Re: (rshsdepot) FW: Time for U.S. Commitment to Rail

["Gene Paoli" <stationman_@_prodigy.net>]

Since about 1926 the US political machine has been hard at work trying to
eliminate passenger service and I still don't understand why? Aside from the
obvious fact that there is little friction with only up to a dimes worth of
wheel touching the track for a miles long train, and the unbelievable fuel
savings of only generating amperage as required for drawbar pulling power,
there seems little reason why America would shun the railroads. Although
they pay taxes, provide many public services, enjoy a passenger per seat
mile percentage next to none, and usually provide first class service, the
average US citizen looks the other way.
    The Northeast corridor has been subsidizing the rest of the AMTRAK
system for years now and even this most important aspect of transportation
in the US is on the chopping block.
    I'm sorry to say, it will take a 911 to wake up our sleeping giant and
then it will be too late....
    Is it really up to only rail enthusiasts to scream bloody murder?
Turning over AMTRAK to Private concerns will only make matters worse and
doing nothing at all, well, we all know the answer to that.
    If we have not seen the light by now, we never will.
Gene Paoli
stationman_@_prodigy.net

- ----- Original Message -----
From: Kenyon F. Karl <kenyon_@_getglobal.net>
To: Peter Griffin <Peter.Griffin_@_fmr.com>
Cc: Norman. N. Miller <Norman.N.Miller_@_dartmouth.edu>; John Rogers
<John.Rogers_@_MASCOMABANK.COM>; Jack Sutton <jtsutton@prexar.com>; Ed Janeway
<Ed.Janeway_@_Valley.net>; Bill Mosher <pinkymo@juno.com>; Mainstlnd
<mainstlnd_@_aol.com>; Malcolm Taylor <northeastnews@juno.com>; Paul Chapman
<milepost10_@_juno.com>
Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2002 12:42 AM
Subject: (rshsdepot) FW: Time for U.S. Commitment to Rail


> What follows must be an incredibly 'high-stakes' game of 'chicken'. Even
> worse, I fully expect that Warrington will loose this game, just because
> Congress has always been 'a day late and a dollar short' with its
> appropriations. :-(
>
> Kenyon F. Karl
> Webmaster_@_new-england-public-transit.org
> http://www.new-england-public-transit.org
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: NARP [mailto:narp_@_narprail.org]
> Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 4:47 PM
> To: NARP
> Subject: Time for U.S. Commitment to Rail
>
>
> To all NARP members, February 1, 2002--
>
> The following is a news release from NARP.
>
> --Ross B. Capon, Executive Director
>
> For Immediate Release
> Friday, February 1, 2002 - #02-03
>
> Today, Amtrak President & CEO George D. Warrington announced the layoff
> of 1,000 employees (700 agreement; 300 non-agreement), reduced staffing
> hours at 73 stations, and a number of other actions aimed at enabling
> Amtrak to make it to September 30, the end of the fiscal year.
>
> He said Amtrak needs a $1.2 billion appropriation for FY 2003 in order
> to avoid "substantial route cuts" on October 1. He told a news
> conference that a $521 million appropriation would mean only the
> Northeast Corridor "would have an opportunity to run." He indicated
> plans to post the legally required six months' advance notice of
> discontinuance on March 28 for all long-distance trains, to prepare for
> the possibility that Congress would not provide the needed funds.
>
> The National Association of Railroad Passengers strongly believes that
> the existing system is "skeletal," (to use Warrington's own words) and
> should be continued in its entirety. We believe that the general public
> -- particularly since September 11 -- agrees with the importance of
> maintaining and improving our national passenger rail network,
> especially through cooperative federal/state investment in
> short-distance corridors around the nation. In December, for example,
> passenger-miles on Amtrak rose 3.8% while domestic aviation fell 13.2%.
> (On Amtrak's sleeping cars, passenger-miles rose 7% and revenues rose
> 13%.)
>
> The federal government this year will spend $33 billion on highways, $13
> billion on aviation, but only $570 million on intercity passenger rail.
> Moreover, the federal government offers 80% matches to encourage states
> to focus their investments on highways and aviation. Federal matches to
> support state investments for intercity passenger rail are virtually
> non-existent.
>
> This "anti-rail" funding bias has helped put Amtrak in its present
> situation. At best, Amtrak's clear statement today may be a step toward
> ending the anti-rail bias in federal funding policy. It is painful to
> see valued employees laid off in a business that should be growing, but
> we understand Amtrak's decision not to seek a supplemental
> appropriation. Such an effort would be time-consuming, with no assurance
> of success, and would be a distraction from the central issue before the
> public: the long-term future of a connected, intercity passenger rail
> network.
>
> Two things should be clear regarding elimination of the long-distance
> network:
>
> * It would be a decision "for all time" and virtually impossible to
> reverse in a later, more enlightened era, and
>
> * The result would increase the cost of operating state-supported
> short-distance trains, which no longer would share facility costs -- or
> connecting passenger revenues -- with long-distance trains.
>
> # # #
>
>

------------------------------

End of RSHSDepot Digest V1 #276
*******************************