Well, I can see he does know the rule made by Congress that Amtrak must not lose money. And until that rule is changed, Anderson and all subsequent Amtrak presidents must comply with that rule. So even if you get rid of Anderson, the next Amtrak president MUST also comply - or (s)he will not be doing the job required!
My opinion (and it's just an opinion) is that Amtrak shouldn't have to be "profitable" but should "cover 100% of its operating costs with revenues" (it's around 94.7% right now). I had posted a separate thread in the discussion. You can say Amtrak provides a national service but it's not national, a lot of the nation doesn't have it and a lot of the nation has a lot better service than others. If Amtrak is truly a "national service", then they truly need to expand it to make it national so that it can serve "everybody". Amtrak in its current form isn't "national". So the goal should be to reduce if not eliminate the taxpayer burden on the American public and if certain routes favor certain people/regions than the burden of those routes should be more heavily on those who benefit from those routes.
If they actually had stand alone CHI-MSP service maybe the EB west of MSP would be expendable. If there was no Pennsylvanian (and/or Capitol Limited), do you think they would have canceled the Broadway Limited and have no service between Philly and Pittsburgh? I'd think a few more trains to CHI and a few less trains to SEA would be a good trade for Minneapolis.
I can see why . . .Untied is right....not re-united...
Yes, the first steps....
I'd like Texas to be re-untied with Colorado again.
Ski Train from Dallas
I remember that fiasco when a bunch of wealthy Texan's tried unsuccessfully to actually establish a Texas State Park in Colorado, only for Texans....
That did not go over too well.....
Not a good 'trade' for the rest of the route (west of MSP), though. Remember... national. As much as possible. Just add more trains to Chicago, once Wisconsin becomes more train-friendly.
