U.S. House votes to cut Amtrak funding, allow pets

[SarahZ]

On many trains now, pax get no choice which cars they travel in when riding coach. They are assigned a car by the conductor or AC when tickets are scanned. All who are experienced riders are aware of that fact. SO........what happens when pax do not want to ride in the designated "animal car" for whatever reason (allergy, not wanting to be exposed to possible odor, noise, etc) ? Will they be accomadated in another car? Or will they get the corporate line of "We sold you a seat, and we are giving you a seat"? Just like a rider cannot switch seats due to a problematic seatmate.

In this case, will the animal's right's exceed the human pax's rights?

I don't know. Ask the airlines. Pets travel in airline cabins every day and have been for quite some time.

My friend is a flight attendant and says she'll sometimes ask someone if they would mind switching with a passenger who is super allergic and doesn't want to sit next to Kitty, but she added that most people don't even realize there is a pet on-board since many of the carriers look like luggage when under the seat.

 

[jis]

The hysteria seen here regarding the panic about pets on Amtrak trains borders on complete insanity. Just IMHO and I am entitled to at least one.

 

[neroden]

I guess the same thing they do on airplanes, they just move sensitive passengers to the next fuselage...oh wait.

I am 100% sure that 99% of conductors will allow sensitive passengers to move to a car which is not the pet car. Seriously. Way better than the situation on airplanes. There might be the occasional crazy martinet conductor, but I expect Amtrak will discourage that...

 

[jebr]

You know, with all the dire situations and straits that are being talked about in this thread about a few pets being allowed in one coach car, one would think that the airlines would be having massive problems with allowing pets.

Yet almost all of the airlines allow pets, and we rarely hear of any issues because of it. Funny, that is.

 

[tonys96]

On many trains now, pax get no choice which cars they travel in when riding coach. They are assigned a car by the conductor or AC when tickets are scanned. All who are experienced riders are aware of that fact. SO........what happens when pax do not want to ride in the designated "animal car" for whatever reason (allergy, not wanting to be exposed to possible odor, noise, etc) ? Will they be accomadated in another car? Or will they get the corporate line of "We sold you a seat, and we are giving you a seat"? Just like a rider cannot switch seats due to a problematic seatmate.

In this case, will the animal's right's exceed the human pax's rights?

I don't know. Ask the airlines. Pets travel in airline cabins every day and have been for quite some time.

My friend is a flight attendant and says she'll sometimes ask someone if they would mind switching with a passenger who is super allergic and doesn't want to sit next to Kitty, but she added that most people don't even realize there is a pet on-board since many of the carriers look like luggage when under the seat.

WOW! I thought I was on the ignore list!

Anyhoo, this comment did nothing to address my question, only relayed an irrelevant anecdote about an unrelated events. A short flight does not compare at all to a 24 to 48 hour trip in a railroad car. And there is not the opportunity to be seated in a different fuselage on a plane, but there are other coach cars on a train. False comparison completely.

So, my question still stands, and it is not rhetorical: What about pax who, for whatever reason, are uncomfortable in a car with animals? Will they be given the choice to ride in a different car? As we have seen, both in person, and heard on these threads, many times pax are DIRECTED to ride in a specific car by the Conductor or AC. If directed to the "animal car" and uncomfortable there, will they be stuck there for up to the duration, however long that may be? Does the animal's travel right outweigh the human pax?

 

[SarahZ]

On many trains now, pax get no choice which cars they travel in when riding coach. They are assigned a car by the conductor or AC when tickets are scanned. All who are experienced riders are aware of that fact. SO........what happens when pax do not want to ride in the designated "animal car" for whatever reason (allergy, not wanting to be exposed to possible odor, noise, etc) ? Will they be accomadated in another car? Or will they get the corporate line of "We sold you a seat, and we are giving you a seat"? Just like a rider cannot switch seats due to a problematic seatmate.

In this case, will the animal's right's exceed the human pax's rights?

I don't know. Ask the airlines. Pets travel in airline cabins every day and have been for quite some time.

My friend is a flight attendant and says she'll sometimes ask someone if they would mind switching with a passenger who is super allergic and doesn't want to sit next to Kitty, but she added that most people don't even realize there is a pet on-board since many of the carriers look like luggage when under the seat.

WOW! I thought I was on the ignore list!
Anyhoo, this comment did nothing to address my question, only relayed an irrelevant anecdote about an unrelated events. A short flight does not compare at all to a 24 to 48 hour trip in a railroad car. And there is not the opportunity to be seated in a different fuselage on a plane, but there are other coach cars on a train. False comparison completely.

So, my question still stands, and it is not rhetorical: What about pax who, for whatever reason, are uncomfortable in a car with animals? Will they be given the choice to ride in a different car? As we have seen, both in person, and heard on these threads, many times pax are DIRECTED to ride in a specific car by the Conductor or AC. If directed to the "animal car" and uncomfortable there, will they be stuck there for up to the duration, however long that may be? Does the animal's travel right outweigh the human pax?

The app still shows ignored users' posts. I'm not sure why.

I imagine the car attendant would allow someone to move if they had severe allergies. I can't predict the future, though, so I'm not sure why you're asking me directly. Some of the crew would be better sources for that answer. Perhaps they'll chime in.

I compared it to a short flight because, as it stands now, animals are only allowed on trains that travel a few hours or so. I have not seen anything indicating that animals will be allowed on trains that travel overnight.

I used the flight analogy because, right now, people who do not want to sit near an animal on a plane still share the fuselage, as you mentioned in the part I put in boldface. I have not heard any stories of emergency landings due to someone freaking out about a cat being within fifty feet of them. I told you a story about my friend the flight attendant because she is a better source on All Things Plane than I am. As I said, she has no problem moving people around, and that's IF they even notice there's a cat carrier under a seat. I'm not sure why this is so confusing to you, as you made my point in the part I put in boldface.

I also used the plane analogy because, unlike on a plane, train passengers have the option of moving to another car. I sincerely doubt that a conductor is going to force someone to sit next to a cat anymore than they'd force someone with a peanut allergy to eat a bag of Chex Mix. It's not like asking to have a window seat or a seat row to yourself or a seat on X side of the train or any of the other reasons not directly related to health concerns.

I'm sorry you can't put two and two together when it comes to analogies. My response was quite clear. Jeb even seconded it and supported it succinctly, and yet you focused on me. I can't say I'm surprised.

I'm tired of talking in circles. My point has been made. The sky is not falling. The world is not ending. Pets travel near people every day, and I don't see the four horsemen on the horizon. Anything further from you or Frisky will be ignored.

 

[tonys96]

1. In my post (which is #50 here) I did not ask anyone in particular any questions. It was a general question to the forum, not directed at any particular member or guest. It was/is a sincere question and not meant to be an argumentative one.

2. A member (who previously took pains to tell me in no uncertain terms that I had the distinction of being on his/her "ignore list") answered the question.

3. I replied that IMHO, a short haul flight was a false analogy to a 24 to 36 + hour train trip. (Which AFAIKT, is what the congressional committee has demanded in the original post of this thread) However, this was rebutted because another commenter agreed with the analogy. While that is true, it still does not make the analogy correct. No more than two people saying that the sky is green and the grass blue makes that be a true statement. I believe that a better analogy would be Greyhound. Distance-wise/time-wise it is more akin to Amtrak. The stated Greyhound policy is: "no dogs, cats, birds, or other animals will be transported", other than trained service dogs.

https://www.greyhound.com/en/ticketsandtravel/travelingbybus.aspx

4. The reply (again from the member who was "ignoring" me) wondered why I was asking him/her this question (please see item #1), which is a false assumption, as the question was asked to the board.

5. Now myself, and someone else who did not venture an answer to the original question (in post # 50) are being told we are now ignored.

6. I did not seek, nor do/did I want my sincere logistical question to develop into this drama. I regret that it did/has. :blush:

OK. With that drama behind us. Can we get toward a TRAIN RELATED (as opposed to air travel related) answer to the question of what do you think would happen, given that on many routes cars are assigned to coach pax by the conductor and/or AC, if paying human pax have, for whatever reason, an aversion to being in the "animal car", if they were originally assigned to that car by the Conductor/AC?

It is documented here, and those who travel Amtrak regularly can attest to, that just not liking your seat assignment or seatmate is rarely sufficient reason for the Conductor or AC to allow you to move, even within a given car, much less to allow you to transfer to a different car. Many times your destination determines your car assignment, and your destination may dictate your presence in the "animal car". I just wonder if an aversion to animals might be sufficient reason to receive a waiver of what is normally a definite seat/car assignment. Would/should they be allowed to change cars?

There was a recent thread about all pax being herded into a single coach car while 3 or 4 others were left empty, and myself, I have experience where a CA refused to allow a car change due to there being no adjoining seats for a couple available. So this is not an anti-animal on board question (even though I have heartburn at that as a policy-slippery slope worries-) but it is a logistical question about boarding and continuing along the route in an environment that could cause uncomfort to some pax, making their trip be unenjoyable. Would they be able to move, when someone who is next to an undesirable seatmate would not, or would they be forced to endure the discomfort, for whatever reason their aversion to animals in the car might be (allergy, fear, noise, odor, etc/whatever)? Would/should they be allowed to change cars?

 

[tonys96]

On many trains now, pax get no choice which cars they travel in when riding coach. They are assigned a car by the conductor or AC when tickets are scanned. All who are experienced riders are aware of that fact. SO........what happens when pax do not want to ride in the designated "animal car" for whatever reason (allergy, not wanting to be exposed to possible odor, noise, etc) ? Will they be accomadated in another car? Or will they get the corporate line of "We sold you a seat, and we are giving you a seat"? Just like a rider cannot switch seats due to a problematic seatmate.

In this case, will the animal's right's exceed the human pax's rights?

I don't know. Ask the airlines. Pets travel in airline cabins every day and have been for quite some time.

My friend is a flight attendant and says she'll sometimes ask someone if they would mind switching with a passenger who is super allergic and doesn't want to sit next to Kitty, but she added that most people don't even realize there is a pet on-board since many of the carriers look like luggage when under the seat.

WOW! I thought I was on the ignore list!
Anyhoo, this comment did nothing to address my question, only relayed an irrelevant anecdote about an unrelated events. A short flight does not compare at all to a 24 to 48 hour trip in a railroad car. And there is not the opportunity to be seated in a different fuselage on a plane, but there are other coach cars on a train. False comparison completely.

So, my question still stands, and it is not rhetorical: What about pax who, for whatever reason, are uncomfortable in a car with animals? Will they be given the choice to ride in a different car? As we have seen, both in person, and heard on these threads, many times pax are DIRECTED to ride in a specific car by the Conductor or AC. If directed to the "animal car" and uncomfortable there, will they be stuck there for up to the duration, however long that may be? Does the animal's travel right outweigh the human pax?

The app still shows ignored users' posts. I'm not sure why.

I imagine the car attendant would allow someone to move if they had severe allergies. I can't predict the future, though, so I'm not sure why you're asking me directly. Some of the crew would be better sources for that answer. Perhaps they'll chime in.

I compared it to a short flight because, as it stands now, animals are only allowed on trains that travel a few hours or so. I have not seen anything indicating that animals will be allowed on trains that travel overnight.

I used the flight analogy because, right now, people who do not want to sit near an animal on a plane still share the fuselage, as you mentioned in the part I put in boldface. I have not heard any stories of emergency landings due to someone freaking out about a cat being within fifty feet of them. I told you a story about my friend the flight attendant because she is a better source on All Things Plane than I am. As I said, she has no problem moving people around, and that's IF they even notice there's a cat carrier under a seat. I'm not sure why this is so confusing to you, as you made my point in the part I put in boldface.

I also used the plane analogy because, unlike on a plane, train passengers have the option of moving to another car. I sincerely doubt that a conductor is going to force someone to sit next to a cat anymore than they'd force someone with a peanut allergy to eat a bag of Chex Mix. It's not like asking to have a window seat or a seat row to yourself or a seat on X side of the train or any of the other reasons not directly related to health concerns.

I'm sorry you can't put two and two together when it comes to analogies. My response was quite clear. Jeb even seconded it and supported it succinctly, and yet you focused on me. I can't say I'm surprised.

I'm tired of talking in circles. My point has been made. The sky is not falling. The world is not ending. Pets travel near people every day, and I don't see the four horsemen on the horizon. Anything further from you or Frisky will be ignored.

Did not mean to "focus" on you. Sorry if it felt that way, I meant to simply respond to your answer to my question.

 

[jis]

Looks like it is popcorn time

 

[Ryan]

Popcorn time?

 

[afigg]

3. I replied that IMHO, a short haul flight was a false analogy to a 24 to 36 + hour train trip. (Which AFAIKT, is what the congressional committee has demanded in the original post of this thread) However, this was rebutted because another commenter agreed with the analogy. While that is true, it still does not make the analogy correct. ed.

Why do you think that the PRRIA act is requiring Amtrak to carry pets on LD trains? In the previous discussions and articles on the earlier pets on Amtrak submitted bills on Capital Hill, it was quite clear that Congress was only seeking to have Amtrak enact procedures to allow pets on corridor and short/medium distance trains of under 750 miles. LD trains were excluded. The language in the 2015 PRRIA act is somewhat obtuse, but it states:
"© the passenger is traveling on a train operating on a route described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (D) of section 24102(7) of title 49, 25 United States Code; and"

If someone wants to look up the subparagraphs in Section 24102(7), have at it, but my interpretation is that this means state supported and NEC corridor train routes. There are also qualifiers in the bill that the train has to have more than 1 passenger car (ok, yea, that is a low bar) and an escape clause of "where feasible". Amtrak may decide that carry-on pets are ok on the NEC Regionals with most people taking shorter trips, but not on medium distance trains such as the Carolinian or trains that cross the border such as the Adirondack and Maple Leaf.

 

[tonys96]

3. I replied that IMHO, a short haul flight was a false analogy to a 24 to 36 + hour train trip. (Which AFAIKT, is what the congressional committee has demanded in the original post of this thread) However, this was rebutted because another commenter agreed with the analogy. While that is true, it still does not make the analogy correct. ed.

Why do you think that the PRRIA act is requiring Amtrak to carry pets on LD trains? In the previous discussions and articles on the earlier pets on Amtrak submitted bills on Capital Hill, it was quite clear that Congress was only seeking to have Amtrak enact procedures to allow pets on corridor and short/medium distance trains of under 750 miles. LD trains were excluded. The language in the 2015 PRRIA act is somewhat obtuse, but it states:
"© the passenger is traveling on a train operating on a route described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (D) of section 24102(7) of title 49, 25 United States Code; and"

If someone wants to look up the subparagraphs in Section 24102(7), have at it, but my interpretation is that this means state supported and NEC corridor train routes. There are also qualifiers in the bill that the train has to have more than 1 passenger car (ok, yea, that is a low bar) and an escape clause of "where feasible". Amtrak may decide that carry-on pets are ok on the NEC Regionals with most people taking shorter trips, but not on medium distance trains such as the Carolinian or trains that cross the border such as the Adirondack and Maple Leaf.

Oddly, and this is just a cursory look, which might have been superseded, there seem to not be any subparagrahps in Section 24107(7). There are in Section 24120(5), though, which would validate most your opinion. Maybe there was a typo on the draft of the authorization?

Conversely, subparagraph 7 seems to include nearly all rail operations, including local commuter rail.

If the draft authorization only included a requirement for a pilot program on short haul rail, that is already being done, and it seems that requirement has been met, and would now be moot? (I put a question mark, because I do not know, but it would seem so)

Sec. 24102. Definitions

In this part -

(1) "auto-ferry transportation" means intercity rail passenger transportation -

(A) of automobiles or recreational vehicles and their occupants; and

(B) when space is available, of used unoccupied vehicles.

(2) "commuter authority" means a State, local, or regional entity established to provide, or make a contract providing for, commuter rail passenger transportation.

(3) "commuter rail passenger transportation" means short-haul rail passenger transportation in metropolitan and suburban areas usually having reduced fare, multiple-ride, and commuter tickets and morning and evening peak period operations.

(4) "intercity rail passenger transportation" means rail passenger transportation, except commuter rail passenger transportation.

(5) "national rail passenger transportation system" means -

(A) the segment of the continuous Northeast Corridor railroad line between Boston, Massachusetts, and Washington, District of Columbia;

(B) rail corridors that have been designated by the Secretary of Transportation as high-speed rail corridors (other than corridors described in subparagraph (A)), but only after regularly scheduled intercity service over a corridor has been established;

© long-distance routes of more than 750 miles between endpoints operated by Amtrak as of the date of enactment of the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008; and

(D) short-distance corridors, or routes of not more than 750 miles between endpoints, operated by -

(i) Amtrak; or

(ii) another rail carrier that receives funds under chapter 244.

(6) "Northeast Corridor" means Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island.

(7) "rail carrier" means a person, including a unit of State or local government, providing rail transportation for compensation.

(8) "rate" means a rate, fare, or charge for rail transportation.

(9) "regional transportation authority" means an entity established to provide passenger transportation in a region.

 

[tonys96]

Looks like it is popcorn time

No need to get out the popcorn. I regret and apologize if anyone has become offended by my sincere question. There will be no tit-for-tat on my part.

 

[CHamilton]

Letting pets on Amtrak is a top priority for one Republican congressman

 

[Ryan]

Color me wildly unsurprised.

 

[jis]

Color me wildly unsurprised.

Fortunately it is something with relatively little financial consequence. Now if this would be enough to divert their attention from some of their other favorite hobby horses and they could simply limit themselves to this alone....

 

[andersone]

when pets have the same rights has humans something is seriously wrong

next I am going to hear that you can't eat without your pet so you want the pet (not service animal) in the diner

I don't fly for a reason an no pets is one of them

keep Fido and Fifi at home

 

[jis]

Time to start thinking about transportation modes other than Amtrak then eh?

 

[tonys96]

Letting pets on Amtrak is a top priority for one Republican congressman

That dog does not look like it would fit into a carrier that would fit under a seat to me. If so, it would be inhumanely cramped, IMHO.

 

[afigg]

Color me wildly unsurprised.

Fortunately it is something with relatively little financial consequence. Now if this would be enough to divert their attention from some of their other favorite hobby horses and they could simply limit themselves to this alone....

Yes, if Congress would just drop the provisions they insert in the appropriations bill every year that restrict the discount fares Amtrak can offer on non-state supported routes, then Amtrak could offer some seriously low-ball prices on the NEC way off-peak trains to fill those seats and build its customer base. As the discount bus services do.
But, no, got to micromanage and carry the water for various campaign donor groups. Although the pets on Amtrak push is mostly coming from Congress members desire to be able to take their own pets on the NEC to NYC, Philly, NJ, CT.

 

[tonys96]

Color me wildly unsurprised.

Fortunately it is something with relatively little financial consequence. Now if this would be enough to divert their attention from some of their other favorite hobby horses and they could simply limit themselves to this alone....

Yes, if Congress would just drop the provisions they insert in the appropriations bill every year that restrict the discount fares Amtrak can offer on non-state supported routes, then Amtrak could offer some seriously low-ball prices on the NEC way off-peak trains to fill those seats and build its customer base. As the discount bus services do.
But, no, got to micromanage and carry the water for various campaign donor groups. Although the pets on Amtrak push is mostly coming from Congress members desire to be able to take their own pets on the NEC to NYC, Philly, NJ, CT.

Or is it campaign donors wanting to bring their pet congresscritter with them on the train? :giggle:

 

[jis]

Or is it campaign donors wanting to bring their pat congresscritter with them on the train? :giggle:

I like the concept of stuffing them under the seat LOL!

 

[amamba]

Letting pets on Amtrak is a top priority for one Republican congressman

That dog does not look like it would fit into a carrier that would fit under a seat to me. If so, it would be inhumanely cramped, IMHO.

It's a 15 lb Frenchie. It's small. The angle is funny on the picture. That dog easily fits underneath a seat on a plane and thus would fit on Amtrak in a carrier under a seat.

 

[amamba]

And I've said it before but I would take my small dog on a short NEC run in a carrier for the holidays. That would be one less car on the NJ turnpike or down 95 in CT which is a win-win for everyone.

 

[jis]

On the flight back to Newark from Tel Aviv, there were at least four pups in carriers in the Business First section of the 777. They did fine on the 12+ hour flight including managing to do their potty thing without causing any havoc for anyone. Having seen such work out fine umpteen times on long and ultra-long flights even, I am still convinced that this hyperventilation about them in trains is way blown out of proportion.