This is a question that I have been getting when I mention that I have taken train trips, and it has come up a lot more frequently now that there is a program to reintroduce passenger rail service to Madison, WI. I have replied that just because the questioner won't take a trip does not mean that no one will take a train trip, and that the train route in question will go from Chicago to Saint Paul, MN. In Chicago, there will be connections to over one thousand other destinations, including another speedy train to Saint Louis, MO. However, seeing as how the Republican party has vigorously become vehemently anti-rail, and the R gubernatorial candidate in Wisconsin has made stopping the train one of the central elements of his campaign, I'm encountering some difficulty in convincing folks of the need for better, expanded rail service. Does anyone have any suggestions as to what to do, or how to respond. It is disappointing, that, having come so close to getting service to Madison, it might now get snatched away. Any suggestions ?
"Why should we have trains? I won't ride one."
- Thread starter WICT106
- Start date
Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:
- Status
Trainmans daughter
OBS Chief
Sorry WICT106, I've got nothing. We lived in Sun Prairie, WI for a few years in the 1980's. We tried to be active in civic, church, and school affairs and were amazed the the "Tried it once, didn't work, eh". attitude towards ANY new ideas. Liberal, conservative, right, left, republican, democrat--same attitude! So sad.
Ryan
Court Jester
Respond with "Why should we have airplanes, I don't fly?" or "Why should we have schools, I don't have kids?" (obviously this only works if you don't have kids)
What would be real good is a list of things whose budgets are similar in size to the subsidy Amtrak receives from the feds. "Why should we have $INSERT_TINY_BUDGET_ITEM_THAT_COSTS_THE_SAME, I'll never use it and it costs the same as Amtrak does?"
On the topic of rail advocacy, anything else I could add to the discussion (particularly some more mean on the refuting of putting Amtrak in the hole for an hour). My posts should be pretty obvious.
What would be real good is a list of things whose budgets are similar in size to the subsidy Amtrak receives from the feds. "Why should we have $INSERT_TINY_BUDGET_ITEM_THAT_COSTS_THE_SAME, I'll never use it and it costs the same as Amtrak does?"
On the topic of rail advocacy, anything else I could add to the discussion (particularly some more mean on the refuting of putting Amtrak in the hole for an hour). My posts should be pretty obvious.
Brandon V
Service Attendant
Exactly i had an idiotic discussion with someone who "claims" to be my friend.. was talking about chicago.. apparently he's going there the same time i am during our fall break.. i suggested to him why not take the train then he was like i dont want to go on that train or to the chicago station.. maybe when that :help: :help: (GASP) light rail starts up to chicago from minneapolis.. (referring to the oft-mentioned HIGH SPEED transit between chicago and minneapolis) Please do tell me if im not crazy but... since when are Light Rail and High Speed synonymous? I was like hello reality check.. Light rail is what you have between Minneapolis target field and the Airport or Mall of America. You expect to ride all they way across the country on that? He was like oh i didnt know. ***? Then I was like hello.. Amtrak would still be running that service, which isnt even in existance yet... and you would still be arriving at the union station in chicago because thats the hub for ALL trains to chicago. Then he was like what? oh.. then i'm not going to go anyways then... ha.. i'll just drive...
I was like it takes just about the same amount of time as driving.. but with ZERO hassle, fuss or stress of driving through the gridlock that be chicago.. lest we forget exhorbitant parking fees....
The reason to travel train is to have ZERO hassle, fuss or stress from driving or flying... and its more environmentally friendly.....
I was like it takes just about the same amount of time as driving.. but with ZERO hassle, fuss or stress of driving through the gridlock that be chicago.. lest we forget exhorbitant parking fees....
The reason to travel train is to have ZERO hassle, fuss or stress from driving or flying... and its more environmentally friendly.....
the_traveler
Engineer
Even though I live an hour from Boston and 2-3 hours from NYC, I'd much rather take a train than drive down I-95, fight the traffic and find a place to park!
And to take part of the thread title "Why should we have trains?", ask people how their TV's, clothes, etc... got most of the way from the west coast to where they are. I realize you don't ride freight trains, but it's still a train!
And to take part of the thread title "Why should we have trains?", ask people how their TV's, clothes, etc... got most of the way from the west coast to where they are. I realize you don't ride freight trains, but it's still a train!
Shawn Ryu
Conductor
It takes cars off the roads and gets airports a bit less crowded. I mean, have you guys ever used JFK, LGA, or NWK?
Awful mess. New York at least needs to have Amtrak serve Boston, Philly and DC with high speed rail so hardly anyone will use planes to get to those cities. And thus make the airport more available for people who really needs it (international travelers).
Awful mess. New York at least needs to have Amtrak serve Boston, Philly and DC with high speed rail so hardly anyone will use planes to get to those cities. And thus make the airport more available for people who really needs it (international travelers).
amtrakwolverine
Engineer
Why should we have Planes? I don't fly they are just a tin can with wings LOL
While this is from the MIlwaukee paper, and it is a favorable editorial, some of the comments illustrate only part of the level of ignorance that I'm having to deal with around town in Madison. The thing is, this is Madison. the Improvement in rail service has been turned into an example of "government waste," and many on the conservative side have turned against it. Funny thing is that when Tommy Thompson was gov, he was the one who got the ball rolling on getting Amtrak to Madison. I have been fighting the good fight here, but it can get discouraging.
$ 54 question: Is Rail Worth It ?
Then there is this, from Transport Politic blog. The Rs have been very successful in associating "waste" with "spending on rail." Republican wave could spell trouble for rail projects. I think that a good part of the issue is that these rail projects were something spearheaded by the Obama Administration, and, therefore, the Rs are opposed.
Take a look at the charts listed at the "Transport Politic" link. The Rs are almost unanimously opposed to rail improvement projects.
See also "The Infrastructurist," "Success of US HSR projects all come down to November. I think those of us who enjoy rail service and travel may have to get ready to play defense for a while. I suggest that all the members here find out who the local candidate is who is pro-rail, and start advocating for rail. That, or join a group such as the National Association of Rail Passengers.
$ 54 question: Is Rail Worth It ?
Then there is this, from Transport Politic blog. The Rs have been very successful in associating "waste" with "spending on rail." Republican wave could spell trouble for rail projects. I think that a good part of the issue is that these rail projects were something spearheaded by the Obama Administration, and, therefore, the Rs are opposed.
Take a look at the charts listed at the "Transport Politic" link. The Rs are almost unanimously opposed to rail improvement projects.
See also "The Infrastructurist," "Success of US HSR projects all come down to November. I think those of us who enjoy rail service and travel may have to get ready to play defense for a while. I suggest that all the members here find out who the local candidate is who is pro-rail, and start advocating for rail. That, or join a group such as the National Association of Rail Passengers.
Last edited by a moderator:
AlohaWhy should we have Planes? I don't fly they are just a tin can with wings LOL
somehow I thought thy were oversize cigar tubes.
:lol: :lol: :lol:George Harris
Engineer
Saw this a while back:
100 years ago, who would have ever imagined that the primary mode of long distance transportation would come to be to - by choice - have yourself strapped and sealed into a metal tube with thousands of small parts and be thrown through the air, and do it with the knowledge that failure of any one or two of many of these parts would result in the death of all that were inside that tube.
100 years ago, who would have ever imagined that the primary mode of long distance transportation would come to be to - by choice - have yourself strapped and sealed into a metal tube with thousands of small parts and be thrown through the air, and do it with the knowledge that failure of any one or two of many of these parts would result in the death of all that were inside that tube.
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2003
- Messages
- 8,507
Considering that you can have an entire engine fail without risk to life consequences, that's a tiny little exaggeration, don't you think?
Devil's Advocate
⠀⠀⠀
I actually consider airplanes to be exceptionally safe. There are few situations where the failure of a single part would result in life-threatening consequences. In fact in any given aircraft there are often several non-critical parts that are inoperative at the time of your flight. If you read the NTSB reports, outside of intentional sabotage it generally takes multiple serious failures to bring down a modern commercial aircraft. This is thanks largely to the actions of our government regulators and the citizen groups that pushed them toward greater safety. In those cases where a single failure can bring down a plane, such as the notorious jackscrew issue, our government has mandated increased scrutiny and frequency of inspections and maintenance schedules that seems to have addressed most problems sufficiently. On the other hand, the future of air travel may not be as safe as it is now. Today's anti-regulation politicians are busy handing safety evaluation and quality control duties back to the manufacturers who gave us these single points of failure in the first place. That doesn't sound too smart to me, especially since we're not benefiting from those concessions in any way I can discern.
Last edited by a moderator:
G
Guest
Guest
Why should we allow trucks on tax supported roads, highways, bridges, tunnels, etc? I don't own or drive a truck. hboy:
hboy:Well maybe because trucks pay more taxes to be on the roads than just a gas tax like autos do. The taxes truckers pay certainly pales in comparison the the costs railroads pay for their right of way.Why should we allow trucks on tax supported roads, highways, bridges, tunnels, etc? I don't own or drive a truck.
Ryan
Court Jester
Doesn't change the fact that the tax the truckers pay don't completely pay for the roads that they operate on.
Devil's Advocate
⠀⠀⠀
I'd be curious to find out just how much they pay versus how much road construction and maintenance costs. From what I've heard they barely pay a pittance when everything is considered. Factoring in how much more damage is done to a roadway by a commercial vehicle versus my tiny insignificant car and how much wider and stronger our roads and bridges and tunnels and ferries have to be made to handle commercial vehicles, I believe commercial interests should be paying something like 75% of the development and maintenance costs. It would take 100 years of constant driving for a car like mine to do anything to a roadway, but only ten years of commercial trucks and it's all beat to hell. If they screwed it up then let them pay to fix it.
Run for Governor!!!! All kidding aside and I mentioned this on the 3C thread. When talking to conservatives about Amtrak and government waste turn the table and demonstrate the economic good rails bring to Regions served well by rails thus creating taxes, jobs, better salaries. Throw Reagan trickle down economics on them. The Chambers of Commerce and economic development agencies along the planned route will have this economic impact information because they WANT these trains. The economic development groups in virginia are very supportive of the Commonwealth's HSR efforts.
I can't answer all of your questions, but I can lend some insight. First, trucks pay 24.4 cents per gallon of diesel fuel to the Fed as compared to autos which pay 18.4 cents per gallon to the Fed. The states have a hodpodge of taxes that are way too complicated to go into here. Some states charge the same for trucks & cars, while others follow the Fed's example. Of course since the Fed typically pays 80% of the interstate highway costs, that makes the Fed's impact on things greater.
Most states also charge licensing fees that can be in the hundreds of dollars, if not thousands. You see those little state stickers all of the cabs of the trucks. Of course some states also "borrow" that income for other purposes, instead of putting it into the road.
I seem to recall reading some place that it takes 20,000 cars passing the same point to do the same damage as 1 fully loaded truck. An empty truck of course does less damage. Buses also contribute far more heavily to road damage than do cars, and short of Greyhound and similar private services, most public buses pay no fuel taxes and therefore do not contribute to things.
ans:
Why people take trains
1. Trains are the most fuel efficient means of passenger and freight transportaion
2. They are far less polluting than airplanes. Its "green" transportation.
3. The seats are wider, more comfortable, the aisles are wider and the bathrooms are larger. You have ROOM to breathe. 2 seats on each side instead of three narrow seats built for little people.
4. The food and drink choices and selection are better
5. You can take any food or soft drink that you wish onboard with you
6. Amtrak doesn't zap you for a luggage fee and you are allowed to take far more luggage and an overnight bag, laptop etc.
7. Seeing the local secenery is nice.
8. You can get on a train at numerous stations in a state
9. The security process is simple straight foward and not intrusive or obtrusive
10. You can use your cell phone the entire trip. You can use your laptop the entire trip.
11. you can cancel and/or reschedule a trip without penalty.
12. In case of an accident, you are far safer riding a train
The downside is that trains routes are usually slower than air routes. However, we would still much rather ride the train than subject ourselves to the congested, filthy, unhealthy, dehumanizing conditions that air travel has deteriorated to. You can ride a train as a gentleman instead of flying on a plane like an animal.
Why people take trains
1. Trains are the most fuel efficient means of passenger and freight transportaion
2. They are far less polluting than airplanes. Its "green" transportation.
3. The seats are wider, more comfortable, the aisles are wider and the bathrooms are larger. You have ROOM to breathe. 2 seats on each side instead of three narrow seats built for little people.
4. The food and drink choices and selection are better
5. You can take any food or soft drink that you wish onboard with you
6. Amtrak doesn't zap you for a luggage fee and you are allowed to take far more luggage and an overnight bag, laptop etc.
7. Seeing the local secenery is nice.
8. You can get on a train at numerous stations in a state
9. The security process is simple straight foward and not intrusive or obtrusive
10. You can use your cell phone the entire trip. You can use your laptop the entire trip.
11. you can cancel and/or reschedule a trip without penalty.
12. In case of an accident, you are far safer riding a train
The downside is that trains routes are usually slower than air routes. However, we would still much rather ride the train than subject ourselves to the congested, filthy, unhealthy, dehumanizing conditions that air travel has deteriorated to. You can ride a train as a gentleman instead of flying on a plane like an animal.
Last edited by a moderator:
the_traveler
Engineer
I still would have an entire engine fail on a train! You're about 30,000 feet closer to the ground!
Never said it did.
Ryan
Court Jester
That makes your "they pay more in tax" argument pretty much worthless, then.
spacecadet
Lead Service Attendant
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2008
- Messages
- 368
Why should we have hospitals? I'm not sick. Why should we have firehouses and police stations? My house is not burning down and I'm not being robbed.
This kind of selfish, egocentric and short-sighted thinking can go to some really bad places if you're not careful.
This kind of selfish, egocentric and short-sighted thinking can go to some really bad places if you're not careful.
Last edited by a moderator:
In todays society it seems that at times the need of the individual seems to greatly overshadow the needs of others. Taking that short-sighted view of the world invariably comes back to your own doorstep in a negative way.
I would ask the person who made this rediculous statement; you have food so why should we have food banks? and you are honest so why should we have locks?
I wouldn't get too discouraged over it. If you're getting that vibe from news article comments on the Internet, remember that, that is only a small part of the general population and not everyone thinks that way. If you think about it, most comments like that are going to be negative anyway because the reader disagrees with the content of the article. Usually when I agree with it, I won't make a comment at all. I've pretty much stopped reading comments from readers on the internet anyway. No matter what subject it's about, there's always going to be ignorant short sighted people on there. You can only handle so much. I'd say write a letter to the editor in support of this rail service. Just remember to keep it short and simple and put the most important stuff first.
There's got to be a local group in your area that does support this project. NARP is okay, but too general. You probably have a local council of governments in your area that plans transportation projects. Go to those meetings and express your concerns. I do in my area.
I still believe we're having a rail rennaisance here in the US. Progress will be made, but then there will also be set backs. But, remember over the past 10 or 20 years, we've had more progress with passenger rail then we've had setbacks.
- Status
