Republicans say they will destroy Amtrak.

[DinoDoc]

Why would you nationalize the rail lines to accomodate 2% of rail traffic (according to the stats given by AS)?

[Sava]

But why should South Dakota pay money to get people to work in DC?

I thought we lived in one country.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Only when it benefits you.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Sprayber
Then you get someone from South Dakota wondering why part of their money is going to improve track from DC to NY when they don't even operate in their state. I think the idea of regional areas may solve that. But why should South Dakota pay money to get people to work in DC?

They currently help pay for roads in every other state and besides this is a farsical situation. A place like South Dakota gets many, many, many times out of the system then they ever put into the system. Rural places get subsidies from populous places not the other way around.

If Californians and New Yorkers have to pitch in "for the national good" to build roads in ND then the Dakotans can at least shut their traps about a train. Remember the balance of payments is heavily in their favor.

[Sprayber]

Originally posted by Sava
I thought we lived in one country.

You know those South Dakotans. They are so anal on states rights


Seriously though, you know that will be the major argument. Most of the opposition is from rural states that won't get those new fancy rails that you see in popular science. When I was in Italy we took the train to most places and found it easier to get along then in a car. Id love to have passenger train service around in the South. But the result is that Amrak will hover around the Northeast and possiblily California while everyone is paying something that they will have to drive a thousand miles to actually use..

[Dinner]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Why would you nationalize the rail lines to accomodate 2% of rail traffic (according to the stats given by AS)?

No, not just 2% but 100% of traffic both freight and passanger will benifit. You see here in lays the true genius of my plan. Currently, one train line owns all the freight lines into and out of most cities thus they have complete monopoly control over prices, schedules, speeds, warehousing costs, compensation for late arrivals (or lack there of), and what not. If the tracks were government owned then ANY registered service provider could service a town just as we have multiple airlines servicing towns now. This extra competition WILL lower prices and improve service. As an added bonus the rail carriers will only have to pay a user fee for the rail line instead of having to pay 100% of the maintenance no matter if they use the line or not.

Cheaper freight, cheaper passenger services, and better service for both. There is no down side to my proposal.

[Sprayber]

Originally posted by Oerdin


They currently help pay for roads in every other state and besides this is a farsical situation. A place like South Dakota gets many, many, many times out of the system then they ever put into the system. Rural places get subsidies from populous places not the other way around.

If Californians and New Yorkers have to pitch in "for the national good" to build roads in ND then the Dakotans can at least shut their traps about a train. Remember the balance of payments is heavily in their favor.

I don't know how it is in Cali, but in Arkansas most of the roads are state and local ones. Once in a great while the Feds lower themselves to patch I40 that runs through the state. It took nearly 10 years for the state to get matching fed money that was proimised. So unless Amrak is going to put some rail lines through the deep south I think I'll pass.

Or maybe they need to have a meeting with Southern Pacific or other freight lines on how to run a rail.

[Kidlicious]

Come on folks. Distance travel on trains sucks. Otherwise people would use it. I'm for more mass transit, but not distance travel.

[Sava]

Id love to have passenger train service around in the South. But the result is that Amrak will hover around the Northeast and possiblily California while everyone is paying something that they will have to drive a thousand miles to actually use..

Amtrak is big in the Chicago area.

And in 2001, I took a trip to AZ. We stopped in every little bum**** town you could imagine. The trains stop in rural areas, but nobody gets on them.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Sprayber


I don't know how it is in Cali, but in Arkansas most of the roads are state and local ones. Once in a great while the Feds lower themselves to patch I40 that runs through the state. It took nearly 10 years for the state to get matching fed money that was proimised. So unless Amrak is going to put some rail lines through the deep south I think I'll pass

Federal grants pay for something like 50% of all state highway costs plus the Feds pay for 100% of all interstates. Further the Feds provide grants to cities to help them maintain and build road ways.

Face it, the ND has no right to complain when they get $1 out of the system and have to put $0.01 back in it.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

No, not just 2% but 100% of traffic both freight and passanger will benifit. You see here in lays the true genius of my plan. Currently, one train line owns all the freight lines into and out of most cities thus they have complete monopoly control over prices, schedules, speeds, warehousing costs, compensation for late arrivals (or lack there of), and what not. If the tracks were government owned then ANY registered service provider could service a town just as we have multiple airlines servicing towns now. This extra competition WILL lower prices and improve service. As an added bonus the rail carriers will only have to pay a user fee for the rail line instead of having to pay 100% of the maintenance no matter if they use the line or not.

Cheaper freight, cheaper passenger services, and better service for both. There is no down side to my proposal.

Freight lines also compete with air freight and truck freight. I agree that some things must be transported only on rails, but most of the other goods can be either trucked or flown. Thats where the competition is. I dont think that you necessairly need many different rail companies. Maybe two or three, because if they try to increase the price too much, people will switch to trucks or planes, or maybe even ships.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Come on folks. Distance travel on trains sucks. Otherwise people would use it. I'm for more mass transit, but not distance travel.

You are wrong. I took a trip from Chicago to Arizona in 2001, it was the best trip I've ever been on. After stopping in Flagstaff, my family and I took another train to the Grand Canyon. Train travel is great, and even better on long distances.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Sprayber
Id love to have passenger train service around in the South. But the result is that Amrak will hover around the Northeast and possiblily California while everyone is paying something that they will have to drive a thousand miles to actually use..

I remember reading a newsweek about three years ago which talked about a feasability study that Amtrak did for bullet train service. They found 22 routes all over the country (including one going through Kentucky and Tennessee as well as two in Texas) which have or are expected to have enough ridership to support bullet trains. The problem is Congress wouldn't supply the funds to build the trains & tracks so nothing came of it.

You cannot starve an oppuration like Amtrak to success any more then you can starve an automaker to success. Instead you have to come out with better products and services so more people will ride and revenue will increase. If we do that and force Amtrak to break up their worthless unions then we'd have a great service.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Come on folks. Distance travel on trains sucks. Otherwise people would use it. I'm for more mass transit, but not distance travel.

This is not true. Train travel is probably the most enjoable form of travel bar first class service in planes and ships. The problem is that it is too expensive. I can fly to Chicago and back to Jacksonville in four hours for $227 or take two days on the train for $260, without benefit of a sleeper car.

For short routes, if's pretty in expensive. It was $35 round trip from Chicago to Indy, and after the first two or three trips we took, it was always packed, such that we had to get there early if we wanted to sit together.

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Oerdin


Imran: Fair enough, however, you didn't answer the other question. Clearly Congress sabataged Amtrak so wouldn't you agree it is hypocritical in the extreme for Congress to get mad about Amtrak not being profitable. Don't you also feel Congress should try repealing the outlawing of cutting unprofitable routes before we go through with Bush's plan to liquidate Amtrak?

But after all there are possible Benefits gained from letting Amtrak die.
People who in past times would ride on a train to work or just from A to B and have no car are now forced to buy and use a car, so it benefits the Car Industry and especially the Oil Industry (as I think more Oil (in form of gasoline) is used by the additional cars on the highways and by the additional flights wchich Airlines will set up, as the additional passengers require more Transport Capacity.)
SO, if you haven´t yet invested into Oil Companies, now it my be time to buy Oil stocks, after all they seem to have a great future