All Eyes on Amtrak

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: ndrock @ 07/15/2008 1:18:17 PM

    Depending on what part of the country you are in, makes all the difference. If you want to compare arrival times, then be fair, when was the last time a plane was on time? A car maybe, but again, depends on what part of the country you are in. No one can take and compare the whole system across the nation, and come up with a negative all across the board. I have not had the opportunity to ride the train recently, but when I have it has always been a pleasant experience. Yes we need to update, but when it was privately owned it failed miserably. It has been run by a government that did not intend for it succeed. It was just hoping since the 1920's it would die its own slow death and go the way of the horse, and no one would notice. BUT NOW the oil fascicle, so it has to be looked at again, and more what our legislators consider "peanut money" poured into it. Those poor people in Washington got caught with their pants down again. Know one has asked, how much did the CEO's of the trains make this past couple of years?

  • Posted By: sdlow @ 07/15/2008 12:14:46 PM

    Even with gas at $4/ gallon and flying increasingly expensive, they are both faster, cheaper, and more reliable than Amtrak. I took a trip last year from Raleigh to New York. It took almost 8 hours just get out of North Carolina!!!!!! The attendant said that their motto should be "Always Late.." It is inexcuable that so much can be invested in the rail lines between Washington and New York while you completely ignore the Southeast. A reliable line from New York to Miami could bring in millions in revenue. The key word in that statement is RELIABLE. If the measures currently going through Congress get passed, it will be $15 billion wasted, and no one will ever see any tangible results. I think our government has wasted enough of our money.

    • Posted By: ahblid @ 07/15/2008 1:14:24 PM

      Amtrak doesn't own the tracks in North Carolina and therefore can't invest in them. CSX and Norfolk Southern own the tracks in NC. It's hard to stay on time when you don't control the traffic lights. If you want on time, then write your Congressmen and tell them to get the justice department to force NS and CSX to live up to their contracts with Amtrak.

      Besides, have you never been on a late plane? And at least you had food, water, and could get up and walk around, unlike say the people on Jet Blue who spent like 5 hours sitting on the tramac at JFK last year. By the way, the government helped to fund that too!

  • Posted By: saaphiel @ 07/15/2008 1:13:11 PM

    Privatizing Amtrak is the absolute WORST thing you can do.

    They privatized the rail systems out here in England and it's now costing me £38 ($72 USD) for a round trip from 40 miles outside London to central London.

    I worked out that it's much cheaper for me to drive into London and park there than it is to take the train in. (and the government wonder why people are refusing to get out of their cars and take the train in instead!!)

    If it's privatized, it's all about profits... watch those fees go through the roof!

  • Posted By: postalguy05 @ 07/15/2008 1:08:10 PM

    as an american living in europe (Germany) i tend to shy away from conversations with my european friends where the conversation is about the american rail system. while it had its greatness in the 1800s it has turned to IMO an ambarrassment. AMTRAK could really use some hrad lessons from the europeans where rail systems are concerned. you can get almost anywhere in continental europe via rail in the US they still havent even repaired the rails for the FLA - CA run AFTER HOW MANY YEARS???

  • Posted By: Starfarer @ 07/15/2008 1:02:47 PM

    Highways ought to be fully funded by tolls and gas taxes, but in fact most of their funding comes from income taxes.

  • Posted By: postalguy05 @ 07/15/2008 1:01:15 PM

    as a us citizen living in europe for the last 15 years i say its about time. they have had the mass transit system down pat for years. the us could learn from the europeans !!!

  • Posted By: Starfarer @ 07/15/2008 1:00:34 PM

    I would be in favor of cutting Federal subsidies to rail travel if Federal subsidies to the highways and airlines are cut to the same level. Personally, I think the government has enough on its hands fighting terrorism, but if the government is going to fund transportation, it should focus the money on where it can go the farthest, and on that, railroads win without a fight.

  • Posted By: merelyashadow @ 07/15/2008 11:51:14 AM

    Amtrack in Southern California just isn't feasible. The trains don't run often enough, or go to enough locations to make it a viable alternative. I can still drive 70 miles easier, faster and for just a little more money. When you factor in that you have to "cab" to somewhere else at the end (or the beginning) of your journey, that is money out of your transportation pocket also. There needs to be many more systems in place before people can "commute" by train here and make it work. I leave San Diego at 6:45 and can't get to Santa Ana until nearly 8:00, and then to manage to get to the office 5 miles away, takes another half hour and that shoots the morning. Sadly, the trains here only run on the coast, and not everyone is lucky enough to live on the coast. We need much more infrastructure to handle the working class individual that wants to commute to work. No serious effort seems to be forthcoming.

    • Posted By: pinkpanther87413 @ 07/15/2008 12:46:27 PM

      like it or not travel a little on local transit. In S Calif you guys got one of the best systems [bus lines, local transit] in the states, been there done that. So i can understand your answer. I still love the SD to LA trip just to go back and forth at sunset. Beats driving. I know a friend of mine who lives in Leucadia and works in LA, makes decent money so he keeps one car for home use, and the other parks at train terminal in LA, to come home. Killing the need for cab or bus, his nerves are now much calmer then when he drove from 5am to 11:30am just to get to work. Now he just fends off the rush part of traffic to kickin back on the train. I do see both your points very clearly.

  • Posted By: Kitty7529 @ 07/15/2008 9:47:08 AM

    The commuter trains that Amtrak runs outside of Washington DC are appauling. They spill raw sewage onto the tracks and crosswalks, then all the passengers are forced to walk through it to get the parking lots. The stench of steaming urine and feces is overwhelming. The system and cars are so dirty and contaminated, it's a public health risk. It's won't shock me if there's an outbreak caused by it.

    • Posted By: ahblid @ 07/15/2008 12:46:14 PM

      @Kitty7529,

      All Amtrak trains are required by law to have retention toilets. This has been the law now for well over 10 years, if not longer. Any flush of the toilet goes directly into the holding tank. There is simply no way that a toilet can dump on the tracks. If you're finding raw sewage on the tracks, then it must be from some local whose illegally dumping stuff there, but it certainly not from Amtrak.

  • Posted By: pinkpanther87413 @ 07/15/2008 12:36:38 PM

    Train trumps bus! Plane trumps train,mmm for now,not bad, but closest train to 2 power plants and a refinery is zero, all done by truck.Driving is still better, if you give a ride! Advertise a ride to --- interview respondents and git! Splits the gas costs!!! To answer there question. I prefere a train, to a car, or bus, and today even planes, slow,but will get you were you need to. One drawback new tracks, none anywhere i'm aware of, so that's a big drawback in the East US. Where storms and floods have compramised tracks. At least you can walk around sit in far more comfort than a plane, save first class.Eat, relax,much more people friendly, for those who are not in a hurry!

  • Posted By: Molliemole @ 07/15/2008 12:30:37 PM

    In articles which discuss the costs of running Amtrak, I never see any mention of what the federal government pays out annually to operate the FAA, or how much it costs to maintain airports all around the country. Shouldn't these figure into any comparison with operating Amtrak?
    I've been using Amtrak to travel for the past eight or ten years, and I couldn't be happier with it. Sure, Amtrak needs more trains so the schedules could be more convenient, but that's the fault of Congress. They've been strangling Amtrak for years. People who criticize Amtrak should realize that they're operating on a shoestring budget. I think they do a good job with what they have to work with. And I look forward to the coming improvements with great anticipation.

  • Posted By: weekiefreaky @ 07/15/2008 12:28:33 PM

    Yes, the East does get much more attention from Amtrak. The new Viewliner sleeping cars are available only in Amtrak's Eastern routes. Umm, how about the rest of us, like the Midwest?
    And I have to say that the 3 trips I have taken long distance on Amtrak were good but could have been great if they only tried harder. Clean windows, friendlier diner service and following through on promised amenities (newspapers & ice) could go a long way to making that almost $400 sleeping compartment (claustrophobic) worth it!

  • Posted By: sanityprevail @ 07/15/2008 11:50:35 AM

    The interstate highway system very well COULD make a profit someday, or at the very least be completely self-sustaining (that is, without gov't funds). The concept is simple, and slowly where things are heading: make all highways toll roads

    A number of major cities had highway loops around their outside region planned when the funding for these kinds of projects started to evaporate. Both Denver and Dallas went on to complete such projects by making the then product a TOLL road. They may not be popular, but we've been getting a "free ride" for decades with the interstate system, and it can't be sustained indefinitely. Put tolls on all the roads, add in gas prices, and suddenly Amtrak won't look quite so expensive! This idea that we need to go the opposite way and create a CHEAP train system that the government would basically just run as a free entitlement is beyond dumb, and exactly why nobody in Washington can balance the budget for more than about 5 seconds anymore! Give me give me give me, but waaaaaaaah, don't raise my taxes!!! GROW UP!

  • Posted By: chrisusmc81 @ 07/15/2008 11:50:34 AM

    3 times in the last year my wife and i had priced trips on amtrak, from northern va to Ill, Pa, and Conn, and all three times we discovered that not only was driving our own vehicle 40% cheaper, (even with rediculous gas prices) but it was about twice as fast as well. Amtrak is a broken and inefficient system, and throwing more money at it wont solve our transportation problem. The people running amtrak are deluded. We priced plane tickets that were almost the same price as a plane ticket. Not only that but there aren't near enough stops. I cant plan trips to destinations i want for this reason.

  • Posted By: JBer @ 07/15/2008 11:49:13 AM

    Back in the days before Amtrak, the private rail companies couldn't unload passenger service fast enough. Why would anyone think that private companies would want to take it over now?

  • Posted By: chrisusmc81 @ 07/15/2008 11:42:29 AM

    Three times in the last year my wife and I had planned trips from virginia to other locations including illinois, connecticut and pa, and all three times we realized that not only travel by personal verhicle was about 40 % faster, but even with rediculous gas prices this summer, it was still half the cost. The train system is broken and inefficient. Throwing more money at it wont fix it.

  • Posted By: bsciambi @ 07/15/2008 10:38:53 AM

    The article cites critics who say the government should not be funding Amtrack and that the rails should be entrusted to private companies. The article also implies that Amtrack has never made a profit because it is a government run monopoly. Nowhere does the article mention that the federal interstate hiway system is also a federally funded government monopoly which has never made a profit. Why do taxpayers not complain about that? Why doesn't anyone suggest that our hiways should be handed over to private enterprise to build and maintain at a profit? The answer is that it cannot be done. Hiways and airports are publicly owned, that's how and why airlines and bus companies can operate privately at a profit. Without the subsidy of public roads and airports, United Airlines and Greyhound could not exist. That's why every other civilized nation in the world has a clean, efficient, fast rail system subsidized with tax dollars. If privately funded rail service were even remotely feasible, why hasn't a single entrepeneir or corporation tried it?

  • Posted By: clambe @ 07/15/2008 10:37:18 AM

    We use Amtrak - the New Orleans line from Atlanta to MS and it can be hell! Delays, often over crowded, drunk passengers, screaming children, etc. It's the poor man's air travel - major upgrades need to be made for this to be viable including the introduction of high speed trains as this 6 hour drive is often 10-12 hours by train. If time is money - it's still cheaper to drive.

  • Posted By: NJulian @ 07/14/2008 12:46:26 PM

    If all the money wasted on the distruction of Iraq could have been allocated instead to the construction of a rail system, our country would not be in the economic turmoil we're in. We could have created thousands of jobs and saved thousands of lives.

    • Posted By: Jim1348 @ 07/15/2008 10:32:24 AM

      You are right, except that you didn't put a price tag on our foolishness in invading the wrong country. The latest estimates are $3 trillion (that is $3,000 billion for the numerically-challenged). W. argues that is greatly inflated, but they only account for the direct costs of the war, not including the higher oil prices due to destabilizing the Mideast and the resulting recession. Trains are a lot cheaper.

  • Posted By: Nybor @ 07/15/2008 10:07:01 AM

    Even though we probably will never get the type of train system as people enjoy in other countries, it's obvious that even minor improvements would make taking the train more appealing to travelers. Recently, my daughter and I took a 17-hour train ride, and we were excited by the adventure of it. However, it quickly turned out to be one of the most disgusting and exhausting experiences in my life. The toilets were filthy. My seat was broken. The staff were unhelpful and wouldn't help me find two seats together on a crowded train. After my grueling weekend, I promised myself never again; either I walk, fly, or don't go at all.

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse