AMTRAK BACK IN SOUTHERN MONTANA!

[Joseph Trevelline]

Dear Friends,

I have just read and signed the online petition:

"Reinstate passenger rail service across southern Montana"

hosted on the web by PetitionOnline.com, the free online petition

service, at:

http://www.PetitionOnline.com/MTRail/

I personally agree with what this petition says, and I think you might

agree, too. If you can spare a moment, please take a look, and consider

signing yourself.

Joseph Trevelline

 

[saxman]

I went ahead and signed it, but is Montana willing to foot the bill? As I understand it, Amtrak is only required to do a study. No mention on how to pay for it. And it seems Amtrak's will want Montana to pay for the service even though it would be a long distance train. In my opinion, a State shouldn't have to foot the bill for a long distance train, but that seems what Amtrak's policy is on any new routes. I don't agree with it, but I think thats what it is.

 

[George Harris]

I have said it before about others of these things: It is a STUDY!!!!! Nothing more. Do not get your hopes up until someone starts talking about how they plan to fund the actual running of the trains, not just funding another STUDY.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

And it seems Amtrak's will want Montana to pay for the service even though it would be a long distance train. In my opinion, a State shouldn't have to foot the bill for a long distance train, but that seems what Amtrak's policy is on any new routes. I don't agree with it, but I think thats what it is.

I think Kummant did say things to that effect in the past. However, the leadership of this country may have changed in ways that will make federal operating funding easier to come by in the future.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

The fact of the matter is, they don't care who gives them the funding. So long as people properly and distinctly allocate funding for the train, they are gonna be happy as clams to run it. I could give them the funding, if I had it, and they'd run it.

 

[bozotrev]

Hello, Wouldent you think if they got enough signatures then they would consider it more? If enough people really wanted it to reinstate I personally think they would pay the funds. What are your opioins?

God Bless.

Joseph Trevelline

 

[VentureForth]

The petition is too vague for me to sign. Who will benefit? Can it be extended to Wyoming? Make it a National Parks Access train and hit Yosamite and Jacksonhole. Or maybe it should go to Oregon. Just benefit South Montana? I don't think that the 100 people it will benefit can pay for it.

It needs to be more comprehensive to even consider doing a study on.

I really gotta get into the studying business.

 

[printman2000]

I question the value of online petitions. If I were handed results with actual signatures and addresses, that is one thing. Having a printed list of names and e-mail addresses just does not cut it.

 

[Montanan]

While I'd love to see passenger trains back in my town, this is the longest of long shots. Not only would Amtrak need to find a big pile of money and a half-dozen long-distance trainsets, but they'd need to get BNSF to to go along with the notion of adding a passenger train to its line across southern North Dakota, which is filled with slow-moving coal trains. That would be a MAJOR conflict.

I suppose alternatives would be to send the train from Billings south to Denver, or even east to the Twin Cities on the former MIlwaukee main. Those would both add currently-unserved states to Amtrak's route map, but I still see it all as being extremely unlikely.

Montana senator Jon Testor, though, is actually holding a public meeting on the subject here in Bozeman next Tuesday. It'll be interesting, if nothing else ...

 

[AlanB]

I question the value of online petitions. If I were handed results with actual signatures and addresses, that is one thing. Having a printed list of names and e-mail addresses just does not cut it.

While I agree that perhaps it doesn't carry quite the weight of a regular petition with signatures and addresses, Petition Online the company that runs the website, actually has a process whereby they can audit the results. This lends a greater air of legitimacy to any online petition.

 

[printman2000]

I question the value of online petitions. If I were handed results with actual signatures and addresses, that is one thing. Having a printed list of names and e-mail addresses just does not cut it.

While I agree that perhaps it doesn't carry quite the weight of a regular petition with signatures and addresses, Petition Online the company that runs the website, actually has a process whereby they can audit the results. This lends a greater air of legitimacy to any online petition.

With only e-mail addresses provided with names, there is not much to verify other than the e-mail address works. I can set up thousands of addresses right now that forward to me.

A real petition is done with names, physical addresses and signatures. I doubt anyone would take one of these seriously.

 

[AlanB]

I question the value of online petitions. If I were handed results with actual signatures and addresses, that is one thing. Having a printed list of names and e-mail addresses just does not cut it.

While I agree that perhaps it doesn't carry quite the weight of a regular petition with signatures and addresses, Petition Online the company that runs the website, actually has a process whereby they can audit the results. This lends a greater air of legitimacy to any online petition.

With only e-mail addresses provided with names, there is not much to verify other than the e-mail address works. I can set up thousands of addresses right now that forward to me.

A real petition is done with names, physical addresses and signatures. I doubt anyone would take one of these seriously.

The audit involves not only the use of IP address used when signing, to weed out multiple sigies by the same physical person, but also by the company emailing a selected amount of people and asking them to provide further info. Anyone who fails to respond is stricken from the petition. Then depending on the sampling size requested, they make a determination of how many sigies are legit. Obviously the larger the sampling requested, the better the odds are that things are more accurate.

 

[printman2000]

The audit involves not only the use of IP address used when signing, to weed out multiple sigies by the same physical person, but also by the company emailing a selected amount of people and asking them to provide further info. Anyone who fails to respond is stricken from the petition. Then depending on the sampling size requested, they make a determination of how many sigies are legit. Obviously the larger the sampling requested, the better the odds are that things are more accurate.

I did not find anything on their FAQ regarding using IP addresses in auditing. Plus, you can potentially have many people signing from the same IP address if they all work in the same place so that cannot be a filtering mechanism.

It basically comes down to, IMHO, a useless petition.

How are petition signatures validated?
Unlike the various flaky email petitions that periodically wander around the Internet, with PetitionOnline there is exactly one authoritative master copy of your petition. Each signature and email address (always required, but optionally confidential) is logged for possible explicit or statistical validation. Duplicate signatures are automatically rejected, and each person who signs is automatically sent a confirming email message.

Validation is a somewhat separate issue from delivery. Delivery will only include the email addresses of petition signers who have made their address public ally available. (A petition could be set up so that public email addresses are required, but it would be likely to get far fewer signers.)

If deeper validation of a petition is really called for, PetitionOnline.com has the technical ability to perform a statistical validation by contacting a sampling of signers directly via the email addresses we have privately archived. This kind of more serious validation is not included in our free petition hosting offer, but can be arranged on a cost-contract basis (see below).

Ensuring identity without invading privacy is quite a challenge. We don't see that a perfect solution is currently available, given that there is not yet any widespread foolproof system for establishing online identity. An email address is not enough to establish identity by itself, but it is substantially more than just a name, and it provides a link back to a person for (the potential of) confirming identity.

 

[bozotrev]

So you dont think amtrak is comming back?

 

[printman2000]

So you dont think amtrak is comming back?

If you were asking me that, I have no idea. I was just commenting on the online petition.

 

[WICT106]

I also wish to reiterate what Mr. Harris and Montanan have stated here, in that thsi is just a petition, one that Our Elected Representatives probably see all of the time. While it would be all well and good for southern Montana to receive service, there will not be any such service until one sees a line item in the Federal Budget, appropriating funds for such. While there is considerable excitement about rail during recent times, I do not hold out much hope for restoration of Once-Per-Day service. If anything, the train should have its route covered so that it offers an additional frequency of service over the existing Empire Builder route, while swinging through south Montana.