Running a Railroad the Hard Way.
One of the frustrating aspects of NARP’s passenger rail advocacy is coming up against those influential members of Congress who are anti-Amtrak as a matter of political philosophy or ideology. Somehow we need to find a way to get the discussion back to the issue itself.
Of course with some of these people, nothing works because they have other agendas. Take Congressman John Mica (R-Florida), for example. He’s been an Amtrak basher for years and will keep it up as long as it continues to attract the shallow-thinkers in the media, of which there is a seemingly endless supply.
Who knows what motivates Congressman Pete Sessions (R-Texas)? He recently submitted an amendment that would have effectively killed the Sunset Limited, an Amtrak long-distance train that crosses the entire width of his own state … although, I must add, it does not pass through his district.
Then there’s Congressman Jeff Denham (R-California) who is anti-high-speed rail and an ongoing critic of Amtrak, but who also wants to be able to take his pet bulldog with him in the event he should ever decide to take a train ride. So Denham authored the Pets on Trains Act of 2013 and now Amtrak has to figure out how to accommodate anyone, not just members of Congress, who wants to bring a pet along when they travel by train. (Did Denham give any thought to what this new mandate might cost Amtrak? Of course not.)
So Amtrak must continue to deal with the meddling, the micro-managing, and the occasional attempted murder. And that’s a helluva way to have to run a railroad!
I could use amtrak for many of the trips I make rather than driving, but cannot due to the lack of accommodation for my dog. I’m sure there are thousands of others like me. Apart from the NE Corridor, Amtrak needs greater ridership throughout the system in order to achieve the needed revenues, so it simply can’t afford to turn away riders.
I quite agree with you. My intent in writing about Denham’s amendment was not in opposition to allowing pets on Amtrak trains, but rather to point out how these people in Congress can take the time to force policies of that nature on Amtrak, but ignore critical funding issues that can affect the very survival of the railroad. Obviously, I failed to make that distinction clear. My apologies.
The Pets on Trains Act requires Amtrak to break even, at a minimu, on the program, so it wouldn’t cost any money. And, maybe they could operate more like a business and charge a comparable rate, like airlines do, and actually MAKE MONEY on the program. Now that’s a novel idea. I support pets on trains.
I don’t understand your logic. Many people are allergic to pets. Some people don’t control their pets. When conflicts flare the train staff will have to intervene. Adding something to the mix always requires some administration. Trains are short staffed already. Are you willing to pay for more staff? Do you care about the non-pet carrying passenger’s experience at all?
[As for airlines, we subsidy them too. The federal government runs air traffic control and cities often pick up the tab for airports.]
I don’t understand your saying you don’t understand my logic. I see all kinds of problems with this new pet policy, essentially forced on Amtrak by Congress. How big a pet, for instance. I’ve just seen something that indicates they (the pets) will be in carriers and will ride in the baggage car. I would have no trouble with that. And I have written here any number of times about the inconsistency of Congress having no problem with heavy subsidies for the airlines and for surface transportation, then professing shock and outrage that Amtrak needs federal assistance.