Might be easier if the US was only the size of Italy.

sounds like you had a great trip

don't worry proudamericanveteran, the US has a much larger economy and GDP than Italy, so no need to dismiss American capabilities based on Italy's size.

It would appear that you have not taken any time to explore the options that AmTrak has available.

NYC has a larger rail system than the whole country of Italy...

I have ridden Am Trak extensively in this country and Done extensive rail travel in Europe and England as well. AmTrak is wonderful and anyone who has not taken advantage of it is missing out. However The English and European systems have us beaten.

A 5% increases in traffic is barely worth reporting and due only to a poor economy.

Amtrak loses a tremendous amount of money every single day... we are paying for people to ride trains.

Vanderbilt warned about building railroads to nowhere and intentionally impoverishing a nation for the purpose of taking a backwards step in transportation technology is stupid and dangerous.

You will not love your railroad if it is your only option because you can no longer afford a car because your taxes to pay subsidies are high enough to limit you personal freedom and autonomy.

Bobby, We are paying a lot more money subsiidizing airtravel than Amtrak.

This country should have started a rail program yrs ago. Imagine your car hooking up to a rail system cutting travel time and cost by a third. If we can go to the moon and back why can we not have new space age transportation? Would solve a lot of problems our country and world finds itself in. Jobs, commerce, getting people face to face more. Just an idea have always had since high school. Of course people always find something wrong with the idea, but have ALWAYS been able to find real answers for the nay sayers if open minded.

No we're not. Passenger trains died in this country because flying is faster and cheaper. Greyhound is an equivalent option to Amtrack. The U.S.A. is a highway based society, and buses make much more sense. In Ohio, they wanted to build a dedicated passenger rail paralleling I71, linking Cleveland, Columbus, and Cincinnati. The estimated travel time from Cleveland to Columbus was about 4 hours. It takes only 2.5 hours to drive. The interstate is already there. If you don't want to drive, you can take a bus. We don't need to waste money on rail.

Thorndawg: You must be joking? Buses? I'd rather take a beating than ride a bus! City buses maybe - but Greyhound is like riding in a tin can full of pickled sweat socks. Last time I rode a bus, my seatmate was a guy who just got out of prison and was on his way home; he knew the couple across the aisle from prison, too! No thanks.

A plane or a train is no different. Mass transit is mass transit. Never been sardine canned by a fattie on a plane?

Not a fattie that smelled like the last pair of boat shoes I threw in the trash. A bus smells like that even if you get lucky and don't end up sharing a pair of seats. Ick. Pass.

Whats funnier is that Amtrak still is not able to make a profit and is subsidized by the U.S. taxpayers.

What's funny (not) is that rail travel is expected to pay for itself and make a profit while air travel and street/highway travel are not. Those are both heavily subsidized by government.

Even funnier, pretty much every public roadway in the United States is "not able to make a profit and is subsidized by the U.S. taxpayers."

Well, look at the demographics of ridership. Do you really think the Republicans care about catering to urban elite with their technology? No, they can bash train travel because people in rural areas have little use for it.

"Whats funnier is that Amtrak still is not able to make a profit and is subsidized by the U.S. taxpayers."

Air travel is subsidized as well, the most notable part that I know of is aviation fuel (though I'm sure there are others). Big airlines don't have to pay a dime of it, while small private fliers do. And to add to the stupidity, the tax goes to pay for control towers and traffic control, which private aircraft use very little, and commercial aviation use heavily.

As pointed out by others, both roads and air travel are also subsidized by taxpayers with little expectation that it should be otherwise. Good infrastructure is one of the hallmarks of civilization and that should certainly include rail lines.

How can you be taken seriously with your name calling?

I live in a rural area and would LOVE to have more access to rail travel. We have an Amtrak commuter in my town that runs in the morning at 8 am and gets back at 8 pm, but with very limited stops and the bus system used after the train ride is atrocious.

Btw, calling people in the other party names is very counterproductive. You do not need to make a logical argument and then slap someone in the face with it by calling them a name, it makes your argument instantly irrelevant to them.

The problems people have with Obama's plans are not that they are about expanding rail, it is where these rail projects have been proposed and the costs associated with them. An example is the proposal for a high speed rail line between LA and Las Vegas. The cost would be in the tens of billions to build it and it would never pay for itself. There is just too much competition with air on that route and the airfares are very inexpensive. It makes more sense to expand rail into areas where there is limited or no air service than for rail to try and compete with one of the most heavily served air routes in the nation. The same is true for the proposed high speed rail between LA and San Francisco. There are many flights and the fares are cheap, making it impossible for rail to compete. For rail to make sense it must be competitive from both a cost and time perspective with other forms of transportation, predominantly air. This means establishing rail lines between cities where there is limited or no direct flights available or where the time and cost for rail can compete with air when you factor in the entire time for the trip, not just the time en route. For example, train can succeed between DC-Philadelphia-New York because of the location of the airports, the time you have to allow for security, etc. makes the high speed train time competitive with air if you are traveling to the down town areas of these cities. Rail also can succeed on shorter runs where it is often a choice between driving and rail such as between LA and San Diego, DC and Baltimore, Boston and Providence, etc. where traffic can be unpredictable or just plain horrible making for a gruelling trip as opposed to relaxing on the train. The key to success on these routes is also having good local transportation options in the city to get around once you are there. Rail ridership could also be boosted without spending a dime on rail itself by improving local transportation within cities.

JS,

There is also the political game at play with the selection of these rail projects. There has been a serious want and need of a high speed rail line between St. Petersburg/Tampa/Orlando but the Governor Scott(R) has refused to the Federal Grant money for it.

Many States with Hard core Right Wing Governors and Legislatures have actually turned these projects away. Whether they are simply acting as pawns of the Auto/Oil Industries or simply trying to stall Obama's jobs projects we can not know, but they are costing their States 10s of 1000s of jobs.

spg64, do you think they might be trying to walk the walk with regard to cutting back on government funded projects that are not funded with real money? Buying jobs is only a temporary fix that must be paid for somewhere down the line. Our politicians are not fixing the problem by buying jobs with tax dollars. They should be reforming our tax code. Time for a Fair Tax system where every citizen and business pays the same percentage of income tax on every penny they earn. Matters not whether those earnings are from government welfare or a well run business. No more exemptions and close loop holes. In no time at all, we will all be paying fewer taxes than we are today. That last sentence was directed to the 50% of us that currently pay taxes of course.

JS

You say all of this with the a priori assumption that the high speed train tickets will be more expensive than air travel. How do you know the price? Can you read the future?

All of the assumptions that follow from that are baseless and irrelevant.

no value AND inflammatory

Haha, how true, down_south. Thumbs up! Others here just have no sense of humor, much less grasp the gravity of our situation of spending money we don't have.

Who says the government can't make business work?

the TSA is creating record ridership this year..... see the government can help business. Only problem is it is hurtng air travel to do it

Don't forget the foreign aid we give away when we need the money right here.

hear, hear! Plus, here in Southern California, it would be so helpful to have a better rail system, at least like the Northeast corridor. Traffic sucks.

The body scanner manufacturers will certainly find a way to convince Congress that every train station must have TSA security with scanners and gropers. All it will take is someone found trying to light his shoe on a train.

Got any link to show where those 100,000 new bureaucrats went to work? And since you clearly state that Obama hired them, that means they are Federal bureaucrats.

Or is it just that you heard someone say that there are now a bunch of new jobs, and you ASSumed that those new jobs were Federal, and that the number of 'new jobs' equaled 100,000?

Remember, if you say those new jobs are at the Department of Homeland Security, DHS was created during shrub's first term (in December 2001), and mostly by combining into one department several already existing organizations.

Oh, and don't forget that several departments and other organizations within the federal government shrank jobs.

Mike, How about a link showing the amount of federal employees we have now compared to how many were federally employed when Presidetn Obama took over?

So those "folks" drive the I-95? You know how many interstates are in Kansas? Do think that perhaps Kansas gets tax dollars for other things besides roads or trains? Do you think at all?

You could have just said "I hate trains, the people that ride them, and anything the government does that doesn't benefit me." and at least been honest.

Yeah, there's a fundamental flaw in your logic. There are interstates that folks in Kansas probably don't ever drive that they are helping to pay for. Secondly, a person in Kansas certainly could, while traveling, ride the train between DC and NYC. I live in Idaho, but while on vacation I've ridden the train between Pittsburgh and Philadelphia.

A part of the idea behind society and civilization is that we help one another out. I don't have any kids, but my tax dollars go toward education. Should I grouse about how my money is being 'wasted' or should I be glad that it goes to help kids learn? Likewise, money toward transportation and infrastructure may go toward things I'll never use, but I'm glad because maybe it ends up building a bridge that eases someones commute or building a better interstate that helps family visit one another.

I worry that our sense of independence, which is normally one of our strengths, has inadvertently created a society of people who aren't willing to share a cup of sugar with their neighbor--to borrow a cliche. We're so caught up with our own little lives, that all we do is ask "What's in it for ME, ME, ME!" Is this really a healthy way to live? Is it at all the sign of a healthy society?

I'm comforted though, when I see the way Americans CAN and DO help one another in times of disaster. If only we could showcase this mentality even when there wasn't an earthquake or tornado.

AX23000 - So nice to read some thoughtful commentary. I've grown tired of all the selfish rhetoric on blogs these days, with people complaining about the lazy poor on welfare, illegal immigrants stealing American jobs, waste and fraud in Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and the government in general.

Sad to see how little these short-sighted self-proclaimed "Americans" understand that in order to have a civilized society, it is necessary to have government, it is necessary to establish and follow reasonable rules and regulations, it is necessary for the public to give up some of their money so that it can be used for the general good (infrastructure, fire & police departments, schools, public health services, etc.). These things can not be provided efficiently by a private, for-profit corporation. Sure there is waste and fraud in government, but that is due to selfish people in positions of power, and does not make big government inherently evil.

I truly hope that real Americans will wake up from their hypnotic slumber and realize how far we have gone down the wrong path. Hope it's not too late to change course.

STexan?

I see that AmTrak has a route between Oklahoma City and Fort Worth. I seriously doubt that I'll ever use that route when traveling. I'm sure others do, though, and some on a regular basis.

I also see that AmTrak has a route that goes from Chicago to Dallas, San Antonio, then on to Los Angeles. I seriously doubt that I'll ever use that route when traveling. I'm sure others do, though, and some on a regular basis.

It's normal for STexas to be spouting off up here without thinking. He does it all the time.

You'll see it in the future as well.

So? Folks in blue states don't use the welfare for red states they pay for. Plain fact. Blue states pay out more than they use in federal money. Red states use more than they pay out.

Your argument is baseless. We all pay into federal taxation and that money gets used all the time for things that people don't see in their home states. That's how it is. If people were to support projects like rail maybe they'd be the ones to benefit, yes?

I have a problem with California's beginning their high speed rail construction in the central valley. It's a solid red district and their representatives have been and are fighting it tooth and nail. Why the hell should they benefit from the completion of the first segment of it?

The person who said LA-LV and LA-SF high speed rail lines couldn't compete with airlines doesn't know what he's talking about. These medium length trips are exactly where a high speed rail line would compete.

What's with all the people in this country who want to keep us in the last century, and possibly drag us even further into the past?

Terrorism took the fun out of flying. Would you rather have a hijacking every week?

Osama bin Laden said "Jump." Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney asked "How high?"

But you blame it all on the TSA component of the Department of Homeland Security (remember, a department created by Mr. Bush in 2001). You seem to be very patriotic, passing the entirety of blame of others (namely one Osama bin Laden) onto Americans who work for the Department of Homeland Security and the TSA component of DHS.

I believe that a wide range of transportation will lead to the healthiest system. To use an easy example from your own post. Imagine a city where everyone rides the train. In this city the roads are far less congested. Now imagine that there's an emergency. Don't you think that having less congested roadways could make a huge difference in emergency response times? If you say no, you probably don't live in a big city.

Trains are also vastly safer than car travel. The statistics for the number of people who die in car accidents should disturb anyone.

In terms of long distance travel I also think trains have their place. Trains are vastly more comfortable than any other option. I've taken long road trips, bus trips, plane trips, and train trips. I'm talking cross-country here. Trains may be slower, but they are by FAR the most comfortable way to travel. You have more room, freedom to move around, and fantastic views from the observation car. The rail workers are by and far friendlier and less stressed out than stewardesses on an airplane.

You might argue that this isn't a very significant difference, but I beg to differ. Comfortable, happy people, are more likely to be kind and generous than stressed out angry people. Kind people make the world a better place. Angry people...not so much.

Look, clearly there are situations where trains don't make sense. The same could be said for any mode of transportation. The best system, as I said at the start, is one that makes a proper investment in all of them. I wouldn't cut subsidies in any of them, because I don't agree there would be ANY benefit to the public in doing so. In fact, if I had the power, I'd increase funds to all of them. Infrastructure is one of the fundamentals of civilization and has both an immediate and long term effect on the economy that has been proven over thousands of years.

I've ridden Amtrak, no doubt it is a relaxing way of travel, but certainly not as convenient as flying. But with all the problems of budgetary issues I question if subsidizing passenger rail service is a good idea. My issue with Amtrak is that it isn't any cheaper than taking my own car for a long trip and splitting gas with my buddies on a trip, not to mention I don't have to rent a car once I get to my destination. And if I were to drive a Geo Metro the price of driving just myself versus a train ticket is not that great. Planes get people to where they want to go fast. Trains don't, so unless gas goes over 6 a gallon I'm still taking my car if I have to go on a cross country trip.

The main difference - you have to drive that car. Amtrak trains have horrendous schedules if you're not in a mega city like Chicago or Minneapolis / St Paul, but you can still make it work. Get on the train at 2 AM in Cincinnati, then catch up on your much needed sleep as it travels to Chicago, and get there by 8 or 9 AM. Certainly can't do that with car.

I'd take Amtrak over Greyhound any day of the week - weird people on those buses.

Actually, Mr. Gebhard, I think airlines could learn a thing or two about ticketing from the experience of railroads.

Another fine post detailing our failing educational skills, when half the words are spelled incorrectly.

So? Are you his professor or something? At least he posted a personal experience relevant to the topic and not some baseless partisan attack on transportation perceived as a "liberal" issue, like many posters whenever this topic comes up.

They could really learn from the Germans. The Germans and puntuality go hand-in-hand like spaghetti and meatballs. They rarely are not on time, and if they are, you can bet there was an accident.

And if I want to fly from Baltimore, MD to Chicago, IL, one of my options, if I want to fly, is to go through Atlanta, GA. Or I could choose to go through Charlotte, NC.

But you say maybe AmTrak should build a line from Chicago to Savannah? Are you sure you can get a funding bill through the current House of Representatives to build that line?

Besides being grouchy, your point is ???

But you *can* fly directly from Maryland to Illinois (unless airplanes work differently than I remember); there is no passenger rail service along the route I suggested. A detour by rail is a much bigger inconvenience than a detour by air.

My point is that Amtrak needs to connect nearby city centers, directly, to help prevent it from forever remaining a novelty. They might want to do something about efficiency of time and money, too.

Ah, but who am I fooling? The country is broke, and this is all pipe(line?) dreaming.

If 110 MPH is fast enough for you, there is an upgraded section about to open from Kalamazoo to Chicago.

Also plans are moving on a 110 MPH line from St. Louis to Chicago. There are many others that I cannot mention by route.

I recommend you bring your own food for your journey. The food on the train is not good at all. Nor is it cheap, it's $6 for a nasty microwaved hamburger. Add chips and a drink to it and its $12.

Much like airlines and roadways which each eat up more subsidy dollars than rail.

I guess we should dismantle those forms of travel as well.

Absolutely not Dangerous Mind. Keep spending what we don't have until the whole system collapses is way better.

Then you should support true high speed rail.

My wager would be that your passenger train had to be pulled to the side several times to allow freight trains to pass. I also wouldn't be surprised if there was a freight train derailment (caused at least in part from poor track maintenance) that caused a delay in your travels.

Maybe you should think about discussing this with your Congressperson and/or Senators, so that passengers (who are actually people) have priority over freight (things, objects, etc)?

And since AmTrak, outside the NE Corridor, uses freight train tracks, and all freight train tracks are now owned by the freight train corporations (read: private companies), maybe the private freight train corporations should be encouraged to upgrade, and keep up, the tracks. Not only would it help help passenger trains transit faster (in other words, move people faster), it also would speed up the delivery of the freight.

It sounds like a win/win for EVERYONE, people and corporations (unless you think it would only help people and people, since, as Mr. Romney thinks, my friend, that corporations are people, too).

I also took the train from Chicago to Detroit. "The" first class car was out for repair ( a refund was to follow); some of the bathrooms were out of service and the snack bar ran out of drinks and ice. Furthermore, I could have flown cheaper.

LMAO!

I am a grandpa (77 years young) and you had me going for awhile. That story is so neat and funny and now I know what to do if the cituation should arise I will know what to do.If I am lucky!!!!

Completely irrelevant to the article and funny as hell! Keep writing.

See, if she had taken a train she wouldn't have had her romance!

Airlines, airports, and roadway maintenance each use more federal dollars in subsidy than Amtrak. The only reason airlines turn a profit is because of the billions upon billions of tax dollars propping them up.

Dangerous Mind-

I am not clear on the point you are making. Are you suggesting that we should expand train service even though it will always require subsidy. Do you really think is would reduce the need to subsidize other forms of transportation. Now that Essential Air Service subsidies may be eliminated, where would other cuts come from? Close airports? Stop maintaining the roads and highways? Railroads are great to haul freight; poor for passenger service except in the high density East. No further subsidies are warranted.

Excuse me Mpls, but currently, only 50% of us are paying for the privileges that 100% of us enjoy in this country. If you are saying it's time all of us pay for the privilege of living in this country, then you have my support. Before government neutered a huge portion of our citizenry into dependent eunuchs, incapable and unwilling to work and support themselves, families, communities, and churchs took care of their own. In that system, you were expected to do something for yourself eventually as opposed to the government dependent system that encourages people to work the system for everything they can get from it and raise their children to do the same.