Senate Rejects Proposed Amtrak Cuts

[Penn Central]

The media's on a roll, more good news for Amtrak.

"Ignoring a veto promise from the White House, the Senate on Wednesday passed a $106 billion transportation and housing bill rejecting President Bush's proposed cuts to Amtrak, housing programs and community development projects."

Full Story: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/09/12/...in3253633.shtml

 

[nr272]

Good to see they're trying to put a stop to Bush's attempt to destroy Amtrak and our country.

 

[WhoozOn1st]

I know these forums shouldn't be overtly political, so I'll try to avoid that.

Still, it's difficult to imagine that the next president, whoever he or she might be, will be as blatantly anti-Amtrak as the current administration.

I hope and believe that voters of all stripes are coming around to the recognition that our nation requires a comprehensive transportation policy which integrates all modes - road, rail, air, water - in a rational manner which has heretofore been sadly lacking.

 

[Larry H.]

I know these forums shouldn't be overtly political, so I'll try to avoid that.
Still, it's difficult to imagine that the next president, whoever he or she might be, will be as blatantly anti-Amtrak as the current administration.

I hope and believe that voters of all stripes are coming around to the recognition that our nation requires a comprehensive transportation policy which integrates all modes - road, rail, air, water - in a rational manner which has heretofore been sadly lacking.

As a life long voter I have come to realize that almost any Republican President is going to take an Ax to Amtrak. And thats from one that used to vote mostly along those lines. Some things are just in the public good that need goverment help, why rail transport is selected as the way "Not to go" by the goverment is still a mystery to me considering the money thrown into the other modes without a wimper.

I hope these discussions and postive articles will soon start to point out the need for Amtrak to acutally go somewhere from places other than Chicago and New York.. A recent letter to the Editor in the St. Louis Post Dispatch pointed out that after waiting for over 20 years for a new station, now people are wanting to go somewhere other than Kansas City, Chicago and Texas.. I think Atlanta, Indinapolis, Omaha, and other stops were mentioned. Its always been my contention the only reason you see such lousy ridership at many stations is that the trains aren't going anywhere but a few places.. You used to be able to purchase a ticket that took you in any direction, untill that becomes more of a reality things will never really take off. Your lucky if your used to the hubs of Chicago, New York and just left out if your not. I can only wonder what ridership might look like with real rail service.

 

[frj1983]

I know these forums shouldn't be overtly political, so I'll try to avoid that.
Still, it's difficult to imagine that the next president, whoever he or she might be, will be as blatantly anti-Amtrak as the current administration.

I hope and believe that voters of all stripes are coming around to the recognition that our nation requires a comprehensive transportation policy which integrates all modes - road, rail, air, water - in a rational manner which has heretofore been sadly lacking.

As a life long voter I have come to realize that almost any Republican President is going to take an Ax to Amtrak. And thats from one that used to vote mostly along those lines. Some things are just in the public good that need goverment help, why rail transport is selected as the way "Not to go" by the goverment is still a mystery to me considering the money thrown into the other modes without a wimper.

I hope these discussions and postive articles will soon start to point out the need for Amtrak to acutally go somewhere from places other than Chicago and New York.. A recent letter to the Editor in the St. Louis Post Dispatch pointed out that after waiting for over 20 years for a new station, now people are wanting to go somewhere other than Kansas City, Chicago and Texas.. I think Atlanta, Indinapolis, Omaha, and other stops were mentioned. Its always been my contention the only reason you see such lousy ridership at many stations is that the trains aren't going anywhere but a few places.. You used to be able to purchase a ticket that took you in any direction, untill that becomes more of a reality things will never really take off. Your lucky if your used to the hubs of Chicago, New York and just left out if your not. I can only wonder what ridership might look like with real rail service.

But Larry,

Amtrak does stop in Atlanta, Indianapolis, and Omaha. What other places were you thinking of? It seems to me that Amtrak can onl go where the tracks are and must have some easily accessable endpoints (ie. Chicago and New York, etc.). Perhaps you might flesh out a little more what you mean by real rail service?

 

[john h]

Good to see they're trying to put a stop to Bush's attempt to destroy Amtrak and our country.

That reminds me, does the Texas Eagle go through Crawford where Bushs ranch is? Or is that incorrect?

 

[JayPea]

I know these forums shouldn't be overtly political, so I'll try to avoid that.
Still, it's difficult to imagine that the next president, whoever he or she might be, will be as blatantly anti-Amtrak as the current administration.

I hope and believe that voters of all stripes are coming around to the recognition that our nation requires a comprehensive transportation policy which integrates all modes - road, rail, air, water - in a rational manner which has heretofore been sadly lacking.

As a life long voter I have come to realize that almost any Republican President is going to take an Ax to Amtrak. And thats from one that used to vote mostly along those lines. Some things are just in the public good that need goverment help, why rail transport is selected as the way "Not to go" by the goverment is still a mystery to me considering the money thrown into the other modes without a wimper.

I hope these discussions and postive articles will soon start to point out the need for Amtrak to acutally go somewhere from places other than Chicago and New York.. A recent letter to the Editor in the St. Louis Post Dispatch pointed out that after waiting for over 20 years for a new station, now people are wanting to go somewhere other than Kansas City, Chicago and Texas.. I think Atlanta, Indinapolis, Omaha, and other stops were mentioned. Its always been my contention the only reason you see such lousy ridership at many stations is that the trains aren't going anywhere but a few places.. You used to be able to purchase a ticket that took you in any direction, untill that becomes more of a reality things will never really take off. Your lucky if your used to the hubs of Chicago, New York and just left out if your not. I can only wonder what ridership might look like with real rail service.

But Larry,

Amtrak does stop in Atlanta, Indianapolis, and Omaha. What other places were you thinking of? It seems to me that Amtrak can onl go where the tracks are and must have some easily accessable endpoints (ie. Chicago and New York, etc.). Perhaps you might flesh out a little more what you mean by real rail service?

I'm not Larry :lol: but I'm guessing that since the letter to the editor was in the St. Louis Post Dispatch, the point was being made that it's people in St. Louis that would like to go directly to Atlanta, Indianapolis, and Omaha rather than have to go through Chicago or New York to do so.

 

[JayPea]

Good to see they're trying to put a stop to Bush's attempt to destroy Amtrak and our country.

That reminds me, does the Texas Eagle go through Crawford where Bushs ranch is? Or is that incorrect?

I think the Texas Eagle does go through Crawford, or if not, very close. Crawford is a few miles from the Eagle's stop at McGregor. As I recall, the Texas Eagle was being slated for discontinuance during the Clinton administration. Coincidentally, the Eagle runs through Bill Clinton's hometown of Hope, Arkansas, in fact passing right by his home there. And not so coincidentally, the Eagle was saved from the axe. It certainly helps to have people in high places, and when it comes to Amtrak, Democrats. I've voted mostly Republican all my life and shudder to say the last sentence, :lol: but it certainly rings true.

 

[Larry H.]

I can hardly believe that anyone but hare core rail fans could possibly think that the majority of travelers would consider the major inconvience that is now necessary to people in St. Louis to make that trip.. Who ever thought that rail was a hub kind of travel? Other than maybe the simplest around town or the state kind of ride? If you live in Chicago, how would you like to get on and ride to St. Louis, and spend the day, then ride in reverse the same amount of time to say to to Cleveland? Not many I would bet and the station would be nearly empty... Thats what its like when you have no direct service. It isn't that one town is already served by amtrak, you might as well say that since the Washington D C. to chicago run is operating that Chicago has all the trains it needs and no one need come from any other point! That kind of reasoning would be nonsense, yet for 99 percent of the public thats what they get.. I live outside of Centralia now, used to live in St. Louis, so if I wanted to take the train to St. Louis, it means I have to travel to Chicago, then all the way back.. Who in the world would do that? If a train from the East went to St. Louis through or near here I could make the trip in a couple hours.. Besides consider how much higher the rail fare is for the privilage of being inconvienenced. No trains need to operate in more directions from more places to be really a successful system. I think the National Rail Passengers or someone made that recommendation this year as a goal? Couldn't agree more.

 

[Larry H.]

Speaking of where the Track go.. I am pretty sure the tracks are filled with freights going to Indinapolis and Omaha from St. Louis. The route of the National Limited that amtrak foolishly discontinued many years ago run right near me are still in daily use.. I would bet 90 percent of major city rail ties are still in existance, we just aren't using them.. The fact that ridership is up from 40 to 60 percent on the runs that have recently increased daily schedules shows that if people have a conveinent timing and way to go they will consider the train. That could be true all over the country.. I think when Amtrak was created most people probably thought it was a way to improve and save rail travel, not dump most of it as has happened till recently.. Maybe with the gas prices people will finally realize what there missing?

 

[AmtrakWPK]

It takes a little less than two full days (if everything is on time) to take Amtrak from St. Louis to Atlanta - going bus to Carbondale, CONL to New Orleans, and Crescent up to Atlanta. Same time, approximately, taking St.Louis-Chicago-Washington-Atlanta, but the former routing allows a few hours' touring New Orleans, and the French Quarter is within walking distance of the Amtrak station. According to an online mapping service, it takes less than 9 hours to drive between the two cities, however, NOT TWO DAYS. With the loss of the Sunset Limited route east of New Orleans, from Orlando I have to take Silver Service 92 North to Cary NC, the Carolinian 79 South to Greensboro, then the Crescent 19 to New Orleans, Roughly 51 hours. According to the online mapping service, driving ORL-New Orleans should take less than 10 hours. Instead of flushing trillions of dollars down the toilet tilting at foreign windmills, we ought to be spending it on this country's obscenely neglected and dilapidated infrastructure, including rail. (remember a certain bridge that recently collapsed into a river, taking lots of lives?)....

 

[wkaemena]

I know these forums shouldn't be overtly political, so I'll try to avoid that.Some things are just in the public good that need goverment help, why rail transport is selected as the way "Not to go" by the goverment is still a mystery to me considering the money thrown into the other modes without a wimper.

from my "remote" point of view I would guess that for that administration it is considerd only good which spends money on automotive, petrol, and weapons....... because it spoils money in certain pockets... only a thought..... ;-)

 

[George Harris]

All seem to be forgetting that the biggest cuts Amtrak ever had came courtesy of Jimmy Carter, and that Amtrak under Clinton suffered from some smoke and mirrors acts that really did it no good at all. Remember the "Glidepath to self sufficiency" More like a glidepath to burying your nose in the mountainside.

 

[Larry H.]

Points well made...

 

[frj1983]

Speaking of where the Track go.. I am pretty sure the tracks are filled with freights going to Indinapolis and Omaha from St. Louis. The route of the National Limited that amtrak foolishly discontinued many years ago run right near me are still in daily use.. I would bet 90 percent of major city rail ties are still in existance, we just aren't using them.. The fact that ridership is up from 40 to 60 percent on the runs that have recently increased daily schedules shows that if people have a conveinent timing and way to go they will consider the train. That could be true all over the country.. I think when Amtrak was created most people probably thought it was a way to improve and save rail travel, not dump most of it as has happened till recently.. Maybe with the gas prices people will finally realize what there missing?

You fail to take into account the freight railroad companies on whose tracks most of Amtrak's service runs. Most of them begrudgingly allow Amtrak to run on their tracks and then run them as they wish (usually late). I believe any new attempted end-point services would meet with fierce resistence since most rr companies are already running over capacity. You are also forgetting the foolish Congressional mandate that no new service be started as well as my regular drum beating topic of lack of operable equipment old or new.

 

[Larry H.]

I will certianly plead dumb here, I guess I have seen that the goverment had mandated no new routes, and we all know that the railroads prefer to not be bothered with passenger trains.. What I don't know for sure though is that when they were given the right to drop passenger service if they weren't agreeing that the goverment was going to run them.. Who's tracks did they think they were going to use? That rule of no new routes needs drastically to be amended. I think we all would agree there is plenty of blame to go around. The question is how do you fix it. Not going anywhere for the vast majority of people is not the answer and should be off the table. If your lucky enough to be in one of the few places where you can go in different directions you may not see the folly of the present system as clearly.