Even today though, there are still quite a few military trains running about as required. Go to the Oaks Model Railroad web site once and a while and you will see them in action around the Philadelphia area usually pulled by NS. The military has a large amount of flat cars with DODX reporting marks just for that service.
You can’t ship everything by air otherwise the military would have no need for the Merchant Marines.
csxengineer-
I know you don’t like wasteful government spending. Even if government funding for Amtrak was stopped immediately, and the government could just ignore the multi-billion residual obligations, and the $1.8 billion requested was instead passed to you as a reduction in income taxes, you might get something on the order of $40.00 per year.
A shut down of Amtrak is likly to impact the level of future Railroad Road Retirement benefits, down, of course.
Be careful of what you wish for.
Jay
i never said to get ride of passanger service all together…i said that the amtrak needs to be worked… and a total overall of the system…starting with high speed coridors… first off…that will get amtrak off of the freight railroads…and be one less headack for dispatchers and crews to have to deal with… sencond… insted of wasting my tax money on a system that is slowly dieing… the money could be better spent by investing in a whole new system… 3rd… it also goes with the tax money spent on roads… the money that amtrak gets as well as the money spent on new roads could be used to start to build a high speed system… the cold hard facts are that the european nations have what we need… but fail to put in place… if we would have gotten on the high speed bandwagon when france germany got on it… amtrak wouldnt be in the shape it is in today…
build high speed deicated rail corridoers for 200+mph passinger trains…
csx engineer
I like your idea of building another system, but your contention that the system is slowly dieing is incorrect. AMTRAK RIDERSHIP IS AT AN ALL-TIME HIGH. LD trains are seeing record growth.
The problem with Amtrak is Congress. It’s never wanted to properly fund Amtrak from the beginning. Transportation in this country isn’t free. Yet many expect Amtrak to be profitable while the highways and airways have never made money (at least without decades - now centuries - of governmental assistance.
7 billion for transit is good news for Amtrak in its Commuter rail division.
Amtrak could do partnership with RTAs to get some of that cash
Good points. But airlines didn’t just receive the 9-11 funding. They’re gotten billions in tax dollars, in infrastructure costs, the FAA, screening, etc. ($15 billion a year normally).
The highways, however, have been the biggest porkers, in terms of subsidies.
This link gives a history lesson of how many billions this country has invested in highways and air. Yet suggest investments in passenger rail, and you’re somehow considered a nut.
http://www.trainweb.org/moksrail/advocacy/resources/essays/subsidies.htm
http://www.trainweb.org/moksrail/advocacy/resources/subsidies/transport.htm
According to the New York Times, et. al.,
$1.8 TRILLION has been spent building airways and highways, 1971-2001.
Over that same time frame, tiny Amtrak has received $30 billion and its funding has been reduced yearly, while aviation and highway funding has steadily increased.
You get what you pay for.
Again, even walking is subsidized, at least in cities, with traffic lights, sidewalk paving, etc. A good cost benefit analysis would probably prove that Amtrka funding is a lot more efficient than most!
they are seeing growth on trains becouse their are less trains… amtrak is elimiating trains…so yea…the growth will show in ridership becouse of less trains…and more people on the ones left… so is it “real” growth…or just a way to cook the books to make ridership numbers on trains grow?
csx engineer
That’s not Amtrak’s fault. That blame lies squarely with Congress & the White House, since someone has to fund it. I didn’t see GM or Ford stepping up and paying for the highways, nor SOUTHWEST AIRLINES building the airports they fly into. Air and highways,comparatively, get a free ride from Congress while Amtrak has to limp along all the while being attacked every year as useless.
We need an 80% federal match, where the feds will pay 80% of rail infrastructure improvement, much like they have with highway and airport construction. More unfairness which has lessened the choices of the traveling public.
/quote]
/quote]they are seeing growth on trains becouse their are less trains… amtrak is elimiating trains…so yea…the growth will show in ridership becouse of less trains…and more people on the ones left… so is it “real” growth…or just a way to cook the books to make ridership numbers on trains grow?
csx engineer
[/quote]
There haven’t been that many trains axed. The Louisville-Indianapolis train, which didn’t have great ridership, thanks to the crappy condition of the private rail line - something so-called railfans forget to state when bashing the KY Cardinal- , wouldn’t account for a passenger in terms of shifting the heavy use of the Southwest Chief or California Zephyr.
The books aren’t being cooked. Take it from someone who has travelled on the LD trains lately: The trains are well patronized. We need more of them to more places. That’s the reason ridership isn’t at all what it could be.
Interestingly, Amtrak had a much larger route structure in the late 70s, before a half dozen trains were aced purely for political ($$) reasons. There were additoinal trains to Texas, Seattle, CHI-Florida, PGH-St. Louis, Denver-Portland, Salt Lake- LA.
Still, ridership now is the highest its ever been.
Think how much larger Amtrak ridership would be if Congress gave it the resources to buy new equipment and run more trains to more place, giving the travelling public real choices that are needed. I hear Dallas to Denver is one of the most requested routes from potential customers calling the 800#.
The reason there’s no Texas to Colorado service: Congress only gives Amtrak scraps and what it does promise to give, it has often broken its word and reduced funding.
That’s no way to run a railroad.
You’d be amazed what a 1.3 Trillion dollar investment by the government will do for “demand.” Any limitations on rail passenger demand have to do with the lack of investment and funding, not with a lack of desire or willingness to take the train. You’re confusing cause and effect. Even with a smaller network and fewer trains, Amtrak is carrying more people than ever despite all of its handicaps. Passenger rail in this country truly is a case of “build it, and they will come.” We just have to get to the building part. In the meantime, we should continue to have what rail passenger service we have, and if they’re unwilling to build the high speed network we SHOULD have, then at least Amtrak should be supported adequately in order to expand its capacity and utility instead of keeping it on the ridiculous starvation budget that it’s been on since 1971.
To: csxengneer 98.
Why Can’t Amtrak be like Over Sea, Where They Spend from 5 to 20 billions a year on they Trains system where amtrak just gets barely 1 billion a year from Congress. If Amtrak was like Over Seas Train System, Where the U.S. spends Least 2 or 3 Billions year on Amtrak System. We would have a World Class System Too.[:D][8D]
while we are on the subject of the highway funding bill, did any of you know that one version of the bill is going to allow states to place tolls on any existing highway? i would say that 90% of the public has no idea that we are about to pay more taxes (in the form of tolls) on highways that we have already paid for.
if you dont want to be taxed again for using highways, be sure to contact your senator or representative and tell them to go with the house version of the highway bill, not the senate version. if it’s not already too late…