Post your comments below
Here is a link to the text of Mr. Istook's letter to his fellow members of Congress: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/amtrak/message/6364
Mr. Gunn's prospects for his continued employment at Amtrak's helm are also looking quite bleak.
Post your comments below
[This message has been edited by CG96 (edited 02-22-2004).]
------------------
Trust God, love your neighbor, and never mistake opinion for truth.
-Mr. Toy
[This message has been edited by Mr. Toy (edited 02-21-2004).]
So Mr. Istook wants to save us $3 by dumping a system that the overwhelming majority (polls prove it) wants to keep. I'll bet he is willing to spend more than $3 of your money on spending that is beneficial to his political philosophy or party. That is not 'principled' or fiscally conservative.
As for Amtrak not being a main source of transportation outside of the NE, it is the NE that costs the taxpayers the most money. The rest of the national system is a better bang for their buck. Montana just completed a study showing the loss of Empire Builder would devastate the economy of the northern half of the state, where it is the ONLY (no buses, no airports) form of transportation. There also is a study showing that the Amtrak station where there is the highest total revenue in terms of what passengers paid to pass through it is (get this) Wolf Point, Montana!
The highway and air lobbies are very powerful in Congress. I seriously doubt that any well informed politician stands against Amtrak on principle.
------------------
So I'm a Amtrak fan. ;)
www.amtrak.com
Doesn't the AAR use Amtrak as the proverbial canary in the coalmine when it comes to issues regarding the railroad industry in North America?
2. The canary: No, It was Gunn that said Amtrak was the canary in the coal mine.
Actually, Gunn has fixed all that he is able to fix, and it makes no change in the opposition. Hint, we are wasting our time trying to change their minds. So, don't bother. Encourage the ones that favor Amtrak and remind the undecided that Amtrak does have support of the voters.
Gunn is also very right about Amtrak being the canary.
If you read the rail news it is obvious that the freight carriers are taking lots of heat about grade crossing safety, whistle blowing, speeds through towns, and such. After all the general public regards freight trains and tracks as a noisy, unsightly and unsafe nuisance. What happens if there is a move to eliminate the railroad's historic primacy at grade crossings? They had better start trying to make friends rather than enemies, and step one would be to do all they can to ensure that Amtrak runs on time, and that is exactly to the minute on time.
[This message has been edited by George Harris (edited 02-22-2004).]
quote:
Originally posted by polarbearucla:
Lets not call our national leaders idiots Mr.Toy.
I don't consider Istook to be a leader. Nor do I consider him to be the brightest bulb in the box. He hasn't done his math. The national system could easily run on a third of the $900 million proposed, but the NEC has a multi billion dollar maintenence backlog. He's not saving anything in the long run by not letting Amtrak fix those things now. The longer the NEC goes without repairs, the more expensive it is going to be.
quote:
Amtrak, in general, is not a main source of transportation (except in the NE), but rather a semi pleasure trip....but I realize that Amtrak just isnt that vital, and that budget cuts happen.
For some Amtrak is a pleasure trip. For others the long distance service is essential, for many of the reasons already mentioned by others. For those people who don't fly, or who can't fly for health reasons (and that isn't limited to the elderly), trains are the only reasonable way to cross multiple states. The percentage of Amtrak's customers who are leisure travelers (around 35% I think) is roughly the same as for other modes of transportation. And while LD trains don't attract many commercial business travelers, one of the of the largest categories of customers Amtrak serves are people traveling on personal business. These include trips to attend college, weddings, funerals, to take take care of elderly or sick relatives, and that sort of thing. These are the types of trips people take because they need to, and they need to do it in a cost-effective manner. Amtrak s well suited to handling that sort of customer in many cases.
quote:
And I think its time we started looking outside the world of Amtrak when it pertains to polticians.
I realize politicians need to consider the big picture more than we do, but that's no excuse for neglecting a valuable mode of transportation. One that works for many, and could work for many more if the playing field were leveled compared to other modes of transportation.
quote:
I really dont think any politican is going to risk their ideals (say being a fiscal conservative) over Amtrak.
A true fiscal conservative doesn't just go cutting things willy-nilly. A true fiscal conservative doesn't put off maintenence until the whole system collapses. A true fiscal conservative looks for ways to make something pay for itself better. You don't do that by starving Amtrak or doing things that prevent Amtrak from selling more tickets that will increase revenue. You give it the tools (capital) it needs to earn money.
quote:
Amtrak just isnt an issue that galvinizes votes. So I think we all should be happy that Amtrak gets any money, and is able to stay afloat
First, the little money Amtrak gets isn't enough to keep it going for the long term.
Second, If Amtrak doesn't galvanize votes, why does Congress spend so darn much time fussing over it? I read somewhere that when the House was debating the last budget for the final floor vote, the debate took eight hours. Four of those hours were spent debating Amtrak's portion. It is absolutely absurd that Amtrak should become a political football. It is just over 1% of the total transportation budget, and the tiniest fraction of the overall federal budget. The amount of time they waste arguing over it is completely out of proportion to the amount of the expense.
This is what ideologically myopic idiots like Istook do to keep our rail transportation technologies stuck in the 1950s. This isn't leadership. It is the exact opposite.
------------------
Trust God, love your neighbor, and never mistake opinion for truth.
-Mr. Toy
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.
"It could probably be shown by facts and figures that there is no distinctly native American criminal class except Congress.
"Fleas can be taught nearly anything that a Congressman can.
"Congressman is the trivialist distinction for a full grown man.
"Whiskey is carried into committee rooms in demijohns and carried out in demagogues.
"All Congresses and Parliaments have a kindly feeling for idiots, and a compassion for them, on account of personal experience and heredity."
For most of the Amish, taking the train is very much a part of their lifestyle. They don't necessarily do it for pleasure, but because of moral and ethical reasons.
And so what if some people take trains for recreational reasons? Since when has government financing for recreation become a mortal sin? Our national parks are built around the premise that recreation is essential to our humanity.
Furthermore, 9/11 taught us how important Amtrak was to our national security. When all the planes were grounded, Amtrak was running on schedule.
Thankfully, the survival of Amtrak appears to have evolved into more of a personal issure than a partisan issue. If it were up to the Senate, Amtrak would get most of the money it requires. The House and the President can be difficult, but they seem to understand that part of their electability depends on the survival of Amtrak.
Simple arithmetic tells us that the US taxpayer shells out about five bucks a year to keep Amtrak.
Having said all this, I wonder what sort of bitter, vindictive mind would call for the discontinuation of a reliable, affordable and safe means of transportation?
Chucky, another poster said it in a previous post: ideological myopia. In the minds of certain members - many of whom are in the pockets of the highway lobby - Amtrak is an anachronism, and "real Americans" drive or fly -they don't ride trains. the members of the Forum here are of a sub-group that knows differently, and think that trains offer a third chioce in the transport marketplace. I think this also shows some of the true colors of the US conservatives, which is that they don't care too much for the needs of regular Americans. It shows that the neo-cons have no care about what the average american wants or needs from the Gov't. It seems to me that a forward looking gov't would care about the fact that the nation is aging, and there will be a resultant requirement for public transport in the future. It also seems to me that what some of them are trying to do is sear Mr. Gunn as a fiscal blackmailer - and he has been a breath of fresh air by insisting that 1) amtrak has have equipment in orderto be in good operating condition, and 2) in order to cut costs, one has to spend money in order to avoid costs created by undercapitalization and deferred maintenance. The system has been starved for money for almost all of its existance,particularly in the past couple of years, with the results that we are seeing currently. It's going to take money, considerable sums of money, in order to get Amtrak out of the condition that it has been forced into for most of its existance.
Another thing that a forward-looking gov't would do would be to get out of business with folks who are un-democratic. Let's face the truth here, folks: in order to have cheap gas, and in order to drive cars that we like, the US has had to do business with some gov't that make no pretense about being democratic. When we talk of "liberty," and then turn around and support these folks who opress their citizens, just so we can have cheap gas, it makes us look like hypocrytes. A dollar that goes towards mass transit and passenger rail is money that may go towards reducug our dependance on foreign energy sources, and towards economic national security.
If Halliburton or Exxon would make a profit in the operation of passenger rail, I suspect that some of these "neo-conservatives" would be singing a different tune. To a certain degree, there is some validity to what some folks say: why are we funding this train system when the majority of USAmericans "choose" to drive everyplace?
[This message has been edited by CG96 (edited 02-23-2004).]
Ask 100 people, im sure that almost all of them will tell you that they have taken an airplane at some time in their life. Ask them whether or not they have taken a train, and I bet less than 50 will say yes. No why is this? If amtrak provided such good transportation, as you would like everyone to believe, then everyone would take amtrak!!! But the bottom line is that in 90% of travel situations Amtrak just isn't time or cost effective! Not to mention that survice is subpar (I dont want to be on a train where my conductor illegally carries a gun, as a matter of fact, some one should track sherrif's ip and report him to the federal police!) So please tell me why the federal government should pick up the tab, no matter the price, of a service that very very few individuals (comparitively) use. Now most people argue that airlines have the tab picked up and therefore so should amtrak, well I'm going to tell you a big secret here. Airplanes are vital to this nation, AMTRAK AINT. How in the world would you make tomorrow's business apointment in NY if you lived in LA without an airline. Would you like to spend a couple days sitting on an uncomfortable train? I sure wouldnt.
So, if i were controlling the budget I would cut all non essential routes, say the Coast Starlight, which take 11 hours from LA to SF. GREY HOUND COULD ALMOST GO FROM LA TO SF AND BACK in that time period! And we should be happy that the federal governemnt does have the sense to do just that! Be happy with what you got and stop crying for more!
In general I'd have to say a lot of people on this forum (maybe apart from little train) are just not living in reality. As a mode of transportation, Amtrak is a D+ at best. (Not getting the F for a few vital routes) For luxury and comfort, its about a C-, (just think of the sleepers!), for customer service, a C (please stop carrying your guns on trains, and stop telling me how you arrest all your customers), and a F for value. I mean greyhound and the airlines hands down are cheaper. So why in the world should the goverment should pay for a 'D' transportation system. Bottom line is that you all are to infatuated w/ amtrak to see its weaknesses. So im sorry mr. toy, just be happy with what you got, and stopy crying for more (whahahahah) 
I'm not sure how you can compare a Greyhound bus to Amtrak. Have you been on a bus lately? There is no comparison and I pity the person who would have to ride on a bus for more than a couple hours.
It may be true that lots of people don't take the train. Part of the reason they don't is because they simply don't know that Amtrak exists. Quite frankly, up to about six years ago, I didn't know it existed. Year after year I continued to perforate my eardrums in airplanes until I realized there was a much saner way to travel.
Since I have been talking and writing about Amtrak, lots and lots of people have started taking the train. The influence of one concerned citizen among the masses is absolutely incredible. People come up to me all the time, at work or when I'm shopping and say, "On a recent trip I took the train to (somewhere) and I absolutely LOVED IT! I never realized it could be such a wonderful way to travel!"
Regrettably, there aren't enough trains out there to accommodate all the people who would like to climb aboard Amtrak. As it is, ridership has never been so high and I could understanding cutting routes that might not be filled to capacity.
But Amtrak, at $5 per US taxpayer is a great deal and it would be criminal to cut it out of the transportation system. Amtrak is one of the best taxpayer deals out there and anybody who hasn't taken the train ought to check it out.
I make $20,000 a year and I can always find the time to take the train. It is one of the best transportation deals around and anybody who wants to cut it out of the system has some sort of huge chip on their shoulder.
"if Amtrak were just as effective in transporting individuals, and cheaper"
Amtrak, in several markets, is as effective in transporting individuals. Amtrak serves markets that the airlines either can't or won't serve. Amtrak serves communities which have either expensive air service, or no air service at all. One can find routes where amtrak is much cheaper than the airlines, and vice versa, by doing a web search. Ever tried to figure out the air fare for, say, Ft. Wayne, IN to Raleigh, NC? What about another market, like Fargo, ND to Albuqurque (sp?) NM? for less than $ 800? You want to compare prices, try from one medium sized market to another, and then see what happens to the price when you get away from the large airports. here's another pair to compare : try going Cincinnati - Raleigh, NC, or La Crosse, WI, and then see who is cheaper, or less time consuming. Amtrak doesn't go just from one city to another. It serves the towns and cities along the route, and in several cases is even cheaper than the Grayhound.
"If Amtrak is so vital . . .why isn't there competition?"
Well, the freight RR's decided that they couldn't compete with a Trust Fund / taxpayer-subsidized highway system long ago, and one of their responsibilities is to provide value to their shareholders, so they departed tha passenger segment of the rail transport market place. They knew their infrastructure was so expensive that they couldn't compete against raods that were financed by Uncle Sam. Truth be told, the profitable side of the RR business for many roads always was freight.
Another reason why therer is no competition is that the RR's own the tracks and they aren't about to let just any old operator travel over their rails. Many of the freight RRs were able to leave the passenger business on the condition that Amtrak was going to be the only "approved" passenger operator going over their tracks. They railroads have to put up with what they think is a large amount of governement intrusion into their business, and won't tolerate any additional intrusions, unless they are compensated for the additional hassle in the form of money, land, rails, or a Trust Fund for rail infrasturcture (Now, where have I heard that before? hmm . . )
"Ask them how many have taken a train, and less than 50 may say yes. Now why is this?"
i concede your points that Amtrak may not be time- or cost -effective for some people. However, for some other people, the reason that they haven't taken Amtrak is because in many parts of the country, Amtrak only passes through once per day (and sometimes only in the middle of the night, at that). So, a lack of availability is the reason that some folks haven't taken the train. This lack of availability stems in part from Amtrak's lack of funding, otherwise known as under-capitalization.
It could be that Amtrak can't capture a larger share of the travel / transport marketplace because it doesn't have the capacity or capability to do so. If you look at several opionion polls that have been done over the years, you'll find a sustained support for passenger rail, including support for inter-city rail.
the long distance routes exist because they can provide a backbone of sorts to the network. If Amtrak would have the capacity to run perhaps twice a day over some of these routes, I think there might be over twice as many passnegers carried because some studies, such as the Selden Plan, indicates that Passenger Miles grow exponentially when frequencies double.
"How would you make tomorrow's business appoinment in NY if you were in LA witout an airline?"
Easy. Its called teleconferencing, and many companies are going this route simply because it is cheaper than flying, with even less hassle. Teleconferencing is the reason that so many companies are making major cuts in their travel budgets. Why fly when making a phone call is more efficient?
As to your statement of air travel being vital to this nation: if you were to look at the travel budgets of many of the Fortune 500 companies, you would see that they don't hold the same opinion - at least when it comes to business travel. companies are cutting travel expenses simply because it is becoming too expensive and time-consuming. so, I would argue that based upon how they are setting up their budgets, business air travel may be going the same way as business travel overall - and that's down.
And as long as you're cutting non-essential routes, how about cutting the Essential Air Services subsidy? If you want to cut things lie waste, how about reducing the budget by privatizing all Interstates, letting the owners charge tolls, and privatizing the Air Traffic control System? How about making airlines build their own terminals, at cxompany expense, instead of building terminals at taxpyer expense? There's a few places you could go and cut?
While you're cutting away, don't be surprised if your fellow citizens start complaining about how expensive it is to drive, and how roads that used to be "free" are now "expensive."
When you make the comparisons, there are several situations where Amtrak (or passenger rail in general, for that matter) is a relative bargain compared to the highways.
[This message has been edited by CG96 (edited 02-23-2004).]
First we must convince our Congress critters that Amtrak is a viable transportation alternative for the hearing-handicapped people in our society and the "fear of flying" people.
Second, we must convince them that Amtrak is an efficient way to transport our troops and their mechanized equipment across country.
Third, we must remind them that when our Nation hits 400,000,000 people, we will desperately NEED a rail alternative for our transportation problems. If we let Amtrak die, we will pay the price at a later date.
We might also remind them that no form of mass transportation is self-sufficient, be it air, road, rail, or waterway.
(with GREAT self-restraint, I am not commenting on the metrosexual wimp's post...)
------------------
Trust God, love your neighbor, and never mistake opinion for truth.
-Mr. Toy
quote:
Originally posted by mikesmith:
(with GREAT self-restraint, I am not commenting on the metrosexual wimp's post...)
Now, its one thing to be mad at congressman istook, but its quite another thing to be insulting me. First overall, im not a whip, otherwise I wouldnt have posted my views on this subject. Hey, I know my views are controversial, but I think that everyone else here is just too enfatuated with Amtrak. And I think its very productive to hear critcism and counter criticism. Secondly, I'm really wondering if you were the one that started the "toylovesthe...." post. Lets not call people metrosexual, I think we are big boys who dont have to use that type of language, but hey maybe I'm wrong (if that is so, then GET YOUR FOUL MOUTH OFF THIS BOARD!).
But to refute your points.
1) Amtrak might be a viable option for non flyers, but so is Greyhound. And if I'm a tax payer, and that means I'm picking up the tab. So if you dont want to fly, you should travel on the cheapest alternative: The Bus. Before you say that im an evil person that doesnt like disabled people, let me throw this at you. You said that we needed a viable tranportation alternative. So what that entails is TRANSPORTATION, not luxury. By my calculations Greyhound is a whole lot cheaper and faster at transporting. So I dont really think your argument holds water. No if you want to talk about luxury transporting, thats fine, but I dont think the tax payer should have to cater to your every whim.
2) Your second argument is pretty ill conceived. Lets imagine a situation in which the army is transporting troops & equipment on trains. That sounds nice, but lets pretend I'm a terrorist that doesnt like the US or the military very much. Its pretty easy for me to stop the trains (by blowing up a few secitoins of the track). See the there thousands of roads that could be used to move troops cross country, but not so many rail lines. So instead of thousands of potential targets, you lower that number into the hundreds. Not so smart. So that idea isn't very logical.
#3 - Well right now we are at 300,000,000 and if you ever bothered to look at population growth perjections you would see that the average mother has exactly 2.0 children in her life time. That means w/o immigration, we will basically have no population growth in the near future. But lets pretend that you insist on lettin in 100,000,000 people to this country. Please tell me how Amtrak could help handle the transportation of these people. As of now, I believe amtrak transports half a million people a day, so that means for every 100 million people amtrak only transports about 160,000 people. That sure isnt going to help our transportation problems. Even if gave amtrak huge amounts of money, I really cant see amtrak transportin over 2 million people a day (.05% of 400 Million). So basically, whether or not amtrak transports 500,000 people (w/ current funding) or four tiems as many, it isnt going to help. We are still going to be swamped! So that argument just doesnt hold water w/ me.
So lets recap. 0 for 3 in your arguments. Thats a strike out by my account, next batter up!
quote:
By my calculations Greyhound is a whole lot cheaper and faster at transporting.
By my calculations, it is about even as far as cost and time. Let's take the trip I'll be taking in a few days, Monterey CA to Salem, OR. The grey *** has three options that take anywhere from 20 hours and 20 minutes to 26 hours and 40 minutes one way. Cost $64. That's 20+ hours in tiny, cramped seat with no food service and no ability to move about.
Amtrak between the same cities is 20 hours 40 minutes. Cost, $67. A virtual tie on time and cost, but Amtrak offers many more benefits, such as wider seats, more legroom, food service (essential for a 20 hour trip), and the ability to move around. Given a CHOICE between the two, its a no-brainer which to use.
The problem is that in most markets there is no choice. And I'd drive six days cross country before I'd spend more than three or four hours on a bus.
As for speed, Amtrak is slow because the infrastructure (privately owned) is no longer capable of supporting speeds that the equipment is capable of. In the 1940s it was quite routine for trains to go over 100MPH. If they could do that today, Amtrak would beat Greyhound every time. But most trains are limited to 79MPH now. So a 1940s train could easily beat a 21st century bus. But most important, 21st century trains, if we had them, would make the bus OBSOLETE.
Now, you say you don't want to pay for my comfort. OK, then don't make me pay for your airports, or that big tunnel under Boston, or those southern California freeways that get you to school. You should take the bus instead of driving, because it would save us all the cost of building those monster freeways. But to tell the truth, I have no problem with helping to pay for your transportation preferences. I am happy to do my part for the common good. That's all part of good citizenship. So why should you have trouble helping to pay for mine, especially when mine are such a tiny fraction of the total transportation budget compared to yours? It seems you want yours, but don't want me, and the other 24 million annual train riders, to have ours.
[This message has been edited by Mr. Toy (edited 02-23-2004).]
Chicago to St. Paul:
Greydog: 8:50 to 10:59, $49-$57
Amtrak: 8:15, $57, no rail sale but if you are an AAA or NARP member you get 10% off.
Faster? Cheaper? How much traveling space does your Greyhound dollar buy? Did you know Greyhound long ago declared bankruptcy? Must be all that money they spent building highways. They are continully decreasing routes and receiving federal subsidies. And many cities Amtrak serves have no intercity bus service. The bus meal stops range from vending machines to bad fast food with only one bathroom if it comes back up. Need special assistance on a bus?, -take a hike! Extra luggage? Rent a truck. And the ambiance at bus depots - five star!
quote:
Originally posted by polarbearucla:
Now, its one thing to be mad at congressman istook, but its quite another thing to be insulting me. First overall, im not a whip, otherwise I wouldnt have posted my views on this subject. Hey, I know my views are controversial, but I think that everyone else here is just too infatuated with Amtrak.
Even though I enjoy train travel, I make every effort I can to tell people the un-varnished truth when it comes to travel by Amtrak. I don't want them to board the train having unrealistic expectations of Oriental Express-style luxury, only to be dissappointed. I tell folks about my Amtrak trips, good points and low points and all.
quote:
And I think its very productive to hear critcism and counter criticism. Secondly, I'm really wondering if you were the one that started the "toylovesthe...." post. Lets not call people metrosexual, I think we are big boys who dont have to use that type of language, but hey maybe I'm wrong (if that is so, then GET YOUR FOUL MOUTH OFF THIS BOARD!).
I concur. The personal attack has no place here, and is uncalled-for. There is no place for the ad hominem attack here.
quote:
1) Amtrak might be a viable option for non flyers, but so is Greyhound. And if I'm a tax payer, and that means I'm picking up the tab. So if you dont want to fly, you should travel on the cheapest alternative: The Bus. Before you say that im an evil person that doesnt like disabled people, let me throw this at you. You said that we needed a viable tranportation alternative. So what that entails is TRANSPORTATION, not luxury. By my calculations Greyhound is a whole lot cheaper and faster at transporting. So I dont really think your argument holds water. No if you want to talk about luxury transporting, thats fine, but I dont think the tax payer should have to cater to your every whim.
{facetious mode *ON}If you want to take the bus, be my guest. I won't stop you{facetious mode *OFF}
I'd just like to point out that where passenger rail has made a strong presence, for example in the Northeastern US, or around Chicago, the service provider dominates the sirlines and offers a significant alternative to auto travel. According to US DOT statistics, passenger rail accounts for roughly 50 % of all traffic NYC - DC. this includes Newark/LaGuardia & Reagan Nat'l / Dulles airports, as well as the rail stations along the route. As travel volume grows in the future, , and as new highway and airport construction becomes more impractical, there will be increased call for these services across our continent. They aren't glamorous, but the get people from A to B. I would also like to point out that in rural areas where Amtrak's costs are relativly insignificant, passenger rail is often the only other alternative to cars travel.
quote:
2) Your second argument is pretty ill conceived. Lets imagine a situation in which the army is transporting troops & equipment on trains. That sounds nice, but lets pretend I'm a terrorist that doesnt like the US or the military very much. Its pretty easy for me to stop the trains (by blowing up a few secitoins of the track). See the there thousands of roads that could be used to move troops cross country, but not so many rail lines. So instead of thousands of potential targets, you lower that number into the hundreds. Not so smart. So that idea isn't very logical.
While i agree that this arguement is weak, there are a few errors in your statements as well. A single track of railroad can have as much people-moving and freight capacity as a 4 or 6 lane Interstate, and while the freight railraods have been taking up and removing excess trackage over the years, they still have capacity to deal with a couple of disruptions of service and are unlikly to come to a complete halt in the event that one of their tracks is bombed. Also a terrorist would have a very daunting task if he were to endevour to make a serious dent in the rail infrastructure of this country, I mena, I think that a terrorist group would have to make a fairly large scale effort to disrupt service across several lines in several different regions simultanously in order to make a significant disruption in service. let's not forget that it took several large-scale bombing raids in WW 2 to mount even a temporary disruption in German frieght traffic. You would need an effort on this scale to interrupt the flow of traffic even during the present day. Also recall that the rails were back in service much faster than the AutoBahn was. On the other hand, the US military has not used troop trains for several decades, and most terrorists would notice the publicity that one gains when disruptng the Interstate, while no one pays any attention to the RRs- unless they are blocking Mom's way to the kids soccer practice. Still, I agree that this is a weak arguement to make in support of passenger rail.
quote:
#3 - Well right now we are at 300,000,000 and if you ever bothered to look at population growth perjections you would see that the average mother has exactly 2.0 children in her life time. That means w/o immigration, we will basically have no population growth in the near future. But lets pretend that you insist on lettin in 100,000,000 people to this country. Please tell me how Amtrak could help handle the transportation of these people. As of now, I believe amtrak transports half a million people a day, so that means for every 100 million people amtrak only transports about 160,000 people. That sure isnt going to help our transportation problems. Even if gave amtrak huge amounts of money, I really cant see amtrak transportin over 2 million people a day (.05% of 400 Million). So basically, whether or not amtrak transports 500,000 people (w/ current funding) or four tiems as many, it isnt going to help. We are still going to be swamped! So that argument just doesnt hold water w/ me.
I refer you to my response to your first point. I would also point out that most people's decision to drive versus take the train reflects in part a response to gov't policies that encourage highway construction and reliance upon the car. highway construction can be financed by federal matching funds, which also can cover as much as 80 % of the construction costs of roads. For any sort of passenger rail service, such as Amtrak, there are little to no federal matching funds. Despite this, the publics demand for passenger rail service has risen the past several years to the point that the APTA indicates that since 1995 transit has grown 21 % in ridership, versus 16 % growth in driving. Due to this discouragement of public transport investment in passenger rail, State and local governments are naturally reluctant to spend money on something where they have to pay the full cost, before they go. I also repeat my point that where passenger rail is reasonably well-funded, it is a significant alternative to driving or flying, and frees up valuable space on the national highways and valuable terminal space at the nation's airports.
Other than that, I shall continue to look forward tmy next train trip via Amtrak, good and bad points both.
[This message has been edited by CG96 (edited 02-23-2004).]
Ok, let's talk about airplanes. The air corridor between LAX and SFO is already AT capacity. Many times the planes waiting for clearance at either end are actually waiting for room in the sky! Where do we go from there? We could make multiple corridors I suppose, increasing risk simply from the proximity of even MORE aircraft in the sky. But where would these corridors be? Maybe a longer, sweeping path between the two cities? Won't work. The distance travelled would be longer for one, and the congestion at either end would only be worse. And how 'bout those airports? Where will the next LAX be? Palmdale? That's exactly what's being discussed. A new airport that is almost two hours drive from it's city. It's all about land use baby.
I read some years ago in Trains magazine a story from a man who spent a night in a control tower on the 4 track Pennsylvania mainline during WWII. According to him, he recorded over 60 passenger train movements in a single hour! (and that was only on the two outside tracks, the inside tracks carried only freight trains) Assuming 300 passengers per train, that's 18,000 people past point X in one hour. Not a huge number, but not bad for 1940's technology on a right of way, what, 100 feet wide? To do the same thing on a highway would require 9,000ish cars averaging 2 occupants each (and that's generous considering how many people drive alone). What do you think creates more pollution, 9000 cars or 60 diesel locomotives? Ok, MU. Still only 120 or 180 locomotives. How much fuel would those 9000 cars use vs. 180 locomotives? Make the locomotives electric and it get's even better. Also,to move those 9000 people past that point in one hour in cars would require 2.5 cars PER SECOND past that point. That's one busy *** highway! Busses. What's the capacity of a *** , 60 or so? 18,000 divided by 60 is 300 busses. Better, but that would still be 5 busses a minute or one every 12 seconds.
I don't think anyone here has any illusions about Amtrak being the end-all of transportation. The point is that we need to develope ALL available modes of transport if we're still going to be mobile in the future without destroying the land. What is needed is a COMPREHENSIVE plan for moving people by air, highway and rail. You've all said it yourselves, each mode has it's advantages and disadvantages. What I object to is one mode being ignored by the power elite in the interest of special interests and political power and favor. Done.
Next!
Now, this affects not only urban travelers, but intercity travelers as well. Most interstate highways pass through urban areas that are choked with traffic. This delays travelers whose destination is on the other side of these urban areas. This was illustrated to me over Christmas when we drove to southern Oregon. We can't get there without going through the SF bay area. It used to take us about an hour to get from San Mateo to Vacaville. This time it took almost THREE hours!
None of this was caused by accidents. Just the sheer volume of cars. I can't tell you how much fun it is to go bumper to bumper for that long. Good thing we didn't need a bathroom, because there weren't any. I would have given anything to avoid that scene and take the train, but, alas the train doesn't go where we were going (Klamath Falls is fairly close, but not close enough for our situation).
I might add, if we had taken a bus, we would have been in the same traffic mess. If we could have taken a train we would have helped reduce the congestion instead of contributiong to it.
------------------
Trust God, love your neighbor, and never mistake opinion for truth.
-Mr. Toy
Polarbearucla:
Quote:
“I dont want to be on a train where my conductor illegally carries a gun, as a matter of fact, some one should track sherrif's ip and report him to the federal police!)
By the way “Sheriff” is spelled with two “f’s” not two “r’s”.
Let me clarify my statement about “some of us still do carry guns”. I meant the use of the word “us” referring to Conductors in general. I haven’t carried a gun since my x-wife took it in the divorce. I’m just glad she didn’t use it on me. If however I think I need to go down and buy another gun to carry to protect my passengers or myself I will do so.
As far as calling the Federal Police let me inform you that as a Conductor I am a Officer of the Federal Government and I do have the “authority of Sheriff on board the train and on railroad property in every county of every state in the United States”. “The Conductor has the right to restrain and detain anyone who is a threat to themselves, others, or company property”. Let me ask you a question which will probably be very hard for you to answer since you are so ANTI-AMTRAK and probably never ride Amtrak. (I don’t even know why you are in this forum with such animosities towards Amtrak) If you were on the train and someone were to put a gun into your face, who would you expect to help you? The Conductor that’s who. That’s our job too, protecting our passengers from harm and being abused as best we can.
Anyway, if anyone wants to find me I’m always available. I’m not afraid to give my occupation, e-mail address, name, and city I live in to my brothers and sisters in this forum. What are you hiding from down in LA?? Or is your pen name just an AK? I see very little information about you in your profile.
I think CG96, Mr. Troy, George, and TwinStar have pretty well summed it up about why we need alternative transportation. I might add that European rail system is subsidized by their government $5 BILLION a year to run their trains and maintain equipment and tracks. You can put Europe inside the state of Texas and have plenty of room left over. The Northeast Corridor does a whopping business on Amtrak and the west coast ridership is going up every year. Your tax dollars are being spent on roads which are obsolete by the time they are finished. We definitely need the airplanes and highways but we also need the railroad’s.
As M190 stated 20 lane, 30 lane,40 lane highways, where does it stop. By the way M190 going up through the valley with highways would not be good because of all the pollution on all our farm lands. Remember 80% of the US depends on the fruits and vegetables, that we supply to them, is grown in that valley.
Did you know that Amtrak thruway busses surpassed the Big Gray *** in bus miles nation wide? As of about 4 years ago Amtrak covers more miles with their feeder busses alone, not counting the trains, than Grayhound busses.
I think you are undersized on both the size of Western Europe and the amount they spend on their railroads. Don't have the figures, but I wouls suspect 5 billion $ or more would be likely to be the amount for each of any of the major countries in Europe. Maybe GeoffM could help us out here.
To the metrosexual wimp:
Your inate fear of a gun and your delusional rant about Sheriff gave the impression that you are a metrosexual wimp. Here's a desperately needed free clue for you.... I know a Greyhound bus driver. He ALWAYS has his 38 Special with him. He knows the clientele he has to deal with on his bus.
As far as your three strikes statement, well several people have already refuted that. In fact, if you were not so young, you'd realize the reasoning behind the "security issue" of Amtrak. Our interstate highway system was built because it would expedite transporting our troops around our Nation. The same argument can be used with Amtrak. Congress critters are always happy to trumpet their desire to "protect our Nation".
Also, in your infinite ignorance, you stated
"GET YOUR FOUL MOUTH OFF THIS BOARD!"
What are you trying to state? What "foul mouth" are you babbling about? Do you consider metrosexual wimp to be obscene?
Oh... never mind.... I just don't care...
How much does the government spend on air travel from terminals, to traffic controllers to the big post 9-11 bailout? And then add the taxes car rental agencies at the airport charge etc.
So why is the Amtrak costs never compared to air costs?
I was revolted by the bailout. Imagine if everytime a company had a work outage the government bailed them out. I realize the 9-11 bailout was different in a way...but we all know that the trains kept people moving.
The off topic question about taking Greyhound instead of Amtrak? Look I don't mean to sound like a snob...but I do..
Let me tell you about my daughters trip from Houston to San Antonio. A reserved bus ticket means NOTHING. They over sell the bus and my daughter had to wait hours at the revolting , dingy, crime infested bus station. All dregs of the lowest humans hang out in the bus station. On one of my daughter's trips on the bus, they stopped in a little town and pulled off two guys at gunpoint cause they were seen buying guns at the previous bus stop!
Then you have the wheezing person next to you, the woman with all the chemicals, I mean nail polish to smell, the people who thing the silent but deadly farts smell good, the people who have not seen a shower in two weeks etc. No...give me a sleeper!
[This message has been edited by yummykaz (edited 02-24-2004).]
quote:
Originally posted by yummykaz:
So why is the Amtrak costs never compared to air costs?
To be fair to the simple minded idealists we must realize that they don't comprehend certain subtleties. In this case they don't understand the differences in how the railroads are structured compared to other modes of transportation. Amtrak's subsidies stand out to them because the money goes directly to the service provider, whereas other transportation subsidies go into support services and infrastructure. To them, it is akin to paying subsidies directly to Carnival Cruise Lines or United Airlines (which they do anyway on occasion, but that's a topic for another day).
Even when you explain to them that the planes and ships use publicly financed facilities while Amtrak uses (for the most part) privately financed facilities makes no difference to them. Amtrak is a "for profit business" in their eyes, not a public service like roads and airports, and therefore should not get public money. There's some sort of mental block that prevents them from seeing the whole picture. It is like a blind man telling those with eyes that they are living in a fantasy world because they believe in sunlight.
------------------
Trust God, love your neighbor, and never mistake opinion for truth.
-Mr. Toy
And when I point this out to my congresspeople, their response has been that gosh, airlines aren't subsidized, so why should we subsidize Amtrak? Congresspeople don't ride trains.
I explained to him the air, road, and waterway subsidies and he seems amazed that these were subsidized. He thought the user fees and road taxes covered the costs. I gave him some numbers off the top of my head, and they were off, so I emailed him the NARP page so he could get up to speed about mass transit subsidies.
The lesson.... Keep writing and informing your Representatives and Senators. You just never know what info they have and don't have...