Pets on Amtrak - New Law in Congress

MattW wrote:I very highly doubt Amtrak would allow anything but animals enclosed in kennels, and then only on short, non-overnight routes. Commuter railroads and other transit services get away with this every day, heck I believe Metro North has no size restrictions and no kennel requirement, and they all do just fine. Sure, the ride is longer on Amtrak, even the "short" routes, but how long does flea exposure take? Tick exposure? Couldn't one of them have an accident just as easily as on Amtrak?

In addition, the flea/tick concern would be no less valid for airlines, and those appear to not be concerned, allowing in-cabin pets in kennels. Cross country flights are 5 or 6 hours without opportunity for the dog to be walked.

United has extensive info on pet cabin and cargo travel; Amtrak could use relevant parts as a model. http://www.united.com/web/en-US/content ... fault.aspx

F-line to Dudley via Park wrote: I agree, though...this is a waste of Congress' time. This is something to do with an internal Amtrak directive. Doing it with a law is overkill.

Agreed. I'm a lawyer, and every law has unintended consequences, and no law is a perfect match to the objective that it's trying to achieve. Something like pets on trains should be set by Amtrak policy, not a law.

I can remember back in the 60's in my days as a fireman on the Pittsfield job on Sundays the coaches (usually 3 or 4 of them) would resemble a kennel. I don't ever recall any problems with them either although I was on the engine and not back in the train. I have no respect for congress in this issue for interference with the management of Amtrak. Every time congress gets involved in something like this it becomes a problem. My own opinion, allow them on some trains that are on rather short runs but not on the long distance trains except for the Auto Train where there are a lot of seniors who like to travel with their cats or dogs. In the case of the Auto Train a surcharge for traveling with a pet who would remain in a certain car at all times. If the rule needs to be changed, it should be done by Amtrak and not by congress which should have much more important things to do than this. On any train the conductor should have the last word if a dog is dangerous the dog and its accompanying passenger should be put off before something happens. I remember in my Metro-North days covering a daytime job to New Haven out of New York and upon arrival at the lead car to set up there was an individual with a big and loud dog already in the area near my cab. I got off and went back to get the conductor and we got on the radio and called for a police officer to come and take the man and his dog off the train, if that had not happened I would have refused to run the train or even enter the head car. The guy tried to say that the dog was OK but nobody else agreed with him.
Noel Weaver

MattW wrote: Commuter railroads and other transit services get away with this every day, heck I believe Metro North has no size restrictions and no kennel requirement, and they all do just fine. Sure, the ride is longer on Amtrak, even the "short" routes, but how long does flea exposure take? Tick exposure?

Fleas jump. Ticks latch on to anything new that brushes up against them.

Unlike Amtrak, commuter railroads (such as Metro North) tend to have plastic seats and vinyl flooring, rather than pile upholstery and carpeting where fleas and ticks can burrow, hide, and multiply undisturbed.

Most commuter systems prohibit larger animals, and any animal of any size that isn't "boxed." The Long Island Railroad, for one example, has the following rule: "Small domestic pets are permitted provided they are carried in kennels or similar containers that can be accommodated by you on your lap without annoyance to other passengers."

Whether a conductor will actually confront a blatant violator is another matter. But the rules are there for good reason.

As for the airlines. . . Those that allow pets in the cabin require "airline approved" enclosed carriers, in part so that the pet -- and the tiny parasites it may carry -- won't come in direct contact with cabin surfaces or passengers (which is how the bugs migrate to their next free meal).

-----------------------------------

Easiest solution, put a heater and AC in a pair of F40 Cabbages and allow pets on Hiawatha service trains. This would comply with the law (it is very vague on which or how many trains). The best thing they could do is take a couple coach-baggage superliners and convert the baggage area to a kennel area with climate control and soundproofing and internal access to the luggage area. Then assign them to the Auto Train.
Cheers,
Nick

While we're on the topic. . . .

A strange "tail" from a year ago:

http://www.pissedconsumer.com/reviews-b ... 17131.html

---------------------------------------

Here is the actual bill.

I predicted they were going for the corridor type trains. Since the last part doesn't require Amtrak to modify or purchase equipment , if the new bags aren't temperature controlled that would mean that it isn't feasible for Amtrak to establish service for "stowed" pets as cargo.

However, if the animals can fit in the overhead luggage rack or under the seat, you could see them on teh NEC as an example.

Which leads to what the person predicts:

You're Going to Be Forced into Amtrak's New Pet Car, and It'll Be Worse Than WiFi

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national ... car/65489/

If Congress sees fit, you could soon be accompanied by your dog or cat on Amtrak, adding adorability to the increasingly popular national rail service. You could also be crowded into the proposed "pet car," accompanied by someone else and their stinky dog or allergy-inducing cat, fueling commuter rage just as Amtrak was starting to calm down the Acela set over bad wireless connections and not-so-quiet quiet cars.

Currently, the only pets allowed on Amtrak trains are service animals — not even comfort animals are allowed. But the U.S. government can very much regulate Amtrak, a new bill set to hit the House floor soon — H.R. 2066, also known as the majestic-sounding "Pets on Trains Act of 2013" — would do just that. The bill, sponsored by Rep. Jeff Denham (R-Calif.), Rep. Michael Grimm (R-N.Y.), and John Campbell (R-Calif.) designates one car of every Amtrak train as a pet car, and riders would be able to transport their dogs or cats provided they are in kennels and are traveling less than 750 miles:

Now, just imagine the complaints of an Amtrak rider who wants to watch his Netflix — and has to watch his Netflix in a pet car full of meowing and barking cats and dogs.

That might end up being the case. Because, well, consider case in point No. 3: Despite the myriad complaints over the years, more people are using the rail service than ever. "Amtrak ridership increased in the first half of FY 2013 (Oct. 2012 – March 2013) and March set a record as the single best month ever in the history of America’s Railroad," reads an April press release from Amtrak. More people on Amtrak trains means more crowded trains. Crowded trains mean doubling up in seats. And trains that crowded means that, if you're not early or in the origin city, there may be people forced to sit in certain cars of said very crowded trains that they didn't want to sit in — like a Quiet Car regular who has to marinate with the hoi polloi in the café car. Meaning: If Congress gets Amtrak to install a pet car on every train, and ridership continues to increase, there's a distinct possibility that pet-averse people may have to sit in the pet car.

As someone who has helped raise and transport and care for hundreds of domestic animals over many years, I feel this is a bad idea.

This coming before things like ending sequestration is, as an American citizen, insulting. Usually I'd love to inject a bolt of humor into things like this, but it's wrong to talk about bills for pets on trains when thousands of people are on furlough with no end in sight. People with financial responsibilities, kids, lives.

SouthernRailway wrote:

F-line to Dudley via Park wrote: I agree, though...this is a waste of Congress' time. This is something to do with an internal Amtrak directive. Doing it with a law is overkill.

Agreed. I'm a lawyer, and every law has unintended consequences, and no law is a perfect match to the objective that it's trying to achieve. Something like pets on trains should be set by Amtrak policy, not a law.

At least the Bill leaves fleshing out the details to Amtrak, similar to administrative agency legislation. I suspect that a sufficiently large mass of Congressmen and Senators from both major parties sending Amtrak a formal request to reconsider its pet policy would have sufficed without the need to pursue this legislation.

25Hz wrote:As someone who has helped raise and transport and care for hundreds of domestic animals over many years, I feel this is a bad idea.

This coming before things like ending sequestration is, as an American citizen, insulting. Usually I'd love to inject a bolt of humor into things like this, but it's wrong to talk about bills for pets on trains when thousands of people are on furlough with no end in sight. People with financial responsibilities, kids, lives.

There are thousands of bills introduced each session, and the vast majority, if not all, are drafted by staff, not the elected officials. Only the significant bills are discussed in committee, etc. by the elected officials. Highly unlikely this bill will divert any resources from very significant legislative activities.

Ken W2KB wrote:

25Hz wrote:As someone who has helped raise and transport and care for hundreds of domestic animals over many years, I feel this is a bad idea.

This coming before things like ending sequestration is, as an American citizen, insulting. Usually I'd love to inject a bolt of humor into things like this, but it's wrong to talk about bills for pets on trains when thousands of people are on furlough with no end in sight. People with financial responsibilities, kids, lives.

There are thousands of bills introduced each session, and the vast majority, if not all, are drafted by staff, not the elected officials. Only the significant bills are discussed in committee, etc. by the elected officials. Highly unlikely this bill will divert any resources from very significant legislative activities.

I'm aware of how the federal government works, and my first point is far more relevant than my second point. This bill is a waste of time, pets should not be allowed on board coaches, and most animals need constant looking after on any length of journey so baggage wouldn't be acceptable either. People have allergies and phobias and pet owners can be very irresponsible and the animals themselves may be well trained or behave otherwise but a train ride may freak them out. Amtrak's job is to move people and their luggage, and unless you're moving there is absolutely no need to bring any animals with you on any trip You can't leave them in a car and unless you're taking them for a walk or a swim at the beach they stay at home. I've been fortunate enough to work with service dogs and help facilitate train trips for end clients or puppy raisers, but those are strictly trained dogs with incredibly responsible handlers and those trips are primarily to expose the dogs to new things such as a train ride, which ultimately can lead to them doing other things such as attend events and meetings via train or accompany their person to wherever. And you can't compare it with flying, only dogs can really handle that, but it is very stressful for them.

No amount of thinking would make this work, unless the feds are willing to pay amtrak to hire a qualified pet attendant to ride in the climate controlled baggage car. And what if the train loses HEP, then what?

If HEP fails ?? Darn then Animals have to suffer, both four and two legged once.

Any of you ever see robocop? The one where they hold a committee meeting to add directives? They end up giving him like 5000 new directives, and expect it to just work and he goes nuts. That is how i see most public officials and how they treat passenger railroads. They jerk around funding, they change operations rules they put all kinds of expectational policies and regulations in place that sound like a good idea, but then don't ever take into consideration real world implications and rarely bother to listen to the expert opinions of the people who actually run the shops and the trains and man the snack cars etc. This bill is just more evidence of such, and while there are lots of good things getting started or newly on-line that were not there just a year or 2 ago, we gotta i think remember that there is such thing as practicality that needs to be taken into consideration. Amtrak isn't a toy to experiment with to garner votes, and it pisses me off that this makes a bigger news splash than the B&P tunnel modernization for example. I love trains, i love animals, but they do not mix, and i wish these cockeyed bills were used as tinder for the upcoming 4th of july celebratory bonfires that are held at various locations.

/rant

25Hz wrote:Any of you ever see robocop? The one where they hold a committee meeting to add directives? They end up giving him like 5000 new directives, and expect it to just work and he goes nuts. That is how i see most public officials and how they treat passenger railroads. They jerk around funding, they change operations rules they put all kinds of expectational policies and regulations in place that sound like a good idea, but then don't ever take into consideration real world implications and rarely bother to listen to the expert opinions of the people who actually run the shops and the trains and man the snack cars etc. This bill is just more evidence of such, and while there are lots of good things getting started or newly on-line that were not there just a year or 2 ago, we gotta i think remember that there is such thing as practicality that needs to be taken into consideration. Amtrak isn't a toy to experiment with to garner votes, and it pisses me off that this makes a bigger news splash than the B&P tunnel modernization for example. I love trains, i love animals, but they do not mix, and i wish these cockeyed bills were used as tinder for the upcoming 4th of july celebratory bonfires that are held at various locations.

/rant

I pretty much feel the same way. I think the one train Amtrak could try a revised pet policy would be the Auto Train. This train carries a lot of seniors and their cars south in the fall and north in the late spring. I think a separate car and fee for those who want to bring their dogs (maybe 25 pounds or less) with them in a civilized manner could be tried. Again I do not think congress needs to meddle with this one, it should be up to the management of Amtrak.
Noel Weaver

25Hz wrote:

Ken W2KB wrote:

25Hz wrote:As someone who has helped raise and transport and care for hundreds of domestic animals over many years, I feel this is a bad idea.

This coming before things like ending sequestration is, as an American citizen, insulting. Usually I'd love to inject a bolt of humor into things like this, but it's wrong to talk about bills for pets on trains when thousands of people are on furlough with no end in sight. People with financial responsibilities, kids, lives.

There are thousands of bills introduced each session, and the vast majority, if not all, are drafted by staff, not the elected officials. Only the significant bills are discussed in committee, etc. by the elected officials. Highly unlikely this bill will divert any resources from very significant legislative activities.

I'm aware of how the federal government works, and my first point is far more relevant than my second point. This bill is a waste of time, pets should not be allowed on board coaches, and most animals need constant looking after on any length of journey so baggage wouldn't be acceptable either. People have allergies and phobias and pet owners can be very irresponsible and the animals themselves may be well trained or behave otherwise but a train ride may freak them out. Amtrak's job is to move people and their luggage, and unless you're moving there is absolutely no need to bring any animals with you on any trip You can't leave them in a car and unless you're taking them for a walk or a swim at the beach they stay at home. I've been fortunate enough to work with service dogs and help facilitate train trips for end clients or puppy raisers, but those are strictly trained dogs with incredibly responsible handlers and those trips are primarily to expose the dogs to new things such as a train ride, which ultimately can lead to them doing other things such as attend events and meetings via train or accompany their person to wherever. And you can't compare it with flying, only dogs can really handle that, but it is very stressful for them.

No amount of thinking would make this work, unless the feds are willing to pay amtrak to hire a qualified pet attendant to ride in the climate controlled baggage car. And what if the train loses HEP, then what?

I've been on flights where some passengers had dogs or cats in crates. Stressful to the animals, yes, but so is boarding in a kennel for those animals used to owner coddling. What is it about Amtrak that you believe makes Amtrak incapable of handing crated pets? Amtrak's airline competition does that just fine and routinely, both as carry on and in cargo? Why do you have such a low opinion of Amtrak's ability?

As to HEP, when cabin pressurization fails, oxygen masks are available for humans. The airlines specifically state that oxygen is not available for pets. Loss of HEP is inconsequential in comparison.