Does anybody know anything about the references in the articles to sold out trains between Lynchberg and DC?
Posted by RRRICH (Member # 1418) on :
Hmm -- they mentioned the "one daily train" between Charlottesville and D.C., which of course would be the Crescent, but there was no mention of the tri-weekly Cardinal, which also serves Charlottesville.
Posted by sojourner (Member # 3134) on :
When I took the Crescent in November, coach was VERY busy. When I took the Silver Star southbound in February, it was sold out from Alexandria (they said from DC but it actually was Alexandria) to Richmond and was pretty busy all the way to Raleigh. When I took it northbound in January, there was a problem on a Virginia regional and people had to board out train in Richmond, all seats full and they had to sit in the lounge! The Meteor, which I took in the opposite direction (southbound in January, northbound in February), did not seem as busy, although I had sleepers and maybe just did not know.
Posted by notelvis (Member # 3071) on :
The Crescent has always been popular on the northern end of it's route (referring to through Virginia. Back in the 70's it was common for the train to run 6-8 coaches......some of which came off in Atlanta.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Mr. Supporter, I say this with respect to your positions at the Forum and to your "handle', but it appears you are of thought that 'Republicans hate Amtrak" and likely "President Bush hates Amtrak' as well.
I of course disagree.
Lest we forget, RPSA '70 was enacted during a Republican administration. The most severe cuts have occurred while Democrats were the party in power.
During its "266 and a wake up' remaining, it is very unlikely the Bush administration will propose any initiatives whatever regarding Amtrak; what's here now will be here come Jan 20.
You have to acknowledge that Corridors have expanded with both routes (DownEaster) and frequencies; and regarding what likely represents your "thrust" of interest in Amtrak, the LD routes have survived quite well. The losses have been limited to "appendages" resulting from the failed Freight initiative and the relatively poor performing Sunset East and Three Rivers - for the latter of course there is alternative service.
But there have been no "draconian" cuts as there were during the two past Democratic administrations. Any proposals to "de-amenitize' either the Starlight (Mr. Ortiz apparently has interior photos of a Parlour being returned to service) or the Builder are going nowhere at this time.
The Administration has stated that they are all in favor of Local initiatives for added service; result is such in Illinois.
True, the Mineta Dog and Pony was poorly executed, and there could have been less abrasive and more effective ways to build public awareness of the folly of continuing, let alone expanding, the LD system beyond what is needed to deliver the largess to ensure the legislative majority for Federally funding ANY passenger service.
But all told, I think the record shows that "Amtrak did OK" during the Bush presidency - and this being that the Administration was confronted with a national tragedy that not even author Tom Clancy could have conjured up.
Oh and lest you get a wrong impression, allow me to publicly share here at the Forum, my 1964-04 Presidential voting record. It is 5D, 5R, 1I (the last will NEVER happen again; my vote is too precious to squander).
Posted by amtraxmaniac (Member # 2251) on :
GBN: 1I? Dare I assume Ross Perrot?? LOL. Sorry, off topic.
The West of Chicago LD train service as it stands right now is more than sufficient. Where I think there are TERRIBLE gaps in service that HAVE to be addressed is between West/Midwest and the Southeast. Corridor/local service could be much more successful if fed by LD trains. Example: How many people coming off the Chief, Sunset, or Starlight transfer onto a Surfliner, Capitol, or San Joaquin? To run corridor service without LD trains equates to missed opportunities.
Something else comes to mind. Of course people aren't going to utilize trains if they don't take them where they need to go. If I have to go from LA to, say Atlanta, I'm certainly not going to go by train. It won't matter much to me if there are local trains out of Atlanta, if I can't even get to Atlanta....same going the other way: I can't get to LA from Atlanta without an OVERNIGHT transfer in NOL. And if train travel isn't practical travel for me from Atlanta to LA, do you think its going to matter to me that the train operating between LA and San Diego is a GREAT corridor train? I can't even get to LA!
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
John Anderson, Mr. Maniac, during 1980.
Posted by amtraxmaniac (Member # 2251) on :
Sorry GBN...Like you've relentlessly pointed out in other threads, I'm a youngin'. LOL. Perrot was my first yr eligible to vote....my younger, more IMPRESSIONABLE years when Perot became the poster child for the disenfranchised. LOL. I feel my vote was thrown away too. All I'll say as a student of politics is THANK GOD for a necesary evil called the electoral college...but that's another thread.
Posted by amtraxmaniac (Member # 2251) on :
I will be a big enough person to concede though (to bring us back to topic) that Amtrak has suffered equally under both Dem and Republican administrations. Rail is just NOT a big stage issue for either party. When there is talk about Amtrak, its usually a smudge on a piece of legislation that's further reaching. I think the BEST bet for Amtrak to get on the radar is as part of a LARGER dialogue in D.C about energy. Energy is ALWAYS a big stage political issue. I'd like to see funding increased for a National System as part of a larger energy package. I've heard Amtrak come up as an issue of Homeland Security...that's a little more of a stretch. Amtrak cannot stand as an issue in and of itself.
Posted by amtraksupporter (Member # 5619) on :
Gilbert B. Norman said:
quote:
... it appears you are of thought that 'Republicans hate Amtrak" and likely "President Bush hates Amtrak' as well.
I of course disagree.
Lest we forget, RPSA '70 was enacted during a Republican administration. The most severe cuts have occurred while Democrats were the party in power.
...
But all told, I think the record shows that "Amtrak did OK" during the Bush presidency
In 1970, Democrats controlled the House and Senate.
However, I harbor no illusions that the Democrats have done Amtrak well. I agree with anti-War Nancy Pelosi opponent Cindy Sheehan, who in turn agreed with Alabama Governor George Wallace that there is not a dimes bit of difference bewteen them.
I have my own complaints against the Democrats. Little Rock has close to the worst Amtrak times in the country. Extending one of the Chicago St. Louis schedules to Little Rock could provide it day schedule to Chicago. When President, Bill Clinton could have got Little Rock a day train if he had wanted to. However, he couldn't have cared less about Little Rock and his former constituents.
My other complaint is Iowa Senator Tom Harkin. Despite being a senior liberal progressive Democratic Senator, Chairman of the Agriculture Committee, sitting on the Appropriations committee, and enjoying his right to earmark money for local projects, after 22 years in office, getting Amtrak to Des Moines hasn't gotten on his to-do list.
where John McCain stated on the PBS Newshour about Amtrak:
SEN. JOHN McCAIN, (R) Arizona: This has got to be called the great train robbery. It used to be in the Old West that the outlaws took money from the trains. Now the trains are taking money from the taxpayers--$2.3 billion. The James boys, Jesse and Frank, did not have the imagination that this--that this incredible scheme does. It's not to be believed.
That Newshour segment also included President Reagan:
PRESIDENT RONALD REAGAN: Every time a passenger boards an Amtrak train the American taxpayer pays about $35, but on the New York to Chicago train it's much higher. In fact, on that run it would cost the taxpayer less for the government to pass out free plane tickets.
His calculation conveniently ignores the cost of providing plane tickets and or ground transportation for people traveling between Utica and South Bend.
McCain's and Reagan's expressions and thinking and Bush's opposition to Amtrak arises from an ideological and class mind set against federal spending on the principle it might benefit ordinary people such as ride Amtrak, to be distinguished from federal spending for the FAA Air Traffic Control system so their good buddy Rupert Murdock can ride free between Hollywood and New York in his Gulfstream V.
Between Democratic indifference and Republican principled opposition, the latter arising from ideas, presents more danger to the good of the country.
As for the Bush years, I don't think "Amtrak did OK." True, Bush could not cut any of the routes, but in terms of cutting route speed, schedule reliability, and new equipment and capital requirements, Bush has been very successful. In the long run, that strategy, if continued, will succeed.
Posted by Mike Smith (Member # 447) on :
quote:Originally posted by amtraksupporter:
McCain's and Reagan's expressions and thinking and Bush's opposition to Amtrak arises from an ideological and class mind set against federal spending on the principle it might benefit ordinary people such as ride Amtrak, to be distinguished from federal spending for the FAA Air Traffic Control system so their good buddy Rupert Murdock can ride free between Hollywood and New York in his Gulfstream V.
WHOA!!!! Where can I get a free Gulfstream V and free jet fuel and free pilots and free landing fees??? I want that deal!!!!
If Murdock can ride free, then I want to ride free!
Or maybe amtraksupporter was merely exaggerating due to his/her dislike of Republicans... Posted by amtraxmaniac (Member # 2251) on :
Right. The taxpayers foot the bill. The same way they foot the bill for highway construction, airport construction, and airline bailouts. But Amtrak is somehow ROBBING the federal piggy?
That is the great hypocracy of the anti amtrak lobby. Intercity train service is both the ECONOMICAL option in terms of transportation and its the more ECO-FRIENDLY option. You would think based on its merits that BOTH parties would be in favor of it. But Democrats simply don't care and Republicans favor special interests (oil, auto industries, etc). So yeah, between not caring one way or the other on one side and being openly hostile on the other, I think I'll go with the lesser of two evils: democrats.
Posted by notelvis (Member # 3071) on :
Hi All,
I'm enjoying the posts here and think it's great that we have a forum for such. I've staked my positions in this debate long ago and, frankly, I'm growing weary of the arguement. I like riding the long-distance trains. I wish there were a few more of them. I believe that Government's responsibility includes a balanced transportation plan. Etc., Etc., Etc. The points are out there. The rhetoric is out there. The reality of just how difficult it is to get a new service is also out there.
But I digress.......just two observations to add -
Mr. Norman, I believe that the Mineta D&P show may have actually done this administration's attempt to undermine Amtrak more harm than good. Mineta's world tour served more to rally and unite the Amtrak supporters than anything else.
Mr. Maniac - There was a certain independent candidate that I voted for on principal in the 1980 election. I've grown weary of voting for independents too!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)