Amtrak on July 1, 2006 are going to give 180 Day notice to take off train 1&2 the Sunset, 3&4 Chief, 5&6 Zephyr, and 7&8 Builder. I don’t know this is a True Story or Not. I hope this not True about Amtrak. This story is all over other railroad website. Most people know what website I am talking About. Its on Yahoo All Board site too. We need to Save Amtrak right Now before its too late People. Call to Action People.[:(!]
…We all know it’s a political football and the team in charge now has been trying to kick it off the field so I suppose any rumored plan is possible.
Looks to me like most of their cross-country routes, sorry, but I don’t think there’s any way they’d get rid of pretty much every cross country route. Maybe a couple…but not all.
Well as I have suggested before, call or write your congress people. I have emailed them in the past. However, someone said that a written letter seems to carry more weight. Then maybe we ALL should write our congress people and let them know how we feel.
I don’t know if the rumor is true or not. However, if we are going to improve Amtrak and not do away with it piece by piece then now is the time to write and stop the piece meal attack on the Amtrak system.
On my next day off I am going to write those letters. How about you?
I will write my congressman and request that he continue to push for Amtrak to be self-sufficient or cut from the tax rolls. If it is a money-losing entity then why would we continue to pour our tax dollars down a bottom-less hole? If people are not clamouring for passenger rail service then why do we continue to offer it? I would rather that my taxes go to purchase rail corridors that railroads are trying to abandon in order to preserve rail service. The Wisconsin and Southern has made a very successful operation out of this, all the while leasing the property from the state. This is a good example of the government preserving rail service with a business model that is at least plausible. WSOR has been a success because they have attracted customers and new businesses. This is something that Amtrak has had over 30 years to do and they still have not managed to do it. If the states want passenger service, then it is time they tax their own populace to keep it. Why should we all pay for something that benefits only a few folks?
If Amtrak were given even 10% of what had been given to the airlines over the last 30 some years Amtrak would be doing very well.
I remember shortly after the 911 attack a cartoon appeared in the paper. It showed congressmen rushing up the stairs of the Congressional building holding hugh sacks of money all for the airlines. As they rushed up the stairs they passed a poor beggar holding out his small tin cup. They ignored the beggar, who represented Amtrak. This has been going on for the whole life of Amtrak. If the airline industry were put on the same budget as Amtrak, there would be no airline industry. Yet we complain about Amtrak having to cut services and routes just to meagerly surive.
This country has no long term energy plan. Funding Amtrak and allowing it to expand service and routes would bring people back to the trains and could be part of a long term energy plan. There are many people who will not or can not take an airplane. Many of them would love to have an opportunity to take a train, only if one existed that they could ride. As gas again returns to $3 a gallon, which it definately will, then people begin to seek other means of transporation.
This country blindly allowed the railroads to abandoned routes–both freight and passenger–that many railroads wi***hey now had. Current routes are so congested that rail traffic bearly flows at times.
Most countries understand that rail service is just that a service. They know and understand that rail service does not usually make money, but is a necessity. As gas continues to climb in price then many people will be demanding other forums of transporation. Some cities have already seen the need and responded with light rail systems. Unfortunately, this country and its politicians have not seen any need, that is, past their own pockets.
Short sighted people demand results now. Only those with a goal or vision understand that sometimes results (profits) have t
The Webmaster over on this other Website Delete the Post about Amtrak train off. This poster starts rumors about every 4 months about amtrak. I am glad this webmaster delete his post. We need more train service in USA not less service.
Amtrack will need to rethink thier trains. Instead of removing trains entirely, they should make a series of regional “NEC’s”
I seriously considered taking a Amtrack to the east coast but the fares and time involved with going to Chicago was just too much. Southwest Airlines took care of the entire round trip for less including food.
When I visited England in the late 80’s I was blown away by the Intercity Rail that included a snack car and service to most locales centered on London for a few dollars each day. If Amtrack had something similar in the USA there would be no problems.
As far as I am concerned, Amtrack has been either dying, dead or stripped of funding badly needed for 30+ years and is a pernament part of the Governments “To-Do” list. Blah.
When bad winter weather shuts down the NEC due to frozen switches guess who screams first. The Government and other important people who needs the service in the NEC. Not the workers in the USA who seems to be constantly behind the inflation and other economy problems that keeps thier wages very low.
If I lived in the Northeastern Corridor I’d worry about Amtrak cutes, but sinse I live in one of those cities that have very limited access to rail travel I really don’
t care what happens to Amtrak. I’m looking forward to the day when other rail corridors come on line. Why should the northeast be the only ones to get dedicated rail travel. Until I see Amtrak trains running more in the midwest losing Amtrak won’t bother me. The only time I use Amtrak is for pleasure.
As far as compairing Amtrak to the airlines that argument has been hashed out so many times. Until you get high speed trains running everywhere you won’t be able to compete with an airline for the long or short haul. Here is an example. I live in Cincinnati. If I want to go to say St. Louis, I would have to take a train all the way to Chicago, then a train to St. Louis. Why in the world would I do that if I were a business looking for alternatives. I can catch any number of direct fleights from Cincinnati to St. Louis. Now if you want to say use the CSX line from Cincinnati to St. Louis and run high speed (120 mph+) now you might get more people clamoring to use rail. Another example, my mom lives in Florida. If I want to go see her and take a train I would have to go all the way to Baltimore first then connect with a train to Florida. This is insane. By the way it only takes 45 minutes to get to Chicago by air and 2 hours to Florida. So I say high speed, direct connections if the only way to compete with an airline. This would have to be done in many cities accross the country to get people to ride trains again.
…Yes…all the stories above are the opinions of many folks…It’s a matter if we {the people}, do want to have a “workable” passenger train system in this country. If so, let’s do it correctly…If not, let’s shut it down…and I mean shut it ALL down…not continue the NEC and let us all pay for their convienience…Let that section of the country figure out how to transport all those folks now being handled by that system. If the government can’t help pay for a nationwide system…we don’t want to pay for just one group.
If I want to travel by rail i’d have to hop a freight in my city. Or go to the kid’s ride at the park. Nearest passenger service to my house in ~ 3 hours away! It’s hard enough to get my municipality to pay for streets much less rail service! Assess the states that the service serves the fees for that convenience.
What a bag of peanuts?
Bert
I happen to like those peanuts.
I talk about eating at the airport while waiting for the flight. A nice steak and taters with all the trimmings and salad 4 hours before take off. Expensive but no sense going hungry because those peanuts dont really sustain.
SOLTZRULES.W hen you write your congressman be sure to tell him that you also want to eliminate all subsidys for air travel and highway travel.Those few who benefit from Amtrak number 25 million last year.please check your facts before jumping off acliff.
Again, highway travel and freight get huge subisidies becausse of LAND USE.
Depends if you are talking about absolute dollars or relative dollars. On an absolute basis, the FAA gets about 2 billion a year from general revenue, so Amtrak should get a yearly appropriation of 200 million. On a relative basis, airlines transport 100 times the passenger miles, so the Amtrak subsidy should be about 20 million.
Back in the day when the railroads were discontinuing their passenger service, the argument was that passengers were only unprofitable because the railroads didn’t have their heart in it, and that trains were only losing money because of accounting formulas – the argument is that the trains were at least making their direct operating costs. When Amtrak was established, the notion was that the government would kick in capital improvements (new locomotives and train cars), but that the trains would cover their direct operating costs – hey, we were arguing that trains were covering those costs when we were protesting the passenger train discontinuances. Weren’t we? Come on people – there must be some other old guys like me, and was NARP or anybody arguing in the pre-Amtrak days that passenger trains should be operated at a direct-operating-cost loss?
NARP argues that Amtrak covers 65 percent of DOC – better than commuter operations that average around 50 percent. I bet they are saying that – the NEC operations actually cover their DOC, partly on account of short-distance service labor economies, partly on account of the much higher fares they charge, although the NEC operations are costly on capital expense. On the other side equation, the LD trains are somewhat south of 50 percent coverage of DOC according to what the accountants are telling us.
As to the $3/gallon gas argument, the LD trains are subsidized at around 20 cents a passenger mile – the subsidy alone
It would be nice to have at least a local every few hours but this Nation is so dependant on cars you can never ever pry out enough of the drivers to go rail.
Greyhound has a one HELL of a passenger model, stuffing 50 people into a bus and shipping them everywhere. I wont take it because it’s not worth the problems in bigger cities.
On the topic of the first post - Write the usual letter to your congressman, and wait…nothing but time will tell.
I pay for the roads through my gasoline taxes, which are high enough. I don’t use three modes of transportation so why sould I pay taxes to fund all three?
Newsflash:
If the federal government stopped giving massive subsidies to transportation we might actually wind up with a healthy transportation system put togther by the private sector. Necessity is the mother of intvention. The railroads left the passenger business becuase there was no demand for it. Do you think they would have stayed in even if the government subsidized part of the cost? The trains weren’t making any money. Even if the government subsidized 100 percent of the operating cost they still would have dumped them because they are a waste of resources and they occupy valuable track capacity.
And I agree with you. the government should cut the airline subsidies. If they can’t make it on their own then their fate is the same as amtrak. It is only a matter of time.
If that happens then we will see many more carriers like Southwest and JetBlue with smaller planes and less of American and United with big 747’s. I think that will actually be win-win for everyone because airfares will be lower and the airlines will save alot on gas.