Kerry and Amtrak

[Amfleet]

Just some quotes off John Kerry's presidential campaign site. He seems to be pro Amtrak and pro investing America's rail system.

Make investments in homeland security, infrastructure, and transportation...This includes building high-speed rail where it makes sense, which can create jobs, reduce traffic and help people and products get where they need to go.

He has supported rural transportation initiatives that would expand Amtrak’s serve to more of America’s rural cities and towns.

However, do a search for Amtrak or rail on George Bush's website, you won't get a single thing!

 

[Save Our Trains Michigan]

Just some quotes off John Kerry's presidential campaign site. He seems to be pro Amtrak and pro investing America's rail system.

Make investments in homeland security, infrastructure, and transportation...This includes building high-speed rail where it makes sense, which can create jobs, reduce traffic and help people and products get where they need to go.

He has supported rural transportation initiatives that would expand Amtrak’s serve to more of America’s rural cities and towns.

However, do a search for Amtrak or rail on George Bush's website, you won't get a single thing!

He has my vote but can he keep his word <_<

 

[Viewliner]

Just another good reason in my opinion for people to vote for Kerry. B)

 

[Guest]

Just another good reason in my opinion for people to vote for Kerry. B)

The other reasons would be...???

 

[Amfleet]

Just another good reason in my opinion for people to vote for Kerry. B)

The other reasons would be...???

He will revive the economy, put back some sense in the American government. The list goes on. Bush has no capability of running this country any longer. My vote goes to Kerry not just for Amtrak, but for his political views and goals. I'm tired of living in a country where we concentrate on war and military. It goes much more beyond that.

 

[canoe86]

Every dem. in the last 40 years have said the exact same thing and look where rail travel is today. This is NO reason to vote for ANYONE, ANY party.

We are taking our first family vacation on the train. What needs to happen is when we go, the experience should be pleasant and fun. So then we will go again and tell others. If the service is poor etc. then the chances are the opposite will occur. As many of you have pointed out to me in another post, rail travel has advantages and disadvantages. Well so does flying, but poor service and bad experiences will turn people away from a business. Soooooooooo, the point being, don't ask the government for money. First, make the service first rate. Then, you proponents of train travel, make all your trips by train and talk about it to people positively. (which I'm sure you do)

I liken entities getting government subsidies to some kids I knew in college. Their parents paid for the whole thing, and they pissed away that money and wasted there time, flunking out or with a low GPA. Why? They had no stake in their education, they were not losing their own money. Throwing money at those kids would not have improved the grades, but I suspect cutting them off would have.

 

[Amfleet]

Every dem. in the last 40 years have said the exact same thing and look where rail travel is today. This is NO reason to vote for ANYONE, ANY party.
We are taking our first family vacation on the train. What needs to happen is when we go, the experience should be pleasant and fun. So then we will go again and tell others. If the service is poor etc. then the chances are the opposite will occur. As many of you have pointed out to me in another post, rail travel has advantages and disadvantages. Well so does flying, but poor service and bad experiences will turn people away from a business. Soooooooooo, the point being, don't ask the government for money. First, make the service first rate. Then, you proponents of train travel, make all your trips by train and talk about it to people positively. (which I'm sure you do)

I liken entities getting government subsidies to some kids I knew in college. Their parents paid for the whole thing, and they pissed away that money and wasted there time, flunking out or with a low GPA. Why? They had no stake in their education, they were not losing their own money. Throwing money at those kids would not have improved the grades, but I suspect cutting them off would have.

Amtrak must be subsidized properly, it's not asking for money like the airlines have. Amtrak is just setting an amount on which is needed to operate during a fiscal year. The president also sets an amount in his budget for Amtrak. Then it's up to Congress to decide how much Amtrak gets in the end taking in various accounts.

When created in 1971 Amtrak was not set up to be a private operating company. The satus quo continues as it was in 1971 and that is that no one is traveling or wants to travel by train. Amtrak can't continue on that as it is just not true. More and more people are traveling by train every year. Service can't be made first rate without sufficent government subsidy.

 

[canoe86]

Since '71? It's 2004!!! You can't depend on the government year after year. 33 years and still in trouble? I know there are some issues unique to rail travel, such as track ownership and the like. But giving money for 33 years has not made it better , right? That backs up my contention.

One thing I have learned is that most people who ride trains love it and are passionate about it. Now, why can't those people solve the problems facing rail travel? What issues stand in the way of amtrack being self-sufficient? You would think with the passion and love of trains, a strategy could be implemented to make it better. Maybe the gov. money takes away from the need to foster new ideas and strategies.

FYI, I feel the same wasy about ALL industries. Airlines, buses, farms,steel and the whole works. The funny thing is that trains are unique, an adventure if you will, that unless I'm missing something, you would think that some forced marketing and ingenuity would boost it.

 

[Amfleet]

Since '71?  It's 2004!!!  You can't depend on the government year after year.   33 years and still in trouble?   I know there are some issues unique to rail travel, such as track ownership and the like.  But giving money for 33 years has not made it better , right?  That backs up my contention.
One thing I have learned is that most people who ride trains love it and are passionate about it.   Now, why can't those people solve the problems facing rail travel?   What issues stand in the way of amtrack being self-sufficient?   You would think with the passion and love of trains, a strategy could be implemented to make it better.    Maybe the gov. money takes away from the need to foster new ideas and strategies.

FYI, I feel the same wasy about ALL industries.   Airlines, buses, farms,steel and the whole works.   The funny thing is that trains are unique, an adventure if you will, that unless I'm missing something, you would think that some forced marketing and ingenuity would boost it.

Amtrak's not depending on the government!!! It was created by the government in the first place for the reason that private railroads could not cover costs to run passenger trains. So saying that Amtrak should be able to run without subsidy doesn't make sense.

When Amtrak was created it was supposed to actually gradually phase out passenger rail altogether! Well that did not exactly happen and Amtrak started seeing increased ridership, therefore the government had no choice but to keep subsidizing rail carrier. Plus, everytime the goverment tries to break up or privitize Amtrak, Amtrak just jumps back bigger and stronger. Also, in 33 years the money recieved by the government has made it improved greatly. When Amtrak first started May 1, 1971 it had 2 employees, but hundreds of trains to operate. It was a complete and ugly mess.

If Amtrak is privitized or cut off from government subsidy, passenger rail service is gone forever. It just won't work.

 

[AlanB]

Since '71? It's 2004!!! You can't depend on the government year after year. 33 years and still in trouble? I know there are some issues unique to rail travel, such as track ownership and the like. But giving money for 33 years has not made it better , right? That backs up my contention.
One thing I have learned is that most people who ride trains love it and are passionate about it. Now, why can't those people solve the problems facing rail travel? What issues stand in the way of amtrack being self-sufficient? You would think with the passion and love of trains, a strategy could be implemented to make it better. Maybe the gov. money takes away from the need to foster new ideas and strategies.

FYI, I feel the same wasy about ALL industries. Airlines, buses, farms,steel and the whole works. The funny thing is that trains are unique, an adventure if you will, that unless I'm missing something, you would think that some forced marketing and ingenuity would boost it.

Canoe86,

With rare exceptions, no form of transportation in this country truely makes money and it's very unlikely that any form will ever make money. If private companies, the freight RR's, couldn't make money on passenger ops, then Amtrak which was formed to relieve the freight companies of that burden can't possibly make money.

State and cities pay for commuter operations and subway operations. The gasoline taxes, along with some federal bucks pay for the highways. The passenger taxes on all airline tickets, again coupled with some federal bucks help subsidize the airlines.

Not to mention the fact that the federal government trains half, if not more, of all airline pilots. Many of our pilots once served in the military, which means that the airline didn't have to pay for their training. Plus much of the technology on airplanes was first developed for the military.

So it is highly unlikely that Amtrak will ever make money. The best that they could ever hope for is to cover operating costs. The government will always have to pay for capital expenses. Transportation has always been and will always remain a government obligation.

Most of Euroupe has already figured this out, as have several Asian countries. They all invest heavily in their rail systems. In fact the tiny counry of Estonia, about the size of Rhode Island, spends more money each year on rail than we do here in America.

By the way France has been spending money on their system for longer than Amtrak has been in existance. They still don't make money, but they do have one of the best rail networks in the world. They also spend a lot more than we do.

 

[tp49]

Just another good reason in my opinion for people to vote for Kerry. B)

The other reasons would be...???

He will revive the economy, put back some sense in the American government. The list goes on. Bush has no capability of running this country any longer. My vote goes to Kerry not just for Amtrak, but for his political views and goals. I'm tired of living in a country where we concentrate on war and military. It goes much more beyond that.

Economics 101 the economy runs in a cycle (usually 20 years) with highs and lows it's been that way throughout history without the downs prices would be out of control as there would be nothing holding prices down (to some extent). The President can not single handedly revive the US economy it just doesn't work that way and it never has, to say so is for lack of a better word ignorant.

Kerry bring sense back to American Government now where has he been for the past 20 yeras he's been in the Senate the guy is an insider through and through. With either Kerry or Bush you will see one thing remain constant "business as usual." Also his lack of experience on an executive level in government is an issue, being a legislator and being President are two different things and require different skill sets without that executive experience the deck would be severely stacked against him. Last just as many believe that those who are very conservative are out of touch with America so are those who are extremely liberal.

And as for Amtrak he can support it all day long but he needs to have a cooperative Congress to get anything of substance done and honestly I just don't see that happening should he be elected as Congress will probably remain very close to what it is now in the party split.

 

[sutton8596]

KERRY:

For Amtrak

BUSH:

Against Amtrak.

ON this issue, the vote is clear. Agreed, however, that one doesn't vote for a pres. on one issue. Still consider:

Under Bush: millions of jobs lost; sky-high deficit; admin run by religious right; arrogantly ignoring allies; tax cut for wealthy; drove up the number of terrorists joining Al Qaida; etc etc.

Canoe86: Train systems anywhere in the world need government help. Its a part of transport, which a fed. government is responsible for. It's why we pay taxes, unless you enjoy your tax bucks going to help the folks at Haliburton get richer

 

[Amtrak OBS Employee]

KERRY: For Amtrak

BUSH:

Against Amtrak.

ON this issue, the vote is clear. Agreed, however, that one doesn't vote for a pres. on one issue. Still consider:

Under Bush: millions of jobs lost; sky-high deficit; admin run by religious right; arrogantly ignoring allies; tax cut for wealthy; drove up the number of terrorists joining Al Qaida; etc etc.

Canoe86: Train systems anywhere in the world need government help. Its a part of transport, which a fed. government is responsible for. It's why we pay taxes, unless you enjoy your tax bucks going to help the folks at Haliburton get richer

Ditto.................

 

[Steve4031]

I remembr Clinton alledgely being for Amtrak, yet he didn't do much if I recall correctly. Hopefully Kerry is better. Anybody is better than Bush.

 

[sutton]

Clinton may not have helped Amtrak but he didn't have a transportation secretary who hated it. (and he managed to drive up the economy)

 

[WICT106]

I think Mineta is a holdover from the Clinton Administration. Also, we don't live in a communist sommand-oriented society. the number of jobs and the economy has nothing to do with whoever is President at the time. Business people are going to try and make money no matter who is in office.

To get back on topic: Clinton said he was pro-Amtrak, and even had policies that had the DOT designate high-speed rail corridors. I remember some publicity about how the Midwest HSR was supposed to be up-and-running by this year. Anybody see any high-speed trains in the Midwest, aside from a few miles between St. Louis & Chicago? No? I thought not.

I think Mineta was Clinton's Transport Sec'y at the end of his term, and he replaced someone else who was much more pro-rail.

 

[WICT106]

I should also add that it is Congress, not the President, which decides and has the final say on what the budget is. Prior to FDR, no President submitted any budget proposals - it was all done via members of the President's party in Congress. the President's proposals are just that - proposals, suggestions. As other people have written elsewhere; "The President proposes, Congress disposes." the real races to whatch for here would be the Congressional races, IMO. A President can be as pro-passenger rail as all get-out, but if he has to deal with congress - critters like Mr. Istook, then the chances for those proposals getting into the budget are no very good. Unless there are enough pro-rail members on the budget commitees to be able to off-set whatever proposals Istook and his ideological (and short-sighted, narrow-minded ilk) put forth. It was due to folks like Istook that Amtrak has been starved for cahs all these years becuase of their ideology, and overlooking the fact that ALL forms of transport in this fine country of ours are subsidized, not just Amtrak. it's just that the subsidy for other forms of transport comes in the form of a Trust Fund. It was due to guys like Istook and Newt Gingrich that many proposals for High-speed rail and the $ 100 million security improvements were never made - while the airlines got millions of $$$ in loans that you and I all paid for out of our taxes. It was due to folks like Istook that Amtrak got only half of what it was authorized to recieve over the past several years, while it had to endure all that talk about being on the path to self-suffieciency and profitability.

IMO, if you want to get it into Congress member's head that passenger rail is valuable, then you gotta write your Representative. Remeber, the branch of Congress that has the final voice in what goes into the Budget is the House of Representatives.

 

[Viewliner]

One thing that may help (certainly wouldn't hurt) Amtrak funding is if indeed this summer Gasoline prices go to $3.00 or Higher, as they're expecting. I have a timetable from 1979 (during the shortage) is Amtrak as a prescription to high gas prices (and a drawing to that effect). While I doubt it, maybe this will serve as a wake-up call (then again by the time the election takes place, it may be forgotten about).

 

[tp49]

One thing that may help (certainly wouldn't hurt) Amtrak funding is if indeed this summer Gasoline prices go to $3.00 or Higher, as they're expecting. I have a timetable from 1979 (during the shortage) is Amtrak as a prescription to high gas prices (and a drawing to that effect).

Send this idea to Amtrak's Marketing Department...don't feel like paying those obscene gas prices take Amtrak instead and let them pay for the fuel.

In San Francisco last night cheapest gas prices I saw for regular unleaded was $2.23 a gallon, $2.33 was the most expensive. In Sacramento it's averaging around $2.15.