Nothing new here. Pretty much a rehash of the ARC plan, but lacks the ARC's committment to some sort of national rail service. It appears to be more of an exercise in Republican political ideology, rather than a genuine plan to make things work. I note that Bush will not increase Amtrak's budget next year unless an appropriations bill is consistent with the principles outlined. In other words, "My way or the highway" (pun intended).

It is especially disappointing to see Norman Mineta going along with this charade.

------------------
Trust God, love your neighbor, and never mistake opinion for truth.
-Mr. Toy

The Del Monte Club Car

There's no such person in any administration having anything to do with Amtrak or trains in general.

FTA provides money to the states for transit system projects on the same basis. In neither case is there any direct Federal control.

It seems to me that the issue here is whether Federally-supported rail should be a series of state-by-state corridors (or corridors involving two or more states) or some sort of national system.

If you analyze Amtrak's ridership, you'll find that 75% of passengers are on short-distance trains, so that's a pretty good answer to the question of what Amtrak's network should look like.

Long distance trains which use freight railroad tracks could be run under contract by almost anybody. No Amtrak needed.

quote:

---

Originally posted by CK:
Since Federal support is the key to Amtrak's survival does anyone know how Via rail is supported, by private or Federal, in Canada? Does Via operate in the red or do they actually make a profit?

---

Glad you brought that up - Via actually makes a good case in point for the current Amtrak dilemma.

Via does run on government support, though the finer details may be different in its case. In the late '80s (early '90s?) Via's subsidy was cut dramatically, resulting in the loss of nearly half its system. At the time, the resulting outcry was confined mostly to rail-advocacy and other interested groups, as is the case in America now. The public was relatively quiet.

Ten years later, however, the lament in Canada is far more audible. With hindsight, it's generally conceeded that the Via cutbacks were a mistake, and were not worth the money saved. Unfortunately for Canada, it's too late - service won't be restored anytime soon.

The best example of this is the famed Canadian. The former Canadian followed much the same route as the Trans Canada Highway, as did (and still does) Greyhound, while the more northerly Super Continental travelled a lesser served route. When one transcontinental was axed, the lower populated and lesser served route was retained (and renamed) while the train with more transportation alternatives was dropped.

but finds it difficult to support a national railroad. Go figure.

Definitely a worthy cause, as is our national rail passenger system.
Reggie

That in general might be the "key" to getting Amtrak funds...the trains aren't seen as being that critical or necessary to any of the political groups currently in favor with the White House.

That said, I am mad as heck that there is not a plan from the president's staff to reorganize Amtrak so that its trains can continue, service eventually expand, and money be used wisely. But when you examine this rationally, Amtrak's past 2 presidents brought this on by their "Big Lie" that the company would be profitable. Now they are out in better positions...that is who we should blame.

I also am mad that for 31 years Amtrak has not tried to truly expand, especially in the sleeping car department. They just charge higher and higher prices and soak the public since many of us have to have a bed to sleep on and supply is outweighed by demand. I asked NARP's late president about this at a seminar years ago and he just blew it off so nobody in the passenger train advocacy gave a flip, from the way I see it.

I agree with earlier posts that this country wastes way too much money on foreign giveaways (often to enemies). Yet we can't properly fund a good passenger train network. This has been true through the administrations of both parties and is one of America's big blunders.

What really amazes me is how quickly this is happening. It will be an economic disaster for areas that rely upon commuter trains that will be unable to run. Leaving Amtrak passengers stranded is incredible as many are in the midst of cross country trips.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Silver Star:
[VIA] may be able to buy lost more usable equipment real soon (from Amtrak's creditors).

---

Alas, more foreign aid (ha, ha).

But on a serious note, funding is not an either/or question. America not so poor that we cannot afford to fund passenger rail while still paying for foreign aid and other programs. The money's there. Also, $1B is a drop in the bucket compared to humanitarian efforts elsewhere. Just goes to show how little Amtrak gets to begin with.

Further to the point, what will be saved by scrapping federal funding for rail in the first place? I don't see anyone screaming, "Hallelujia, our economy problems are over now that Amtrak is off our backs!" Amtrak's funding amounts to the equivalent of a highway on-ramp or two per year, or as Warrington put it, roadkill removal (some of which, incidentally, is human - we have yet to broach the collateral toll of highway policy).

Lest we forget, Amtrak was formed under "closet railfan" Nixon's watch. The worst emaciation of the system (Floridian, National Ltd, Lone Star) occurred under Carter's watch, the second worst (Pioneer, Desert Wind) under Clinton's.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gilbert B Norman:
It's mighty difficult to leave your political persuasions "at the door" when discussing something like Amtrak that is so wrapped up in public policy.

I realize that of the three major Amtrak message boards (Forums), this board is more concerned with travel matters (i.e. "is Sleeper worth the money?), while trainorders addresses operational matters (extra long #4 consist left LA today). Public policy discussion has always been the mainstay over at railroad.net, but presently they have server capacity problems that I hope they can work through. Although the site is presently not "dead", it appears to be "lame". So I hope the members here that do not think public policy is appropriate for discussion will bear with us us who do until railroad.net gets back "up to speed".

---

Mr. Norman,

While each of the forums you mention are quite active (with the recent exception of railroad.net) and provide excellent sources of information, debate, discussion, et. al.. I find that the content is not as cut and dried as you contend. While it's true that the content tends to lean towards the interests of the more "vocal" participants, there is enough of a variety on each to cover all the bases.

While, for Amtrak at least, I do not frequent forums other than the ones you mentioned (again with the recent exception of railroad.net), I'm sure there are other members here who will feel their other favorite (e.g. Yahoo Groups) would rank higher on a "Top Three" list.

Although astonishingly inactive regarding Amtrak, my overall #1 railroad forum favorite has become railfan.net.

I do agree that it's hard to leave politics behind, but it's a good idea to not blame either party for Amtrak's current state. The same state of affairs has been going on through so many different houses and administrations.