JOHNSON%northeastern.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA (Chris Johnson) (02/08/86)
Hello!
Did anybody else hear that the '87 budget for AMTRAK was cut?
Chris.johnl@ima.UUCP (02/09/86)
/* Written 8:25 pm Feb 7, 1986 by JOHNSON%northeastern.csn@brl-smoke in ima:net.railroad */
> Did anybody else hear that the '87 budget for AMTRAK was cut?
Reagan's 1987 budget, like his 1986 budget, proposes zero financing for
Amtrak, which would mean that all Amtrak operations would stop at the end
of FY1986. I suppose that when everybody in the adminstration goes places
by helicopter, they don't notice that abandoning Amtrak would, among other
things, produce continuous traffic jams all the way from Washington to
Boston, both in the air and on the highway. Write your congressmen --
despite its flaws, Amtrak needs and deserves all of the money it's got.
I don't know where Reagan got the idea that Amtrak trains are all empty,
but he's quite wrong.
John Levine, ima!johnldnc@bonnie.UUCP (Don Corey) (02/12/86)
> Write your congressmen -- > despite its flaws, Amtrak needs and deserves all of the money it's got. > > John Levine, ima!johnl Why can't the fares support AMTRAK? Could AMTRAK ever reach a point where it could be supported by fares? I have taken a number of train trips which I've enjoyed very much. I have felt a little uncomfortable, however, that a lot of people, probably not as well of as myself, were subsidizing my vacation. -- Don Corey AT&T Bell Laboratories WH 2A-140 (201) 386-2349 ihnp4!bonnie!dnc
Kovalcik@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA (Richard Kovalcik, Jr.) (02/17/86)
Date: 9 February 1986 14:31 est
From: johnl at IMA.UUCP
Subject: Re: AMTRAK funding.
/* Written 8:25 pm Feb 7, 1986 by JOHNSON%northeastern.csn@brl-smoke in ima:net.railroad */
> Did anybody else hear that the '87 budget for AMTRAK was cut?
Reagan's 1987 budget, like his 1986 budget, proposes zero financing for
Amtrak, which would mean that all Amtrak operations would stop at the end
of FY1986. I suppose that when everybody in the adminstration goes places
by helicopter, they don't notice that abandoning Amtrak would, among other
things, produce continuous traffic jams all the way from Washington to
Boston, both in the air and on the highway. Write your congressmen --
despite its flaws, Amtrak needs and deserves all of the money it's got.
I don't know where Reagan got the idea that Amtrak trains are all empty,
but he's quite wrong.
John Levine, ima!johnl
I sincerely doubt that it would produce continuous traffic jams all the
way from Washington to Boston. Conrail's fairlure MIGHT do that. I am
sure that Greyhound could pick up all the northeast cooridor passenger
traffic without any noticable change in the number of vehicles on I-95.
I for one like trains, but I like having money to spend too. If AMTRAK
can't operate at or close to profitiablity then I feel it should go.
There are more important things to save in the federal budget.
Please save your boo's.
-Rick (with the honest opinion) Kovalcikcb@MITRE-BEDFORD.ARPA (Christopher Byrnes) (02/18/86)
I wouldn't be too sure about Greyhound, Trailways or the other bus companies being able to pick up all the NEC traffic generated from the shutdown of Amtrak. For a variety of factors such as cheap competitors, aging facilities and high fixed overhead (sound familiar?), bus companies have been losing market share over the last few years. Amtrak has held its (slim) share, but all those new cheap airlines are just killing large bus companies. Both Greyhound and Trailways are shedding unprofitable routes (many in the Northeast where many of the airlines such as Peoples Express operate. The bus companies are also hurt by loss of subsidies (on some rural routes) and high taxes on their downtown terminals. In some cases the dropped routes are being picked up by small bus companies (sounds like a repeat of short-line railroads) but some communities have lost all bus service. With bus companies shrinking as an alternative mode of transit on high density routes such as the NEC or LA-SD, I think the fear of (further) traffic overload if Amtrak shuts down is justified. I don't know what the loading factors are on the airlines, but I doubt they can pick up the extra traffic (especially at peak travel times). Besides, the highways are crowded enough with the existing cars and buses. I wonder what the economic costs are of making thousands of people (and their cars) spend an extra few minutes waiting in traffic. Christopher Byrnes cb@Mitre-Bedford.ARPA ...decvax!linus!bccvax!cb.UUCP
mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (02/19/86)
I had understood that the Corridor traffic actually shows a profit, and that the long-haul trains are the real money-losers. There is certainly demand for corridor traffic; I just came back from Boston on a train that was nearly as crowded as the Eastern Shuttle. Buses would not take up the slack if Amtrak collapsed, and they would certainly not do so in the Corridor. Having been sentenced at one time to riding the Greyhound home from school, I can attest that it is considerably slower than the train. Moreover, bus travel at the moment is at the very bottom of the heap; Amtrak is trying to soak up airplane passengers, and in the corridor they do succeed at that. People riding Metroliners are not going to switch to buses; they are going to sigh and start booking Eastern and NY Air. Air traffic in the NE is getting dangerously crowded in the least. I would not be abdverse to having ALL Wash. to Boston traffic replaced by high-speed trains. As it is, I think that the subsidy should stay. C. Wingate
jis1@mtgzz.UUCP (j.mukerji) (02/24/86)
> I sincerely doubt that it would produce continuous traffic jams all the > way from Washington to Boston. I agree that that would not be the case all along the corridor. But the closure of Amtrak would imply that the NE corridor lines between Trenton and New York will seize to operate. Which in turn would imply that NJTrabsit would seize to operate. That would imply infinite traffic jams at the Hudson Crossings. Of course, in reality, it is highly unlikely that the NE corridor will seize operations. What is more likely is that some alternative business arrangements will be made to keep it alive. > Conrail's fairlure MIGHT do that. Huh??? Now prey why would that be the case??? As far as I know Conrail does not handle a single passenger train of any kind in the NE corridor! I am sure you misunderstand the role of Conrail in NE corridor. Or am I missing something? > I am sure that Greyhound could pick up all the northeast cooridor passenger > traffic without any noticable change in the number of vehicles on I-95. Is that a considered opinion based on any traffic numbers that you have seen? Or is it just wishful thinking? Looks like you have not been on the NJ portion of I-95 recently. > I for one like trains, There is certainly a lack of evidence to support that claim:-) > but I like having money to spend too. If AMTRAK > can't operate at or close to profitiablity then I feel it should go. I absolutely agree with that. But I think that Amtrak is really a red herring in that debate. There are whole host of other programs that cost orders of magnitude more that ought to be cut too. Maybe we should cancel funding for the FAA. Afterall it makes no profits either. It is indeed a complete black hole!:-) > There are more important things to save in the federal budget. Hmmm. Name a few. I think it is still a good idea to write your Congressman Jishnu Mukerji