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



## crabby_appleton1950 (Feb 13, 2015)

*The Dream Of Dogs Riding On Amtrak Is Tantalizingly Close*

The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee passed by voice vote on Thursday the Passenger Rail Reform and Investment Act.
The bill applies some fairly far-reaching policy changes regarding trains in America. It would reduce the money Congress authorizes for Amtrak ....
Under the bill, profits from Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor would go toward improving the Northeast Corridor lines and not the rest of Amtrak’s operations.
The bill also would require that Amtrak eliminate ... the operating losses it currently has from its food and beverage carts.

... tucked into the bill is the language requiring that Amtrak develop a pilot program to allow dog and cat owners to ride certain trains with their pets.


----------



## OlympianHiawatha (Feb 13, 2015)

We go through this budget cutting game every year and nothing ever comes of it; so I am not concerned about that part of the Proposal. What I am concerned about is Cats and Dogs possibly being allowed in the Coaches or Sleepers; if they want to carry animals, keep them in the Viewliner Bags which if I recall are temperature controlled. Then when the logistics becomes an issue, mainly feeding, watering and emptying out the pets, folks will come to their senses and realize it is not practical. Check me if I am wrong but I believe no one in Congress has much experience with actually running a railroad, especially one that carries passengers.


----------



## Henry Kisor (Feb 13, 2015)

What about service animals? Don't they kind of moot the whole issue?

Yes, I know the whole service-animal thing is fraught with petty fraud. You don't even need to show papers. Why? There's no state standard anywhere, let alone national, for certification of service animals. All conductors can do is ask what service the animal performs. In my experience they just throw up their hands and mutter under their breath while the car attendants roll their eyes.


----------



## tonys96 (Feb 13, 2015)

The dogs riding the train deal was discussed in the past. There are some here who want to allow pit bulls to ride the train, since they are so sweet and cuddly.

IMHO, allowing dogs that are not service animals will cost riders. And I believe that is intentional on the part of the current congress. They want Amtrak to disappear.

The funding cuts USED to work themselves out, back when there was a divided Congress. With the current Congress, I am not so sure. Not sure at all....


----------



## Guest (Feb 13, 2015)

Henry Kisor said:


> What about service animals? Don't they kind of moot the whole issue?
> 
> Yes, I know the whole service-animal thing is fraught with petty fraud. You don't even need to show papers. Why? There's no state standard anywhere, let alone national, for certification of service animals. All conductors can do is ask what service the animal performs. In my experience they just throw up their hands and mutter under their breath while the car attendants roll their eyes.


The Service Animal classification of the ADA changed a while ago.

Animals who's primary purpose is to provide companionship or comfort, are no longer protected. In addition, service animals now have to have been trained by a recognized facility (for example, a seeing eye dog needs to have been trained by a place like Guiding Eyes, and not by your neighbor's kid) in order to be protected by the ADA.


----------



## afigg (Feb 13, 2015)

crabby_appleton1950 said:


> The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee passed by voice vote on Thursday the Passenger Rail Reform and Investment Act.
> 
> The bill applies some fairly far-reaching policy changes regarding trains in America. It would reduce the money Congress authorizes for Amtrak ....
> 
> ...


1. This thread has a misleading title. The House committee did not vote to cut actual Amtrak spending, the 2015 PRRIA bill has lower total annual authorized spending levels than the 2008 PRIIA act. But Congress never funded Amtrak in any FY appropriations at the authorized amounts in the 2008 act, If, by some miracle, Congress funded Amtrak at or near the circa $1.7 billion in the 2015 PRRIA bill, Amtrak would get an increase over the circa $1.4 billion total it has received in the past 3 FYs.

2. We already have a thread on the 2015 PRRIA bill. I do not see a reason to have a second one, unless it is discuss specific separate items such as pushing Amtrak to allow passengers to bring pets on-board. Which Amtrak has already implemented on 2 Midwest routes as an experiment. I've been thinking about posting to the 2015 PRRIA thread about the $14 billion RIFF loan component, but have not been inclined to write a lengthy post in the past several days.


----------



## tommylicious (Feb 13, 2015)

it would be so nice to have a lot of dogs on the train. just like those dedicated dog parks are so nice. and by nice i mean fetid and disgusting.


----------



## SarahZ (Feb 13, 2015)

I'm sure the animals will have to be in carriers, just like the airlines.

Amtrak specified this in their pilot pet program when it was rolled out many months ago.


----------



## crabby_appleton1950 (Feb 13, 2015)

afigg said:


> 1. *This thread has a misleading title. *


Title of the thread: “U.S. House votes to _cut_ _Amtrak funding_ ...”

From the linked article: “It would _reduce_ _the money_ Congress authorizes for Amtrak ....”


----------



## Eric S (Feb 13, 2015)

Authorizes. Not appropriates. As afigg mentioned, Amtrak was authorized to receive far greater funding under the previous authorization than it actually received.


----------



## Alexandria Nick (Feb 13, 2015)

Eric S said:


> Authorizes. Not appropriates. As afigg mentioned, Amtrak was authorized to receive far greater funding under the previous authorization than it actually received.


To add to this:

Authorization = policy

Appropriation = spending

Auth acts can recommend an amount, but this isn't binding to the appropriation committee.

For instance, a NASA auth act could say "Go land on the Moon and also here's a billion dollars for that," but the appropriation looks at that and says "ha a billion no way that's going to work" and they appropriate ten billion instead to actually achieve the policy defined in the auth act.


----------



## FormerOBS (Feb 13, 2015)

I'm curious about the rights of passengers and crew who are allergic to pets/pet dander.

Tom


----------



## SarahZ (Feb 13, 2015)

FormerOBS said:


> I'm curious about the rights of passengers and crew who are allergic to pets/pet dander.
> 
> Tom


What do they do now? Service dogs are allowed on trains.

(I'm not being argumentative, I swear.)

The Amtrak pet trial allows no more than four pets per train (not including service animals). The trains have a designated pet car, and the pets have to stay in carriers under the seats.

It's fairly hard to spread dander when an animal is kept in a crate under a seat. I probably transfer more cat dander from my clothes when I travel.


----------



## Ryan (Feb 13, 2015)

Alexandria Nick said:


> For instance, a NASA auth act could say "Go land on the Moon and also here's a billion dollars for that," but the appropriation looks at that and says "ha a billion no way that's going to work" and they appropriate ten billion instead to actually achieve the policy defined in the auth act.


Technically, that isn't supposed to happen - the appropriation committee isn't supposed to appropriate more than was authorized for a particular line item. But they're also allowed to break their own rules whenever they want.


----------



## FormerOBS (Feb 14, 2015)

Sarah, you make an excellent point. I can honestly say I've never encountered a serious problem of this kind with legitimate service animals. I think service animals are far more than pets. They are working partners with their human companions. I think they are loved and cared for far more than the typical pet. I have never encountered a dirty or misbehaving service animal. This is not true of the many fake "service animals" that have been brought onto the train under false pretenses. On the train, we have always bent over backwards to accommodate passengers and their service animals. In an extreme situation, a SCA who is allergic could trade cars with another SCA so that the allergic person doesn't have to deal with the situation. Grownups deal with problems in a grownup way.

I have said before that genuine service animals were always among my favorite passengers.

Tom


----------



## SarahZ (Feb 14, 2015)

FormerOBS said:


> I think service animals are far more than pets. They are working partners with their human companions. I think they are loved and cared for far more than the typical pet.


Agreed.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Feb 14, 2015)

I've seen people with poodles and lap dogs many times on Amtrak trains, usually in the Sleepers, and not a word was said about it by the crew!


----------



## Bob Dylan (Feb 14, 2015)

I've seen people with poodles and lap dogs many times on Amtrak trains, usually in the Sleepers, and not a word was said about it by the crew!

I agree with Tom about true service animals, they're the best!!!


----------



## Bus Nut (Feb 14, 2015)

Amtrak has to follow the law, like all transportation companies.

There are only two questions allowed:

Is this a service animal?

What service does this animal provide?

I believe only dogs and miniature horses may be service animals, following the most recent rulings and regulations. It is very hard to get a well-trained service animal--over $10,000 for a Seeing Eye dog--and there is quite a bit of fraud, including on the breeder/trainer side. (For example, exaggerated claims that dogs can "alert" on seizures.) For the record, only the VA has a strict credentialing requirement for service animals. Comfort animals are not service animals.

Service animals are not required to wear bibs or collars and not required to be papered. Nor does the person have to disclose the nature of their disability. (And if you pry, they may sue.) Animals may be removed from transportation if they are:

Not under the control of their owner

Pose a threat of harm to other passengers

Allergies are not considered a threat, nor a disability, so people with severe allergies to dogs should take precaution in areas where dogs are present. Some transportation workers have alleged that this is discrimination against them because they are not being covered by ADA and therefore they are not subject to reasonable accommodation (and some can and have lost their jobs), but so far this argument has not held up in court.

Note: I have allergies (not to animals) and can confirm that severe allergies can be severely disabling.



Henry Kisor said:


> What about service animals? Don't they kind of moot the whole issue?
> 
> Yes, I know the whole service-animal thing is fraught with petty fraud. You don't even need to show papers. Why? There's no state standard anywhere, let alone national, for certification of service animals. All conductors can do is ask what service the animal performs. In my experience they just throw up their hands and mutter under their breath while the car attendants roll their eyes.


----------



## Bus Nut (Feb 14, 2015)

Guest said:


> Henry Kisor said:
> 
> 
> > What about service animals? Don't they kind of moot the whole issue?
> ...


That's not true. You're thinking of the VA.


----------



## Rob Creighton (Feb 14, 2015)

I've never seen a big problem with a legitimate service dog, although there was that story about the service dog on a flight that just had some elimination problems. It's owner took the pup off the plane when it was obvious the dog was having some kind of problem. Inconvenient for the flyers, but it's not like those stories crop up every day. Generally I don't have a problem with small dogs or cats in carriers as long as they're not overly yappy. And bigger dogs if well trained and generally well behaved can be a joy, but I'm a pet person. That said, I wouldn't subject my high strung dog on the passengers of a train, nor the potential stresses of that environment on my dog -- because it could go a variety of ways, a lot of which could be stressful on my dog, stressful to me and potentially stressful to others. That just doesn't sound like fun for the dog, the passengers or me. A two day trip when we moved from Indiana to Texas in our private car, with limited interaction with others caused my dog significant stress... so yeah... train travel with my pooch won't happen, even if allowed. That said, the problem is really about people not considering their pets temperament and how their pet's behavior effects others.


----------



## Bus Nut (Feb 14, 2015)

FormerOBS said:


> I'm curious about the rights of passengers and crew who are allergic to pets/pet dander.
> 
> Tom


You don't have any. Either courts will have to change the law or the Congress will have to.


----------



## Bus Nut (Feb 14, 2015)

Mods, please delete my previous post if you see this. I didn't mean to come off so harshly. I'm as disappointed as anyone in how the courts have ruled on the allergy issue.


----------



## Guest (Feb 14, 2015)

jimhudson said:


> I've seen people with poodles and lap dogs many times on Amtrak trains, usually in the Sleepers, and not a word was said about it by the crew!


If they say it is a service animal the crew does not want to get into an argument. Amtrak won't back the crew up. Also supposed you discover an animal that is a pet en route already onboard. Many crew would be hesitant to take action against the fait accompli if the animal is behaved because they would have to call the police, put the person off, probably cause a delay of the train to the inconvience of the rest of the passengers.


----------



## FriskyFL (Feb 14, 2015)

Not this topic yet again. The horse is not merely dead, it's most sincerely dead. Let it decay in pieces.


----------



## jis (Feb 14, 2015)

Having traveled in many places in the world, it seems to me that Amtrak's pet transportation ban policy is an exception rather than anywhere near any norm that exists in the travel industry. Therefore, i believe Amtrak should catch up with the rest of the world, and permit pets under specific set of rules, e.g. must be confined to a carrier, and such related constraints. I don't see any reason whatsoever to not do so. It is quite obvious that de facto, Amtrak already carries pets. Might as well provide a clear set of rules for doing so and even collect some money for it, instead of the current state of affairs. it is sort of like prohibition, and equally silly. Just iMHO of course. :help:


----------



## Ryan (Feb 14, 2015)

FriskyFL said:


> Not this topic yet again. The horse is not merely dead, it's most sincerely dead. Let it decay in pieces.


Feel free to not click on the topic and read it if you're disinterested.


----------



## Guest (Feb 14, 2015)

jis said:


> Having traveled in many places in the world, it seems to me that Amtrak's pet transportation ban policy is an exception rather than anywhere near any norm that exists in the travel industry. Therefore, i believe Amtrak should catch up with the rest of the world, and permit pets under specific set of rules, e.g. must be confined to a carrier, and such related constraints. I don't see any reason whatsoever to not do so. It is quite obvious that de facto, Amtrak already carries pets. Might as well provide a clear set of rules for doing so and even collect some money for it, instead of the current state of affairs. it is sort of like prohibition, and equally silly. Just iMHO of course. :help:


Also the number of fake service animals would likely plummet. Assuming there really are fake service animals.....


----------



## FormerOBS (Feb 14, 2015)

There really are fake service animals. I know of at least three situations where a "service animal" bit, or growled and threatened to bite, an employee or passenger. The train is foreign, unfamiliar territory for the animal. If it hasn't been properly trained, it can become suspicious, defensive, and possibly fearful. Then an animal that is normally docile and friendly, can behave in unexpected and dangerous ways. Real service animals are trained to stay calm in situations like that.

By the way, I hope everybody knows that they should NEVER distract, pet, or try to play with a service animal. If this is to happen, it should ONLY be with the advance permission of the owner, at a time when the animal is "off duty".

Tom


----------



## Bob Dylan (Feb 14, 2015)

Excellent Post Tom, and the same disclaimers apply to LE Drug and Bomb Dogs who can be very defensive and aggressive!!


----------



## neroden (Feb 14, 2015)

FormerOBS said:


> I'm curious about the rights of passengers and crew who are allergic to pets/pet dander.



There will be a designated pet car and they can go to a different car.

Which is FAR, FAR, FAR, FAR more than Amtrak does for people with ANY other allergy.

I'm allergic by inhalation to polyester -- does Amtrak do anything for me? Well, they will carry away the pillows when I request it, but they still dump them in the room even if my reservation says not to.

I'm allergic to guar gum by ingestion -- Amtrak has been unable even to *tell* me which foods contain guar gum and which do not, which would be a reasonable accomodation.

In short, people who are allergic to pets are being given gold-plated bend-over-backwards-to-be-nice-to-them kowtowing first class grade A treatment, and should stop complaining.


----------



## neroden (Feb 14, 2015)

Bus Nut said:


> Allergies are not considered a threat, nor a disability,...


Allergies definitely can be a disability; I don't know how the courts have been ruling lately, but eventually they're going to rule that they are.
However, it is worth remembering that disabilities are subject to the usual "reasonable accomodation" rules. Allowing an employee to work a different car (not the pet car) is a reasonable accomodation. Banning all pets from intercity trains is not a reasonable accomodation, it's grossly unreasonable.


----------



## neroden (Feb 14, 2015)

jimhudson said:


> Excellent Post Tom, and the same disclaimers apply to LE Drug and Bomb Dogs who can be very defensive and aggressive!!


There are fake "drug" and "bomb" sniffing dogs too. :-(

An awful lot of them have been trained to "alert" based on facial & body language indications from the handler. A proper trainer has to give consistent, substantial negative reinforcement for false positives. This is done *sometimes*, by the best trainers, but it isn't done at all by the worse trainers.

Far too many police departments really like to have fake "alerts" as excuses to do warrantless searches of innocent people's luggage. So they get fake "drug" and "bomb" sniffing dogs who alert whenever the handler wants them to. They end up retraining all their dogs (some of who were originally trained properly) to alert whenever the handler wants them to. Most dogs want to make their handler happy, you see...

This is a well-documented problem.


----------



## Alexandria Nick (Feb 15, 2015)

RyanS said:


> Alexandria Nick said:
> 
> 
> > For instance, a NASA auth act could say "Go land on the Moon and also here's a billion dollars for that," but the appropriation looks at that and says "ha a billion no way that's going to work" and they appropriate ten billion instead to actually achieve the policy defined in the auth act.
> ...


Yes, it is an odd and goofy set of rules and responsibilities. Parts of it seem strangely redundant and counter-intuitive. This is literally the stuff I deal with at work and I hate when it leaks into my leisure time!


----------



## SarahZ (Feb 16, 2015)

neroden said:


> FormerOBS said:
> 
> 
> > I'm curious about the rights of passengers and crew who are allergic to pets/pet dander.
> ...


I want a separate car for people wearing perfume. Also, banning the Glade plug-ins some SCAs use would be awesome. I would definitely consider my asthma attacks a disability.

Since I realize these are unreasonable requests, I book a roomette and keep the door shut. I love that I have that option on Amtrak. On airplanes, I sometimes have to lean on my hand all casual-like and breathe through my shirt sleeve to help "filter" the air. It's a neat trick. 

Anyway, I feel like having a designated "pet car" is akin to my booking my own little room with a door that I can shut against the perfumed air.


----------



## OlympianHiawatha (Feb 16, 2015)

If this comes to be, if you are use to putting the cat out at night at home, then if you are in Sleeper you can just shove him or her out in the hall to wander the train at night


----------



## Bus Nut (Feb 16, 2015)

neroden said:


> FormerOBS said:
> 
> 
> > I'm curious about the rights of passengers and crew who are allergic to pets/pet dander.
> ...


Nathanael, people with pet allergies are getting nothing and furthermore, ADA is the law of the land, no matter what "pet policy" might be. (Service dogs are not pets.) You cannot confine disabled people to pet cars, okay?

I'm sorry that Amtrak was crappy to you about your allergies. Not listening is kind of lame and there is really no excuse for them, especially with their national, limited menus, not to disclose exactly what is in their recipes.

But neither passengers NOR employees are getting accommodated in any way by Amtrak. Clearer now?


----------



## Bus Nut (Feb 16, 2015)

Ha, I mean to say accommodated in any way _if they have dog allergies_. So not so clear, I guess. :huh:


----------



## Bus Nut (Feb 16, 2015)

neroden said:


> Bus Nut said:
> 
> 
> > Allergies are not considered a threat, nor a disability,...
> ...


I agree with your assertion that the courts will eventually rule differently with respect to allergies. That day has not yet arrived.

As for your assertions about the meaning and interpretation of ADA rules w/r/t transportation, you're way off base. If employees are swapping duties so one can work in another car, that is self-help and fraternity between employees, not an action taken by the employer, which is absolutely not required to accommodate public facing employees with allergies to service animals in any way. And people can--and have--lost their jobs due to being allergic to customers' service animals. Does that sound fair or right? Well I can assure you that it doesn't sound just to me ... but that's where the law is now ... USA 2015.


----------



## FriskyFL (Feb 16, 2015)

Other than bona fide Service Animals (not the patently bogus "emotional support" ilk), they belong in baggage car. Human passengers are bad enough.


----------



## SarahZ (Feb 16, 2015)

FriskyFL said:


> Other than bona fide Service Animals (not the patently bogus "emotional support" ilk), they belong in baggage car. Human passengers are bad enough.


The baggage cars are neither climate-controlled nor safe. If you wouldn't put a human back there, then an animal doesn't belong there either.


----------



## neroden (Feb 16, 2015)

Bus Nut said:


> As for your assertions about the meaning and interpretation of ADA rules w/r/t transportation, you're way off base. If employees are swapping duties so one can work in another car, that is self-help and fraternity between employees, not an action taken by the employer, which is absolutely not required to accommodate public facing employees with allergies to service animals in any way. And people can--and have--lost their jobs due to being allergic to customers' service animals. Does that sound fair or right? Well I can assure you that it doesn't sound just to me ... but that's where the law is now ... USA 2015.


This is unfortunate, and it doesn't sound fair to me either. I hope that a compassionate employer would provide reasonable accommodations for their employees whether or not it's legally required at the moment.

I really do think the courts are going to reverse on this sooner or later: with reasonable accomodations required for people with diabetes and other autoimmune diseases, refusing to recognize allergies (which are medically also a process of immune reaction) as physical disabilities is going to come under scrutiny for lack of factual grounding.

It may be impossible to make reasonable accomodations for extremely severe allergies (of the 'if I inhale one particle from 10 feet away I die' variety), but it should be possible to accomodate "I can't touch that" levels of allergies.


----------



## mjaynes288 (Feb 16, 2015)

A disability is defined under the ADA as a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities. Severe allergies that cause breathing problems are covered under the ADA. If someone had this level of allergy they would be unable to preform a customer service job because they would react to the dander on pet owners' clothes. Most allergies do not substantially limit major life activities. They will never be covered by the ADA.


----------



## FriskyFL (Feb 16, 2015)

SarahZ said:


> FriskyFL said:
> 
> 
> > Other than bona fide Service Animals (not the patently bogus "emotional support" ilk), they belong in baggage car. Human passengers are bad enough.
> ...


Then that settles that. Until the new Viewliner Baggage cars enter service, animals shouldn't ride in the passenger cars. Nor should some of the human passengers, but that's another topic.


----------



## SarahZ (Feb 16, 2015)

FriskyFL said:


> SarahZ said:
> 
> 
> > FriskyFL said:
> ...


Or, they can ride in a designated pet car, with a limited number of pets per train (four), with all animals contained in carriers (under the seat), as specified in the current Amtrak Pets Trial on the IL trains. So far, the trial is successful.


----------



## Ryan (Feb 16, 2015)

That's far too much common sense. Be one of the cool kids and make hyperbolic statements insulting people instead.


----------



## FriskyFL (Feb 16, 2015)

SarahZ said:


> FriskyFL said:
> 
> 
> > SarahZ said:
> ...


And who decides which passengers get the "honor" of riding in the kennel car? Slip the conductor a fin to ride in the odor-free car? Woe to the unlucky souls unfortunate enough to share the space with a cargo of crated animals during a lengthy delay. Yeah, this will work out just fine.


----------



## MattW (Feb 16, 2015)

FriskyFL said:


> SarahZ said:
> 
> 
> > FriskyFL said:
> ...


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


----------



## SarahZ (Feb 16, 2015)

FriskyFL said:


> And who decides which passengers get the "honor" of riding in the kennel car? Slip the conductor a fin to ride in the odor-free car? Woe to the unlucky souls unfortunate enough to share the space with a cargo of crated animals during a lengthy delay. Yeah, this will work out just fine.


It's a maximum of four pets, in crates, with absorbent material, in ONE car of the consist.

You make it sound like Barnum & Bailey's circus train.


----------



## tonys96 (Feb 16, 2015)

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?


----------



## SarahZ (Feb 16, 2015)

tonys96 said:


> 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 (Feb 16, 2015)

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 (Feb 16, 2015)

MattW said:


> 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 (Feb 16, 2015)

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 (Feb 16, 2015)

SarahZ said:


> tonys96 said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...


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 (Feb 16, 2015)

tonys96 said:


> SarahZ said:
> 
> 
> > tonys96 said:
> ...


 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 (Feb 17, 2015)

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 (Feb 17, 2015)

SarahZ said:


> tonys96 said:
> 
> 
> > SarahZ said:
> ...


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 (Feb 17, 2015)

Looks like it is popcorn time


----------



## Ryan (Feb 17, 2015)

Popcorn time?


----------



## afigg (Feb 17, 2015)

tonys96 said:


> 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 (Feb 17, 2015)

afigg said:


> tonys96 said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...


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 (Feb 17, 2015)

jis said:


> 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 (Feb 18, 2015)

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


----------



## Ryan (Feb 18, 2015)

Color me wildly unsurprised.


----------



## jis (Feb 18, 2015)

RyanS said:


> 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 (Feb 18, 2015)

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 (Feb 18, 2015)

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


----------



## tonys96 (Feb 18, 2015)

CHamilton said:


> 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 (Feb 18, 2015)

jis said:


> RyanS said:
> 
> 
> > Color me wildly unsurprised.
> ...


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 (Feb 18, 2015)

afigg said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > RyanS said:
> ...


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


----------



## jis (Feb 18, 2015)

tonys96 said:


> 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 (Feb 18, 2015)

tonys96 said:


> CHamilton said:
> 
> 
> > Letting pets on Amtrak is a top priority for one Republican congressman
> ...


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 (Feb 18, 2015)

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 (Feb 18, 2015)

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.


----------



## Peter KG6LSE (Feb 18, 2015)

My worrys is NOISE!!!!!!!!!!!!! . I swear I better not Hear the pooch.

a condutctor can ask a pax to shut up and quite down...... I doubt Mr pooch understands Mr conductor is in charge .

humans are at the very least able to understand the idea of night time and for the most part respect it .


----------



## tonys96 (Feb 18, 2015)

Peter KG6LSE said:


> My worrys is NOISE!!!!!!!!!!!!! . I swear I better not Hear the pooch.
> 
> a condutctor can ask a pax to shut up and quite down...... I doubt Mr pooch understands Mr conductor is in charge .
> 
> humans are at the very least able to understand the idea of night time and for the most part respect it .


I suppose there are those who are in favor of this who might say that crying babies and kids can be as noisy as Mr. Pooch might be, and they are allowed on the train. I would think that to be a false comparison, though.

But, that brings me back to my original question, which has not been addressed. If a human passenger has an aversion to the "animal car" for *whatever* reason, would/should s/he be allowed to move to a different car, even if he was assigned to the "animal car" for a legit reason (ie, it is the car for his/her destination)? If that is answered in the affirmative by Amtrak, then I would have no problem with the *current* test moving forward to the system. As long as passengers get the choice to not be in the "animal car" if they do not wish to be.


----------



## George K (Feb 18, 2015)

I went to the symphony (Milwaukee) a few weeks ago. One of the audience had his service dog with him. The dog was perfect. It sat at his feet during the pre-concert lecture. The patron ended up sitting about 2 rows in front of me, in the first row - again at the feet. During intermission, the dog rested his nose on the rail of the first row, overlooking the stage. The animal was 100% non-intrusive, but, it was also not a pet.

Good dog!

But...

I have to ask the obvious question:

When your "service animal" or "pet" hears the call of nature, and you're on a train that won't stop for another hour, or two - and that stop might just be a "toot and scoot", what do you do? There's not enough time to really walk the animal, is there?


----------



## tonys96 (Feb 18, 2015)

George K said:


> I went to the symphony (Milwaukee) a few weeks ago. One of the audience had his service dog with him. The dog was perfect. It sat at his feet during the pre-concert lecture. The patron ended up sitting about 2 rows in front of me, in the first row - again at the feet. During intermission, the dog rested his nose on the rail of the first row, overlooking the stage. The animal was 100% non-intrusive, but, it was also not a pet.
> 
> Good dog!
> 
> ...


There is a world of difference between a trained service animal and your generic family pooch. Both in temperament and behavior, IMHO.


----------



## George K (Feb 18, 2015)

Absolutely. They are, as I said, not "pets."

But, when they gotta go, they gotta go. Someone's going to have an accident, sooner or later.

Gar

An

Teed

What's the solution to this issue?


----------



## SarahZ (Feb 18, 2015)

George K said:


> Absolutely. They are, as I said, not "pets."
> 
> But, when they gotta go, they gotta go. Someone's going to have an accident, sooner or later.
> 
> ...


Many pet stores sell absorbent, odor-controlling pads for lining the carrier. They're designed for these "accidents". The carriers also have to be leak-proof (i.e. no soft-sided carriers).

http://www.pettravelstore.com/pet-carrier-crate-pads/


----------



## FormerOBS (Feb 18, 2015)

Service animals on the Auto Train are walked during the routine service stop in Florence SC (near the mid-point), where the operating crew is relieved, the engines fueled, and water taken on the passenger cars as necessary. The owners of service animals regulate the animal's water intake before the trip, so that the problem doesn't become acute. In addition to all the other things that are included in the animal's training, they are also taught to self-regulate and control their natural processes. I have never encountered a service animal that had an accident. If I did, I would conclude that the animal is ill, and I'm sure the animal's human companion would also be very concerned.

If animals are going to be carried, I guess Amtrak would have to build pet-walking areas at certain strategically located places.

Tom


----------



## Railroad Bill (Feb 18, 2015)

As stated by some others, as long as there is a dog car, a cat car, and a " I leave my pet at home and do not care to be neighbors with yours" car, then so be it. But if I am forced to sit next to a person with their dog, then my days of riding Amtrak may be numbered. I am sure there are more who feel that way, than those who want to bring their pets on board.


----------



## mjaynes288 (Feb 18, 2015)

George K said:


> When your "service animal" or "pet" hears the call of nature, and you're on a train that won't stop for another hour, or two - and that stop might just be a "toot and scoot", what do you do? There's not enough time to really walk the animal, is there?


Service dogs are taught to go on command. Some are taught to go while the handler holds a human diaper under them. Others go on multiple pads on a black plastic garbage bag. There are relieving harnesses that hold a plastic bag to their but to poop in. My retired service dog refused to learn to pee indoors on command when I tried to teach him to use pads. After 16 hours I gave up.


----------



## tonys96 (Feb 19, 2015)

mjaynes288 said:


> George K said:
> 
> 
> > When your "service animal" or "pet" hears the call of nature, and you're on a train that won't stop for another hour, or two - and that stop might just be a "toot and scoot", what do you do? There's not enough time to really walk the animal, is there?
> ...


There is a world of difference between a trained service animal and your generic family pooch. Both in temperament and behavior, IMHO.


----------



## amamba (Feb 19, 2015)

SarahZ said:


> George K said:
> 
> 
> > Absolutely. They are, as I said, not "pets."
> ...


Again, if we look to the airlines as a guide, pets will be traveling in the carriers for short haul runs and hopefully their owners will use these. I know my dog will hold it for 8 hours (or lately he has known to hold it for longer because he was trying to refuse to go out in the snow) but of course they get sick, have accidents, etc. Assuming that the pets will be in carriers and not just sitting in people's laps or on the floor of the car, I don't think we need to get too worried about all of these what if type situations.


----------



## Bigval109 (Feb 24, 2015)

Remember the lady with the comfort pig on the plane. The pig went wild and they were put off the plane before it took off. Just think if it were airborn.


----------



## FriskyFL (Feb 24, 2015)

Bigval109 said:


> Remember the lady with the comfort pig on the plane. The pig went wild and they were put off the plane before it took off. Just think if it were airborn.


Just think if it was Amtrak...hence the reason why animals belong in the baggage car, with the rest of the cargo. Animals aren't human, despite the protestations of the so-called "pet parents" and their ilk.


----------



## Ryan (Feb 24, 2015)

I'm not sure what part of "baggage cars aren't climate controlled and are unsafe for pets" you're finding it difficult to comprehend, but it's getting old.

Pets obviously aren't human. Nobody here is claiming that they are. Stop making crap up.


----------



## jis (Feb 24, 2015)

Usually when people don't have a cogent argument to stand on they just make up crap


----------



## tomfuller (Feb 24, 2015)

On my most recent trip northbound on the CS from CMO to EUG, there was a dog owner sleeping in the seats directly behind the stairs. The large dog's nose was more than halfway across the aisle. I had to step over the sleeping dog's head several times during the trip. I saw no indication that the passenger needed any type of dog with him since he was at the top of the stairs.


----------



## AmtrakBlue (Feb 24, 2015)

Tom, there are assistive dogs for the hard of hearing/deaf. Perhaps that was one. Though I would think a well-trained one would not have it's nose "in the way".

Unfortunately, deafness is an invisible disability, like many others.


----------



## andersone (Feb 24, 2015)

My horror is even more awkward. My deafness, a result of chemo comes and goes. I have done a fairly good job of reading lips. I have all the compassion in the world for those with honest to good service animals. I have no compassion for just traveling with Fido or Kitty. If the baggage car isn't good enough for them then leave them at home. They can stink up the owners carpet.


----------



## neroden (Feb 25, 2015)

For starters, it's not practical to leave animals at home if you're (a) moving, (b) giving the animal to a new owner, © taking the animal to a veterinary appointment,...

I suppose some here would like everyone who needs to do any of this to rent a car or fly. I prefer to promote train travel, myself.


----------



## amamba (Feb 25, 2015)

andersone said:


> My horror is even more awkward. My deafness, a result of chemo comes and goes. I have done a fairly good job of reading lips. I have all the compassion in the world for those with honest to good service animals. I have no compassion for just traveling with Fido or Kitty. If the baggage car isn't good enough for them then leave them at home. They can stink up the owners carpet.


Or they can fly with their pet in the cabin underneath the seat in front of them in a carrier....
This can go on forever folks. I don't think anyone is advocating an animal free for all. But people are asking to take small pets on board Amtrak as most major airlines and other rail service on this country already allow with reasonable restrictions such as short haul, animals in carriers, etc.


----------



## SarahZ (Feb 25, 2015)

RyanS said:


> I'm not sure what part of "baggage cars aren't climate controlled and are unsafe for pets" you're finding it difficult to comprehend, but it's getting old.
> 
> Pets obviously aren't human. Nobody here is claiming that they are. Stop making crap up.


Dogs and cats are mammals, Frisky. That's why they need to be in a climate-controlled, safe area. Nobody is saying they are human, but they *are* susceptible to dehydration, heat stroke, hypothermia, and injuries just like we are. If a human (also mammal) can't ride in a baggage car, then neither should an animal.

I'm not sure why you keep failing to comprehend that.


----------



## SarahZ (Feb 25, 2015)

Peter KG6LSE said:


> My worrys is NOISE!!!!!!!!!!!!! . I swear I better not Hear the pooch.
> 
> a condutctor can ask a pax to shut up and quite down...... I doubt Mr pooch understands Mr conductor is in charge .
> 
> humans are at the very least able to understand the idea of night time and for the most part respect it .


Unless it's a screaming baby, and we put up with those.

And before someone stupidly accuses me of comparing babies to animals, I'm comparing noise to noise.


----------



## SarahZ (Feb 25, 2015)

andersone said:


> *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*
> 
> ...


Talk about hyperbole. Nobody said pets have the same rights as humans. Nobody is giving a pet a driver's license or marriage license, and I'm really not sure how "four animal limit, must be in a carrier, and all animals will be in a designated car" becomes "bringing pets to the diner".

Besides, food service guidelines prevent this from happening anyway. Only service animals are permitted in restaurants.


----------



## Bus Nut (Feb 26, 2015)

neroden said:


> For starters, it's not practical to leave animals at home if you're (a) moving, (b) giving the animal to a new owner, © taking the animal to a veterinary appointment,...
> 
> I suppose some here would like everyone who needs to do any of this to rent a car or fly. I prefer to promote train travel, myself.


Half the time the pet is the unhappiest one on the trip. Confined, unfamiliar sounds and smells, etc. Just so the owner can have that "unconditional love" dragged around. Get a tomagotchi.

Working dogs are completely different from pets.

I would never take my cat on a train ride, it would be sheer misery. Cats are territorial animals ... much happier at home than traveling like that. Like many pet owners I trade pet sitting/check-in services with other pet owners, we trade keys so our pets are safe and happy when we travel. You can also pay people to do this, not super expensive, actually.


----------



## Ryan (Feb 26, 2015)

And some pets love to travel, and travel well. What's your point?


----------



## MattW (Feb 26, 2015)

And if the owner is gone for a week visiting relatives and leaves the pet at home they can be just as miserable if not moreso! At least a train ride would be 8 hours or less, then they'd be at their destination, but that's not really a concern of Amtrak, that's up to the individual owner!


----------



## FriskyFL (Feb 26, 2015)

SarahZ said:


> RyanS said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not sure what part of "baggage cars aren't climate controlled and are unsafe for pets" you're finding it difficult to comprehend, but it's getting old.
> ...


Yo comprendo just bueno, amigo. If the baggage car is unacceptable, then the animals don't ride, simple as that. So either the Congress ponies up the dinero to build sufficient quantities of climate controlled kennel/baggage cars so that pookie-wookie rides better than the human cargo, or Congress should butt out and stick to whatever it does best (nothing).


----------



## Ryan (Feb 26, 2015)

Or they can implement the perfectly rational way of doing it that the airlines use.


----------



## jis (Feb 26, 2015)

RyanS said:


> Or they can implement the perfectly rational way of doing it that the airlines use.


Which is exactly what will happen notwithstanding all the howling and screaming and agony and angst expressed here.


----------



## JoeBas (Feb 26, 2015)

SarahZ said:


> I'm really not sure how "four animal limit, must be in a carrier, and all animals will be in a designated car" becomes "bringing pets to the diner".


Human nature?


----------



## JoeBas (Feb 26, 2015)

RyanS said:


> Or they can implement the perfectly rational way of doing it that the airlines use.


Congress? Rational???


----------



## jis (Feb 26, 2015)

Oh they won't do it because it is rational. They will do it because there is a precedent that they can point to. Most of them come from a legal background where precedents seem to be very important to support a case.  Of course in this case luckily, the precedent is actually quite rational too, and works fine all over the world, even in much more enclosed circumstances than obtained on a train. Actually Amtrak is more of an exception, rather than the norm.


----------



## amamba (Feb 26, 2015)

Bus Nut said:


> neroden said:
> 
> 
> > For starters, it's not practical to leave animals at home if you're (a) moving, (b) giving the animal to a new owner, © taking the animal to a veterinary appointment,...
> ...


I actually pay for my dog to stay in the home of his dog walking when I travel, but it IS expensive. It is $55 per day.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Feb 26, 2015)

NE prices! LOL

Dog Walkers here charge $10 a day but house/pet sitters get $25-$30 a day and Vets and Pet Hotels charge about the same!

Not sure about prices for cats and other pets, I keep my gfs cat and fish and house sit when she travels, but there is no charge for that! LOL


----------



## SarahZ (Feb 26, 2015)

Also, let's not forget that some people don't have a car, so if they are moving to a new city, this would be one way to take their pet.

If I were moving to Chicago and didn't have a car, I would love to be able to take our two cats on the train. They'd probably react the same way they do when they're in the car (sleep most of the time and not make a peep). They don't yowl like other cats.


----------



## mwmnp (Mar 4, 2015)

Passage of the bill by the full House is being debated on the floor as I type.

http://houselive.gov

http://www.c-span.org/video/?324610-2/us-house-legislative-business


----------



## KmH (Mar 4, 2015)

Done deal. It passed.

H.R.749 - Passenger Rail Reform and Investment Act of 2015


----------



## jis (Mar 4, 2015)

KmH said:


> Done deal. It passed.
> 
> Without Amendment


Not true. There were 6 amendments that passed, including Mica's. None were hostile to Amtrak. MacClintock's amendment hostile to Amtrak failed. Gosar and Posey's amendments did not come to the floor at all.
The main bill passed 316 to 101 with 6 amendments, none hostile to Amtrak.


----------



## mwmnp (Mar 4, 2015)

6 of the 7 amendments offered for a vote passed, each with a voice vote. The McClintock Amendment went to a recorded vote and failed.

Here is the roll call for passage of the main bill. 132 Republicans and 184 Democrats voted in favor, while 101 Republicans and no Democrats voted against.


----------



## brian212 (Mar 4, 2015)

KmH said:


> Done deal. It passed.
> 
> Without Amendment


Your link appears to be for H.R.749 from the 113th Congress (Eliminate Privacy Notice Confusion Act), here's the link to H.R.749 - Passenger Rail Reform and Investment Act of 2015 from the 114th Congress. Took me a little bit to figure out why I was confused at first  .


----------



## Ryan (Mar 4, 2015)

That hasn't been updated yet, I posted the actual vote tally in the other thread:



RyanS said:


> Roll call vote 112 on passage of the bill:
> 
> http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2015/roll112.xml


----------



## jis (Mar 4, 2015)

Oddly enough, after trying to defund Amtrak, McClintock voted for the main bill!

The 101 are the core T baggers as far as I can tell. The BANANAs of the world. 



brian212 said:


> KmH said:
> 
> 
> > Done deal. It passed.
> ...


Also note that the page will not get updated with today's action until later this evening at the earliest. Right now it has no information about today's action.


----------



## George K (Mar 4, 2015)

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/234622-house-passes-amtrak-reauthorization-bill



> The measure would authorize about $982 million per year for the company's national network and another $470 million annually for its popular Northeast U.S. routes.
> 
> The bill, which would expire in 2019, sets another $300 million per year for construction on Amtrak routes in the rest of country


What construction are they talking about? Platforms? Stations? Tunnels? Bridge rehab? Or new rail?

All of the above?


----------



## rickycourtney (Mar 4, 2015)

So according to the the story from "The Hill"

*The good:*
So Amtrak gets more money over the next 4 years... $982 million per year for the long-distance routes, $470 million per year for the Northeast Corridor, $300 million per year for construction and $24 million per year for the inspector general's office

*The bad:*
Revenue generated in the Northeast Corridor would have to stay in the Northeast Corridor... it can't be used to subsidize the long-distance routes (meaning possibly further belt-tightening on the long-distance routes).

*The meh:*
The pets on train program will be expanded nationally.


----------



## JayPea (Mar 4, 2015)

Good to see my representative voted yea. She's a hard-core Republican and is a Tea Party sympathizer. Glad she listened to me!!!! :lol:


----------



## Paulus (Mar 4, 2015)

George K said:


> http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/234622-house-passes-amtrak-reauthorization-bill
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Any capital expenses which would (likely) mainly consist of new cars and locomotives and the repair of the existing ones.


----------



## jis (Mar 4, 2015)

rickycourtney said:


> So according to the the story from "The Hill"
> 
> *The good:*
> 
> So Amtrak gets more money over the next 4 years... $982 million per year for the long-distance routes, $470 million per year for the Northeast Corridor, $300 million per year for construction and $24 million per year for the inspector general's office


This is authorization. We will see what happens when it comes time to do the appropriation.


> *The bad:*
> 
> Revenue generated in the Northeast Corridor would have to stay in the Northeast Corridor... it can't be used to subsidize the long-distance routes (meaning possibly further belt-tightening on the long-distance routes).


Not quite. They have to be kept in separate accounts but cross-transfer of funds is allowed with appropriate notification.


> *The meh:*
> 
> The pets on train program will be expanded nationally.


That apparently is the intent.


----------



## afigg (Mar 4, 2015)

Paulus said:


> George K said:
> 
> 
> > > The measure would authorize about $982 million per year for the company's national network and another $470 million annually for its popular Northeast U.S. routes.[/size]
> ...


No, the capital expenses would include track, signal, power (NEC) system maintenance and modernization, maintenance facilities, station and platform modernizations and repair, ADA compliance, and so on, not just rolling stock. If Amtrak gets enough funding for the LD network to cover the operating losses and basic capital maintenance needs and somewhere close to the $487 million for the NEC, then much of the operating surplus generated by the Acela and NE Regionals can be plowed back into NEC capital funding needs.

The 2 major higher profile NEC projects that are on Amtrak's construction list for the next 5 fiscal years are the Portal Bridge (North) and the CT River bridge replacements. CT is funding the Walk bridge replacement in Norwalk on the New Haven Line. Projects such as the B&P Tunnel and Susquehanna bridge replacements and the NEC Gateway Hudson river tunnels will be in environmental and engineering study and lining up the funding phases for the next few years. The NEC Commission Five Year Capital Assessment FY15-FY19 report lays out the hoped for capital funding projects for the next 5 years, so it is the place to start when looking at what might actually get done on the NEC in the near term if enough funds are available.

A major piece of the re-authorization bill is providing Amtrak with directed access to RIFF loan funding for the NEC, up to $14 billion total if I understand the bill correctly. Any part of the RIFF allotment that Amtrak taps would be a loan, so it will be debt that would have to be paid back with interest. If the Senate leaves this in, going to be interesting to see what Amtrak and the NEC states do with the option to fund big ticket projects by loading the NEC up with debt. But the RIFF financing option is really a topic for a separate thread.


----------



## neroden (Mar 5, 2015)

> The bill, which would expire in 2019, sets another $300 million per year for construction on Amtrak routes in the rest of country


This would include the very necessary renovations to Chicago Union Station, Chicago yards & maintenance shops, LA yards & maintenance shops, Oakland yards & maintenance shops. Also, potentially, upgrades to stations nationwide, track & signal on the Empire Corridor and Michigan Line. And, yes, locomotives and rolling stock would fit under "capital" for "rest of the country" as well.


----------



## jis (Mar 5, 2015)

Now onto the Senate....


----------



## afigg (Mar 5, 2015)

jis said:


> Now onto the Senate....
> 
> http://www.narprail-org.newsconsultant.net/news/narp-blog/2328-senate-amendment-would-eliminate-amtrak-food-and-beverage


Isn't that is a 2014 transportation funding alert? If so, that got resolved with Amtrak maintaining FY2015 funding at the FY2014 levels.
What I don't know is what is the status of the Amtrak Re-authorization bill in the Senate. Is the Senate working on a completely separate bill or will it take up the House bill for consideration?


----------



## PRR 60 (Mar 5, 2015)

The amendment proposed by Senator Coons would increase funding, but would also require the bill to go back to conference committee and finally to a new vote in the House. Since this was a bi-partisan bill, I would be very hesitant to do anything that could lead to the house scuttling the entire package. It's a pretty good bill, and has the support of Amtrak management. Don't mess with it.

I also do not want to mess with the bill with the F&B issue. However, the often heard complaint of "micro-managing" is, in my opinion, also not valid. Past requirements have been to reduce the loses incurred by Food and Beverage. It did not tell Amtrak how to do that. It was Amtrak that decided to cut menus and get rid of flowers and tablecloths. Meanwhile, potentially big savings items, point of sale and electronic inventory control, are still not in place after years of promises.

In FY2014, Amtrak's adjusted loss for operations was $189 million. Of that $189 million, $156 million came from F&B losses. Amtrak was able to run all its trains with a loss of just $33 million, but then lost another $156 million serving food. As someone who rides Amtrak, I see the dining car service. I see those ridiculous multi-part forms used to order the meals and later account for inventory and revenue. I have not seen anything like that outside Amtrak in twenty years. If you drill back from the customer interface into the mysterious back-office world of Amtrak F&B, I bet the inefficiency gets even worse. There has to be some real savings available modernizing that system - more than the savings from eliminating flowers and tablecloths.

So, while I do not agree with the amendment to ban F&B subsidy, I also am not among those who feel that F&B operation should be simply left to Amtrak. Amtrak has not proven itself able to bring F&B into the 21st century. With 83 cents of every dollar of operating subsidy going to support food and beverage service, I think maybe a little micro-managing is in order. Look at it from the perspective of a passenger rail supporter. If Amtrak could cut just $30 million from that $156 million F&B loss, they would have enough to maintain the Southwest Chief on its present route with change to spare. Amtrak food and beverage inefficiency is stealing money from actually running trains.


----------



## George K (Mar 5, 2015)

Fascinating analysis. I had no idea that F&B were such a loser - 83% of the operating losses is staggering. As you point out, improving efficiency would go a long way to cutting that. I have no knowledge of the food industry, so let me ask: what kinds of efficiencies can be improved?


----------



## jis (Mar 5, 2015)

afigg said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > Now onto the Senate....
> ...


Yeah, that is what happened in 2014. Hopefully Senate can improve some of the numbers this year, but that might be too much to hope for.


----------



## jis (Mar 5, 2015)

George K said:


> Fascinating analysis. I had no idea that F&B were such a loser - 83% of the operating losses is staggering. As you point out, improving efficiency would go a long way to cutting that. I have no knowledge of the food industry, so let me ask: what kinds of efficiencies can be improved?


While we are at it, we should take into consideration the incredible losses piled on by the toilet service on Amtrak trains and stations. There is absolutely no revenue accruing from them and they cost a ton of money to maintain. Ever since its inception Amtrak has not been able to get a handle on this, so a little micro management might be in order in this area too.


----------



## George K (Mar 5, 2015)

jis said:


> While we are at it, we should take into consideration the incredible losses piled on by the toilet service on Amtrak trains and stations. There is absolutely no revenue accruing from them and they cost a ton of money to maintain. Ever since its inception Amtrak has not been able to get a handle on this, so a little micro management might be in order in this area too.


----------



## Railroad Bill (Mar 5, 2015)

George K said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > While we are at it, we should take into consideration the incredible losses piled on by the toilet service on Amtrak trains and stations. There is absolutely no revenue accruing from them and they cost a ton of money to maintain. Ever since its inception Amtrak has not been able to get a handle on this, so a little micro management might be in order in this area too.


Would this mean we need to start bringing our own TP. Think of the savings for Amtrak. And perhaps eliminating the soap and towels could fix the budget as well. :wacko:


----------



## jis (Mar 5, 2015)

I hope people are not taking my comment too seriously. It was just an attempt to illustrate how one can go after any essential support service the same way Mica and company are raising this hoo-ha about F&B and how some well meaning folks are taking it in hook, line and sinker. Yes of course things can be improved, but no, that does not mean Congress should be micromanaging it.


----------



## Ryan (Mar 5, 2015)

Bill, you raise some valid points, but is eliminating all losses from F&B the correct goal? Given their history as a loss leader, the ideal solution is probably to lose some money to get people on the trains. Are the current losses acceptable? Doubtful, but maybe. We don't have the information needed to in order to arrive at that optimal solution, and I doubt Congress does.

Simply pushing an ideological "no losses" onto a certain aspect of the business falls into the micromanagement policy in my book.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Mar 5, 2015)

Hopefully the Senate will accept the House Bill with No Amendments or changes!

Contact your Senators ( even the Hopeless ones, the squeaky wheel gets the grease) and ask them to Vote for the Bi- Partisan House Bill as passed!


----------



## jis (Mar 5, 2015)

The Senate has to first start doing anything about it. There seems to have been a distinct lack of motion in the Senate in this area so far AFAICT. Can't find anything on either the Senate docket or the Transportation Committee or any of its Subcommittee dockets on this. Maybe I am looking at all the wrong places?


----------



## AlexandriaVaTraveler (Mar 5, 2015)

Amtrak should run an experiment where meals are not included in the ticket price, and all the fares are lowered by a corresponding amount. Right now, compartment passengers are paying for meals that they may or may not necessarily want.

I know that railfans like the old-style meal-on-a-train concept, but why not let consumers choose whether or not they eat. Maybe they'd prefer to bring their own. Maybe a cottage industry of platform-side takeout would sprout up.

To sum, Amtrak forces compartment passengers to purchase meals, which Amtrak loses money on. It's time to experiment with different business models. Don't take away menu options, just give consumers choice.


----------



## jis (Mar 5, 2015)

The original reason for including meals as part of Sleeper fare was to save the Dining Cars, which were on the verge of getting pulled. No experiment is needed to know what the result will be. The outcome is pretty much a foregone conclusion from past experience. Just because some people want to hallucinate about F&B becoming a profit center ain't gonna make it so.

In the Golden Age of passenger railroading food was generally not included in the fare and F&B involving sit down dining in Dining Cars never did really break even anywhere. Amtrak style Cafe service may have a prayer at breaking even. But a train journey that lasts overnight and sometimes several days becomes uniquely non-feasible if no reasonable food service is provided on the train, no matter how much people wish to fantasize about it.


----------



## AlexandriaVATraveler (Mar 5, 2015)

If Amtrak LD trains were consistently on time, there's no reason that station-based catering couldn't work. The Trans-Siberian Railway is about 7 days travel (I think). From reading about it, it seems like the dining car is pretty regrettable and the way to go is the take advantage of station-side food merchant (who tend to be old ladies I believe). From the Wikitravel entry on the TSR:



> "On the Moscow–Vladivostok route) the train stops for 20–30 minutes every 3–4 hours. Everybody can get out of the train, and there are always people on the platform that offer a variety of fresh food (eggs, fish, cheese, bread, fruits, meat or cheese in a cake) and often some drinks for passengers. Prices are low; only Russian rubles are accepted. A highlight is the smoked fish (Omul) being sold on the shore of Lake Baikal (Station: Slyudyanka, a quick stop, so be fast). Some of the larger stations will have food marts with snacks but it is now (2014) difficult to get alcohol within train stations or at the kiosks on the platform.
> 
> Many of the trains have dining cars (with extremely overpriced food and drinks), although if you do not speak any Russian, ordering the food will be an experience, to say the least. Food and drinks are also sold in kiosks at the platforms, but normally twice as expensive. To get a reasonable price, wait for a station with a 20–30 minutes stop, and just exit the train station, there is usually a plenty of kiosks or small shops just outside, offering a wider choice.
> 
> Since there is a samovar (hot water dispenser) in every carriage, your best bet is to have a stack of dried noodle soups and Nescafe ready. Just bring your own cup. The carriage attendants (Provodnitsa, Provodnik if male) will often have cold drinks, snacks, and even freeze-dried meals available for sale at slightly inflated prices."


----------



## jis (Mar 5, 2015)

The big if about Amtrak trains being on time is what kills that idea at the getgo. 

For corridor trains there needs to be some form of cafe/buffet food service as is normal even in Russia. Just the Dining Cars is not the issue when people talk about F&B on Amtrak. And perhaps not so surprisingly, actually the Cafes in places like the NEC and on some mid distance trains appear to perform much better financially, mainly because their labor costs are much lower than for Dining Cars.

India for example did away with Dining Cars on LD trains and substituted Pantry Cars for them. Food is served to the entire train from these pantry cars. This is mainly so on trains that have very few stops en-route, including in the Duronto Expresses, which have no commercial/timetable stops en route on routes that are as long as 24+ hours.

Amtrak LD trains across the Nevada desert for example would be difficult to handle using the Russian model because the Trans-Siberian is one of many trains that ply that route (and hence shares station facilities, including food services with multiple trains), whereas the CZ is a single train per day that plies that route and that ain't changing anytime soon.


----------



## NE933 (Mar 5, 2015)

George K said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > While we are at it, we should take into consideration the incredible losses piled on by the toilet service on Amtrak trains and stations. There is absolutely no revenue accruing from them and they cost a ton of money to maintain. Ever since its inception Amtrak has not been able to get a handle on this, so a little micro management might be in order in this area too.


As "funny" as this is, Boardman should use the rude sarcasm in this example in Congressional testimony. People have to eat, and Amtrak carries people.


----------



## Bjartmarr (Mar 6, 2015)

jis said:


> While we are at it, we should take into consideration the incredible losses piled on by the toilet service on Amtrak trains and stations. There is absolutely no revenue accruing from them and they cost a ton of money to maintain. Ever since its inception Amtrak has not been able to get a handle on this, so a little micro management might be in order in this area too.


I don't think that's a germane response. Sure, expecting F&B to be a profit center is unreasonable, but PRR60 was accusing them of wasting money on byzantine ordering and inventory processes. If true, that's certainly something that they can and should address.

If there are byzantine ordering and inventory processes associated with the toilets, they should address those as well. Hopefully, quietly.


----------



## Ryan (Mar 6, 2015)

If they are wasting money, sure (and I don't doubt that they can provide the same service more cheaply). But Congress doesn't have the first clue into the details of how it works, so blindly demanding "no losses" is the wrong course of action.


----------



## fillyjonk (Mar 6, 2015)

Railroad Bill said:


> George K said:
> 
> 
> > jis said:
> ...


Well, isn't there an airline (Ryanair, maybe?) that has pay toilets?


----------



## neroden (Mar 6, 2015)

While reviewing the text of PRRIA 2015, I find that the Treasury grant program to restructure Amtrak debt is back. But only to the extent that it gets Congressional appropriations in advance.

The appropriations bills are still the thing to watch, but this may allow for additional Amtrak funding.


----------

