posted
Amtrak lives another year. How long can this go on?
CHATTER Member # 1185
posted
quote:Originally posted by Jerome Nicholson: Amtrak lives another year. How long can this go on?
Well, it has gone on for 35 years now.
JONATHON Member # 2899
posted
Hopefully Amtrak can last till bush gets the boot
gp35 Member # 3971
posted
The Article is saying Bush was bluffing about ending funding. He just wanted them to shape up. Did I misread?
George Harris Member # 2077
posted
quote:Originally posted by Jerome Nicholson: Amtrak lives another year. How long can this go on?
It has been going on for over 30 years. Why not a few more? Without some basic conceptual changes in the method of funding, it will go on for the foreseeable future.
George
Jerome Nicholson Member # 3116
posted
quote:Originally posted by JONATHON: Hopefully Amtrak can last till bush gets the boot
The Dems aren't much better; they seem satisfied to keep Amtrak barely surviving on a feeding tube rather than kill it, as Repub's say they want to do. And remember, we lost the North Coast Limited and others under Jimmy Carter.
notelvis Member # 3071
posted
quote:Originally posted by Jerome Nicholson:
quote:Originally posted by JONATHON: Hopefully Amtrak can last till bush gets the boot
The Dems aren't much better; they seem satisfied to keep Amtrak barely surviving on a feeding tube rather than kill it, as Repub's say they want to do. And remember, we lost the North Coast Limited and others under Jimmy Carter.
That's been the most cruel irony. Democratic gains in the congress and senate in this fall's elections might help some. That's actually more of a factor than who wins the White House.
A Democrat living on Pennsylvania Avenue would probably spell the end of Norm Mineta's reign of outright lies although Norm probably would retire at the end of the Bush presidency anyway.
These are minor victories at best though and unlikely to make a significant difference. The largest periods of route reductions occured during the Carter and then during the Clinton presedencies. Aside from the 'eliminate Amtrak' rhetoric, Amtrak has fared as well and possibly a shade better during Republican presedencies.
RRRICH Member # 1418
posted
........and of course it was Richard Nixon who originally signed AMTRAK into existence in the first place.
Capltd29 Member # 3292
posted
Ok, now we have had presidents both democratic and republican who havent been very friendly to Amtrak, but folks, look at the votes for amtrak funding, it goes a little bit better than party lines, and the Dems voting Yea. There is some thoughts that Amtrak would be the same or worse under a democratic congress and whitehouse. Well folks, these are unfounded claims. If John Kerry, or Al Gore were making the Appointments to the Amtrak Board right now, I dont think we'd be looking at nearly the same situation as we are under the current administration.
In conclusion, while there are several republicans who do help keep Amtrak Afloat in congress, most of Amtrak's support comes from the left side of the Aisle with the Dems, which tend to favor the lower-working class on issues, including Amtrak.
Folks, whomever you plan on voting for in '06 and '08, take a look at their record on transportation. This is an important issue,(Please note that I'm not saying that Amtrak competes with Social Security and Medicare, or Poverty in terms of being important) and If you would like to ride a LD train in America again, this should be taken into consideration.
Respectfully,
Jon Parker
mikesmith Member # 447
posted
Actually, Amtrak is above Social Security and Medicare.
Transportation is a constitutionally mandated authority {General welfare/interstate commerce clause.. Article 1 Section 8}; Social security and Medicare are not constitutionally mandated.
B.T.Rider Member # 3975
posted
The loser always redefines the loss into a win. Bush meant to kill Amtrak, and he tried to and lost for now.
I find it cheering (a little) that he has not yet called for zeroing out Amtrak in next year's budget.
The contest between the Administration and Congress (who authorized $11billion over six years) should be very interesting.
TwinStarRocket Member # 2142
posted
This is the time to question candidates for 06 election on their positions on passenger rail. This may be more effective than letter writing after they are in office. When they need our vote, they are willing to listen. We have public opinion on our side, but this issue does not show up on most politician's radar.
4020North Member # 4081
posted
Well, regarding Amtrak's condition, I'd say not much longer. Amtrak can't go much lower. In isolated parts of the country, trains are a used and kept up mode of travel, but for most trips wherever we may be in the U.S. , let's face it, do we really have the option of going by rail? No. Well, I don't think anyone has the resources to keep on doing things this way for long. How much economic sense does it make to maintain high-volume Interstate corridors for highway traffic while there are hardly any trains that run along them? Yes, there are some types of routes where trains aren't the most economical solution, and the gridlocked, high volume inter-city corridor isn't one of them. How many of those corridors actually have train service? As many have said, our rail system is skeletal. To solve the problem will take a lot more money and resources than either Congress or the Administration is acknowledging right now, i.e. it'll take a shift in thinking towards a true multi-modal system. It seems like what we're doing, to a large portion of our national trasportation system, is to put into force the least efficient and therefore least cost-effective modes of transportation. Now, how long do we all really think this sort of economic negligence can continue, without some serious problems?
posted