gone bankrupt, and the RTD system has increased rates 10 fold since the 1980's and provided not so reliable, reduced service. Ah!, corporate greed and profit and share holder margin vs reliable spending to improve infrastructure for the non-competitive public good .)
Anyway, such a pittiful drop in the bucket we ask for with respect to the grand scheme of the federal budget. There is no doubt that changes need to be made in the management and labor process to provide a beter managed and run passenger rail system. Those should be made. Change, for change sake however, just to look like your doing something, does not progress make. Do you know anyone who enjoys being micromanaged at their job; especially by managers who have never done that job? The opposite of PROgress is CONgress. (he said tongue in cheek.) There has got to be bigger fish to fry, to recover greater margins of public waste. If one has got a replacement that works better, than implement it. But prove it works first before tearing down something you may not get back again.
v/r
Posts: 30 | From: San Diego, CA, USA | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Definition for change for change sake under the demand of micromanagement......
Simplified dining system vs a full dining facility. The cost of them disposable paper plates is going to add up. But by gum, they've dis-employed 2 labor line items. (that's right, line items, not people with families)
Let's spend ---lots--- of money we don't have to reconfigure/rebuild every lounge car we have into a half and half, so we can state for the record we've eliminated unprofitable dining facilities.
And oh, let's keep hauling around freight road railers, for one constituent at less than market rate (we're a govermnment entitity). He's gonna put me back in office so I can continue to serve his needs. So what if it delays passengers getting to their destination. If they wanted to get "there" on time, they should have taken a plane.
-------------------- Ernie Posts: 30 | From: San Diego, CA, USA | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
And today they indicted 6 concrete exec's for faulty concrete. The River Tunnels in New York City have been operating for over 70 years. The Big Tunnel? It already leaks. Problem with Governent it competes with itself, builds roads operates railroads, subsidies airlines. At one time the buses and subways had been privatly owned. Why hasn't Al Gore stood up and said high prices are good for the enviorment? The cry was always, if America had gas prices like europe we would drive less. well stop whining hope your 401k, Pension or Mutual Funds have Exxon/Mobil in the portfolio and go catch the one after nine on nine!
Posts: 516 | From: New Haven, CT USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Would you please translate or kill that rant, Mr. Tanner????
Posts: 9975 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
To all who care..... Were I to book my late September trip at present vs. when I did a few weeks ago, same trip would now cost $4600.00 subsidized dollars, and I would have to book to depart 1 day earlier because it looks like there are no bedrooms available on the date I originally booked.
option 1) Hummmmmm maybe I'll be getting a call, because they've determined that there is not enough demand for rail travel by sleeper that day to warrant a sleeper car on that train.
option 2) Or maybe they've already sold out and bookings are pretty good.
Inquiring minds want to know!
Keep smiling everyone. Surely, not everything is that darn serious! (I know, I know.... Don't call you Shirley.) or late for dinner (rim shot)
v/r
Posts: 30 | From: San Diego, CA, USA | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
I wonder what will happen to the Dining Cars?? Will they sit at Beech Grove and Rust?? Probably. Will Amtrak still have to pay for the lease on cars?? Probably. So more money goes out the window.
I agree with earmond's point on the money used to refurbish the lounge cars, why not use the Dining Cars as they are, but offer the "Dining Lite" menu on them?? I don't know...but would it not have been easier to refurbish the galley and seating area with a minimum amount of money?? Again I don't know...just ruminating???????????????
Posts: 171 | From: Aurora, Illinois | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
And with wink of an eye and a gentle nudge, nudge, he notes.....
Hello! Did I just see "subsidies" (subsidizes) and "airlines" not only used in the same sentence, but the word 'subsidizes' used as a participle to the noun 'airlines', describing an action performed for, on or to the descriptive noun (describing an industry) 'airlines'.
The opposition is weakening, folks.
OK, this is just a jest, right?
v/r
-------------------- Ernie Posts: 30 | From: San Diego, CA, USA | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Now that the discussion has moved to include Auto Train, allow me to share a "speculative hunch" of mine - Auto Train will be the first and likely last LD involved in any "privatization" initiative the Amtrak Board seeks:
Lest we forget, Auto Train is covered by a separate operating agreement between Auto Train Corp, or successor (Amtrak), and the RF&P and SCL railroads, or successors (CSX) . This is why there are provisions such as on;y passengers AND autos may be carried.
Further, AT connects with no other train and uses only solely related facilities. It even has a separate reservations phone number, although of course such can be reached through USARAIL. There are people who use Auto Train that have no reason to use any other Amtrak service - in short, it is a "closed shop'.
Lastly, the new auto carriers are leased. The private operator could readily assume such. Locomotives and passenger cars are a bit more of a "sticky wicket' in that such are already covered by leases that include equipment outside the scope of AT operations. In short, the cost is not quite as definite and determinable.
So it will be interesting to see how or if this hunch plays out. Unfortunately for taxpayers, the contract will likely be a cost plus of the "heads you win, tails we loose' variety.
Posts: 9975 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Being the proud owner of a 1984 Volvo, I know firsthand that renovating or refurbishing a car will only get you so far. Beneath all the improvements, it's still a "beater" and there comes a point where it may be either downright dangerous or only appropriate for driving around town (or maybe sitting in a museum).
If the government wants to replace some old cars, then I say go for it. I have seen pictures of the new cafe/dining cars and they seem quite nice. (Unfortunately I can't find where I put the new picture... does anybody have it to share with others?)
I would rather eat off china, but the new plastic plates and paper cups are not the end of the world, I suppose. I rode the Southwest Chief to Los Angeles from Albuquerque on Easter Sunday and asked a supervisor about the changes. She told me not to make prejudgements about the food until I tried it. She said that the lamb, steaks and rotisserie chickens had always been precooked and that they taste the same as they did before they made the transition.
I don't know how to reply to complaints that people are making about the cost of sleepers. I rode in a sleeper about a year ago and found it to be a rather dull and isolating experience. Compared to the cost of the American Oriental Express, they are a bargain.
As far as cutting routes on the system is concerned, it would seem to me that this is simply not happening and may not happen. Maybe Amtrak would take these routes more seriously if cities like Albuquerque would help support the stations and not let them burn down, but they don't.
One fact is undeniable, the kitchen staffs have been cut in half. You've got about three people running the dining car now and if somebody gets sick, then they have two people to do everything. These changes are hard on the staff but they seem to be adapting.
-------------------- Please visit "Chucksville" at http://www.chucksville.com and sign my guestbook! Posts: 324 | From: Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
You don't lease a dining car that's over 50 years old and was given to you. Charles, do you need any parts?
Posts: 391 | From: Schenectady | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Hello! Did I just see "subsidies" (subsidizes) and "airlines" not only used in the same sentence
Unfortunately the statement was false. The U.S. government did provide a one time subsidy to the national air carriers in 2001, following the government shutdown of the airlines after 9/11/01. It was a one-time payment, and has not been repeated.
Think of the economic impact that would have incurred had the government not made that payment - you would have seen thousands of employees laid off and collecting unemployment during that time - both directly (employed by the airlines) and indirectly (employed by anyone from tourism and travel businesses, airline suppliers, fuel distributors, etc.). Such would not occur with an Amtrak shutdown, and the number of directly-impacted Amtrak employees would be far less than the airlines.
However, Amtrak still receives $1.2B a year.
Posts: 15 | From: Kalispell, MT - USA | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here's DOT's budget for 2004, showing a $14 billion subsidy for air travel, a $32 billion dollar subsidy for car travel and a $7 billion budget for mass transit.
posted
Yes, Amtrak207: I need a new driver's front seat (leather).
-------------------- Please visit "Chucksville" at http://www.chucksville.com and sign my guestbook! Posts: 324 | From: Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
And just how big was that "one time" bailout? Anyone want to quote the figures? That one time was bigger than the combined, entire 32 year history of the National Passenger railroad.
Making my point, that to provide this national mode of transportation costs so little with respect to all the rest, and does so much, for those who chose or need it, that there must be bigger fish to fry which will provide greater return for all the effort being expended expended, if you are trying to recover pork expenditures. Such as, that soon to be considered bailout of, I believe, Boeing, a profitable company by any stretch of the imagination. With Katrina recovery dollars? Oh please?
-------------------- Ernie Posts: 30 | From: San Diego, CA, USA | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
not everything is that darn serious! (I know, I know.... Don't call you Shirley.) or late for dinner (rim shot)
