Amtrak Pets on Board Trial

[neroden]

It sounds like Amtrak wants an agent to inspect the animal at the station before issuing a ticket.

Yeah. This seems mildly paranoid but it's understandable. Probably eventually it will be replaced by a "conductor may reject pet at boarding time" policy, but for now, this'll allow Amtrak to see how many people try to bring unruly pets vs. how many people are well behaved, *before* boarding time.

The rest of the policy seems well-thought-out. Clearly Amtrak has been listening to the Congressional delegation who complained about Amtrak's pet policy.

I'm okay with the fee.

Likewise.
I know a fair number of people who have rented cars for one-way trips solely because of Amtrak's pet policy, which is kind of ridiculous. A $25 fee is cheaper than the difference between Amtrak tickets and a one-way car rental. So hopefully this pilot program will expand and Amtrak will recover the patronage of the pet-moving clientele.

 

[Bob Dylan]

Glad I'm not riding the Trains in Illinois (are the Zephyr and Chief excluded ?)and I'm with Tony on this one, I hope the experiment is a failure! (I love animals but not on a Train, Plane or Bus with the exception of certified service animals which are no behaviour problem!)

 

[SarahZ]

Pets aren't people, they belong in the baggage car.

No, but they are living, breathing creatures, so I would not want them somewhere that isn't climate-controlled and somewhere I wouldn't have access to them to check on them to make sure they are okay. If you wouldn't put a human in a baggage car, then an animal doesn't belong there either.

 

[FriskyFL]

Pets aren't people, they belong in the baggage car.

No, but they are living, breathing creatures, so I would not want them somewhere that isn't climate-controlled and somewhere I wouldn't have access to them to check on them to make sure they are okay. If you wouldn't put a human in a baggage car, then an animal doesn't belong there either.

Then pets should stay at home.

 

[7deuceman]

The Illinois Amtrak "Pet Test" on the Illinois Zephyr and Carl Sandburg is a very good start to creating a fair alternative for pet owners who want their friend to travel with them, safer travels for the pet and an increase in ridership for Amtrak.

In order to see a real acceptance of the new program by travelers, the test should be extended to the Hiawatha and other "Illinois Service" Trains connecting Chicago with Southern Illinois and St. Louis.

As the frequency of pets riding Amtrak continues, extra space for pets could be reserved in the baggage car. The success of these services will be rapidly passed along in blogs and social media.

Will pet travel on Amtrak work? Airlines have been testing allowing "pets on planes" for some time now and it seems to be working out. There is much more space on Amtrak then in a plane, especially with the availability of baggage cars.

I say this is a major win for Amtrak that will just get bigger and better as the word gets out.

 

[SarahZ]

Pets aren't people, they belong in the baggage car.

No, but they are living, breathing creatures, so I would not want them somewhere that isn't climate-controlled and somewhere I wouldn't have access to them to check on them to make sure they are okay. If you wouldn't put a human in a baggage car, then an animal doesn't belong there either.

Then pets should stay at home.

Or, they can be kept in a crate, under a person's seat. That limits the amount of dander that spreads, if any, and keeps them off the seats and carpet.

If they start barking, their owner can calm them. Babies cry, but we don't put them in baggage cars or leave them at home.

 

[Guest]

So people with pets that need to move them are just out of luck?

You take your pet with you when you move, but, what, leave your car out in the street at your old place?

 

[Guest]

Babies cry, but we don't put them in baggage cars or leave them at home.

OK, our next tangent begins....

 

[SarahZ]

So people with pets that need to move them are just out of luck?

You take your pet with you when you move, but, what, leave your car out in the street at your old place?

You're assuming everyone owns a car.

 

[brentrain17]

I have pets. But I do NOT want them on a common carrier. Service dogs? Of course. No others, though. All this pet-centric nonsense is just new-age, crystal-worshipping nonsense for and about fearful people. I truly do NOT care if you are afraid of travel without Rover by your side or that you get anxious or whatever. That is your problem, not mine.

I agree

 

[tonys96]

Pets aren't people, they belong in the baggage car.

No, but they are living, breathing creatures, so I would not want them somewhere that isn't climate-controlled and somewhere I wouldn't have access to them to check on them to make sure they are okay. If you wouldn't put a human in a baggage car, then an animal doesn't belong there either.

Do you get to check on a pet on a plane?

 

[neroden]

Then pets should stay at home.

Idiotic. How do you think they get home? Teleportation, perhaps? Or perhaps all pets should be born in the location where they will live forever?
The main need for pet transport on trains has been by people who are moving from one home to another, whether it is a one-time move, a "summer home", or indeed Congressmen going to DC. Or indeed for people acquiring pets from a previous owner. It is very bad government policy to force such people to rent cars and acquire drivers' licenses solely for the purpose of relocating their pets.

 

[amamba]

Pets aren't people, they belong in the baggage car.

No, but they are living, breathing creatures, so I would not want them somewhere that isn't climate-controlled and somewhere I wouldn't have access to them to check on them to make sure they are okay. If you wouldn't put a human in a baggage car, then an animal doesn't belong there either.

LOVE. One million times this.

 

[amamba]

Pets aren't people, they belong in the baggage car.

No, but they are living, breathing creatures, so I would not want them somewhere that isn't climate-controlled and somewhere I wouldn't have access to them to check on them to make sure they are okay. If you wouldn't put a human in a baggage car, then an animal doesn't belong there either.

Do you get to check on a pet on a plane?

Yes, when they are flying with you in the passenger cabin of the plane and underneath the seat in front of you as proposed by amtrak and allowed by most airlines for animals up to approximatley 20 lbs.

 

[neroden]

You're assuming everyone owns a car.

This. Lots of people don't own cars... and they are particularly likely to ride Amtrak.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._cities_with_most_households_without_a_car

The *first 32 cities* on this list have access to Amtrak, perhaps by public transportation which allows pets.

Actually, the only cities on this list of *50* who don't have Amtrak access are Honolulu, Allentown, Dayton, and Louisville.

 

[rusty spike]

Pets aren't people, they belong in the baggage car.

No, but they are living, breathing creatures, so I would not want them somewhere that isn't climate-controlled and somewhere I wouldn't have access to them to check on them to make sure they are okay. If you wouldn't put a human in a baggage car, then an animal doesn't belong there either.

If you have ever been inside of one of the old "heritage" baggage cars, you would see that it isn't fit for human or pet travel. No controlled climate, doors that don't properly close, that actually permit snow drifts to form inside amongst the luggage, etc.

 

[neroden]

If you have ever been inside of one of the old "heritage" baggage cars, you would see that it isn't fit for human or pet travel. No controlled climate, doors that don't properly close, that actually permit snow drifts to form inside amongst the luggage, etc.

I recall my baggage arriving with a layer of red dust on it from its trip in the baggage car through New Mexico. Yeah.
The Viewliner baggage cars can't come soon enough.

In the meantime, "pet under seat" works at least for the shorter routes. Based on the list of cities with the highest percentage of car-free households, the NEC is the top priority for allowing pet carriage. The next priorities are its branches: Empire Service to Buffalo, Springfield shuttle, Richmond & Norfolk service, Pennsylvanian to Pittsburgh. (The LSL is also a pretty high priority.)

Using the Quincy route as a testbed is a bit odd, but perhaps Amtrak wanted to test policies out on a route which would have LOW usage.

*** Note: I notice the car-free percentage numbers on Wikipedia are from the 2000 census. It's too much work right now to redo them from the 2010 census, though it would be a valuable thing to do.

 

[SarahZ]

Pets aren't people, they belong in the baggage car.

No, but they are living, breathing creatures, so I would not want them somewhere that isn't climate-controlled and somewhere I wouldn't have access to them to check on them to make sure they are okay. If you wouldn't put a human in a baggage car, then an animal doesn't belong there either.

Do you get to check on a pet on a plane?

I have never taken my pets on a plane. If I did, they would be under my seat.

If they were not allowed under the seat and had to fly in the cargo hold, I would not take them on a plane. You know why? Because they are live creatures and should not be treated like suitcases. Like humans, they are sensitive to cold and heat and need to be fed and watered.

Additionally, if there were an emergency, I would have no way to rescue them (from the cargo hold or baggage car). If they're under my seat, I can grab them and go.

My original point remains: humans do not travel in cargo/baggage, so neither should pets.

When you have a pet, you are responsible for its health and safety. Anyone who has the attitude "it's just a dog/cat" should never, ever own a pet. Pets are not a piece of furniture or a decorative item. If you wouldn't put your kid in the baggage car along with some food/water bowls, why would you put your pet back there?

 

[MikefromCrete]

Pets aren't people, they belong in the baggage car.

No, but they are living, breathing creatures, so I would not want them somewhere that isn't climate-controlled and somewhere I wouldn't have access to them to check on them to make sure they are okay. If you wouldn't put a human in a baggage car, then an animal doesn't belong there either.

Do you get to check on a pet on a plane?

I have never taken my pets on a plane. If I did, they would be under my seat.

If they were not allowed under the seat and had to fly in the cargo hold, I would not take them on a plane. You know why? Because they are live creatures and should not be treated like suitcases. Like humans, they are sensitive to cold and heat and need to be fed and watered.

Additionally, if there were an emergency, I would have no way to rescue them (from the cargo hold or baggage car). If they're under my seat, I can grab them and go.

My original point remains: humans do not travel in cargo/baggage, so neither should pets.

When you have a pet, you are responsible for its health and safety. Anyone who has the attitude "it's just a dog/cat" should never, ever own a pet. Pets are not a piece of furniture or a decorative item. If you wouldn't put your kid in the baggage car along with some food/water bowls, why would you put your pet back there?

I always get a little nervous when people compare animals to children.

 

[D.P. Roberts]

People are bringing their pets now anyway- they call them service animals and the train crew is nearly helpless to do anything about it (though there was a young gentleman taken off the northbound Coast Starlight in Klamath Falls a few weeks ago with his utterly untrained "service dog"- he resisted leaving and was arrested- they had been on board since Van Nuys, so it took nearly 24 hours for the crew to feel it had a solid enough case to give them the boot). Perhaps by having an allowed way to bring some animals along, it will be easier for crews to call BS on ill-mannered dogs being brought on as service animals, or at least there is the possibility that some of the smaller ones will be paid for and kept confined.

I think this is a very good point. People who are now allowed to take their pets with them probably won't bother with all the fake certifications. So, Amtrak can now police bad "animal behavior", and simply boot the bad animals (and their pets) off the train.

Secondly, while I know a lot of people who have really bad pet allergies, I think Amtrak's new method is a far cry from the current method (the "current method" being the one where people try to sneak dogs and hamsters on the train). First of all, people with allergies can actually research & find out what might be on their train and when. Secondly, the new policy would require pets to be in a carrier and under the seat, and not up on the seats and other surfaces where their dander, fur, and other effluent might cause more problems.

As for allowing pets at all - I don't think it's always an issue of people being unwilling to leave their pets at home. Oftentimes, it's the other way around - it's often harder for the pet to be away from the people. Kennels and pet sitters are extraordinarily expensive: paying Amtrak $25 each way is a bargain when compared to what I pay for a pet sitter. Plus, many pets do not adapt well to being in a kennel, or to strange pet sitters. They can develop severe behavior problems or even serious health issues. Nothing can ruin a vacation faster than getting a call from your sitter telling you about your pet's illness or problems.

 

[FriskyFL]

How quickly we (and Amtrak and ILDOT) forget:

http://discuss.amtraktrains.com/index.php?/topic/59567-illini-392-accident-in-savoy-il-april-24/&do=findComment&comment=521792

How'd you like to be a pet on THAT train? When Fluffy or Fido starts peeing and crapping in your space, leaving them at home won't seem quite so bad.

 

[AmtrakBlue]

How quickly we (and Amtrak and ILDOT) forget:

http://discuss.amtraktrains.com/index.php?/topic/59567-illini-392-accident-in-savoy-il-april-24/&do=findComment&comment=521792

How'd you like to be a pet on THAT train? When Fluffy or Fido starts peeing and crapping in your space, leaving them at home won't seem quite so bad.

Well, now that you know which trains (in IL) allow pets, you can make a decision to not travel on those trains. Nobody is forcing you to take the trains.

 

[SarahZ]

Pets aren't people, they belong in the baggage car.

No, but they are living, breathing creatures, so I would not want them somewhere that isn't climate-controlled and somewhere I wouldn't have access to them to check on them to make sure they are okay. If you wouldn't put a human in a baggage car, then an animal doesn't belong there either.

Do you get to check on a pet on a plane?

I have never taken my pets on a plane. If I did, they would be under my seat.

If they were not allowed under the seat and had to fly in the cargo hold, I would not take them on a plane. You know why? Because they are live creatures and should not be treated like suitcases. Like humans, they are sensitive to cold and heat and need to be fed and watered.

Additionally, if there were an emergency, I would have no way to rescue them (from the cargo hold or baggage car). If they're under my seat, I can grab them and go.

My original point remains: humans do not travel in cargo/baggage, so neither should pets.

When you have a pet, you are responsible for its health and safety. Anyone who has the attitude "it's just a dog/cat" should never, ever own a pet. Pets are not a piece of furniture or a decorative item. If you wouldn't put your kid in the baggage car along with some food/water bowls, why would you put your pet back there?

I always get a little nervous when people compare animals to children.

Why? Because they're both living, breathing things that depend on us to take care of them?

I wouldn't put my kid in the baggage car, and that means I wouldn't put my pet back there either. If it isn't safe for humans, it isn't safe for animals. That's my point. I'm not trying to say pets are exactly like children or that I know what it's like to be a parent.

 

[jim55]

What a can of worms. Does this mean that soon there may be a snake, spider, lizard etc in a flimsy cage under the seat in front of me? What about people allergic to pet hair? Amtrak will lose more Pax than gain.

 

[FriskyFL]

What a can of worms. Does this mean that soon there may be a snake, spider, lizard etc in a flimsy cage under the seat in front of me? What about people allergic to pet hair? Amtrak will lose more Pax than gain.

Nothing quite like a Pets on Amtrak thread to get the fur and hyperbole flying?