Pets on Amtrak - New Law in Congress

25Hz wrote:Ill get my friends Caucasian Shepard & book a trip on every route/train if this gets implemented. Meanwhile ill be chasing my eyes as they roll down the road & practice the art of having my palm just so on my face.

It's just a hunch, but I suspect they wouldn't allow you to board with a dog whose minimum acceptable crate dimensions exceed the footprint of a Viewliner bedroom.

miamicanes wrote:

Ooohh. I see...because Amtrak is loaded with funds, right? So insetad of buying things to accommodate the surging ridership, we're going to spend it carrying animals?

This of this as a golden opportunity for Amtrak to lobby Congress for funding to buy more sleeper cars, arguing that the additional car can have a room or two set aside for passengers with pets and be a net gain for all stakeholders across the board. It's a way to enlarge Amtrak's base of political support. Many of those passengers traveling on Amtrak with pets will be new passengers who were attracted to it in the first place BY the new policy.

Again, your singular focus is on the sleepers. I'm not a huge fan of the thought of pets in the sleepers, but if you let the animal out, how do you know what damage can be done? How many people have stood before a judge claiming "I don't understand it your honor, my pet is usually so calm. I don't know why it...."
If you let the animal out of the kennel and it gets spooked by the horn (as an example) and starts barking, meowing, scratching, teething (etc) and being disrupted, what do you tell the other passengers? Your "plan" of allowing the conductor or attendant use their discretion about the animals making noise and banning...blah blah blah sounds great on paper.

The main reason for my focus is simple: think of the sleeper car room as being a human-sized pet carrier that can effectively contain cats and dogs and keep them away from the rest of the train. If you're going to start somewhere, that's probably the most straightforward place to do it. Just because you can't accommodate 100% everywhere, all the time, doesn't mean you should go to the other extreme and ban it entirely instead as a precautionary measure against failure. If risk of failure were a universal justification for never doing anything new, we'd still be hunter-gatherers without agriculture, cities, electricity, and modern medicine.

95% of the arguments made for banning cats and dogs from trains could be made about infants, toddlers, kids (and adults) with autism, teens, the handicapped, people who drink excessive amounts of alcohol, the mentally ill, and people whose hygiene doesn't align with societal norms. And if you look hard enough, you WILL find humans who eat and play with feces, lick crotches (and more unmentionable areas), mark their territory (they just use spray paint, markers, and sharp objects, as opposed to urine, which can be easily neutralized and washed off), and drink from toilets ("Rule 34"). No matter how messed up you might think it is, somewhere... somehow... people who do it exist, and you can probably find videos of them doing it on Youtube. Does anybody really think that nobody has ever taken a child off a train in a station, turned around for a moment, and had the child run away and cause both of them to miss its departure?

Not the point. 95% of the arguments you make can be applied to cattle, eels, alligators, mice, hamsters, gerbils, bison, bicycles, boxes, refrigerators, statues and corpses. Just because you CAN do something doesn't mean you should. Why stop at cats and dogs? Why not raise revenue by transporting coffins in coach? Why put an age restriction on unaccompanied children? You can charge a sliding scale for age and make a fortune. Why not transport rats, spiders, fish and birds as long as they can fit? The auto train carries cars, motorcycles and SUVs. Should Congress pass a law ordering Amtrak to create a policy to transport jet skis, wave runners, trailers and bob tail trucks? I'm sure there is revenue potential there too.

Not all revenue is good revenue. Amtrak could take a tip from Ryanair and mull a charge for using the toilet. By your circular reasoning, any revenue lost by a horrified rider will be made up by someone that may not mind. However, who foots the bill?

There's nothing wrong with risk, but there should be risk management.Congress doesn't seem like it is willing to fund new cars at this point. If they did, I would rather see money go to accommodating passengers with bicycles. Bicycles take up a lot of space that can be utilized by passengers. So do wheelchairs and tables. Now, they want to add pets.

For all of your chit chat, you can't honestly say it is likelier for a passenger to have problems than a pet. You can search the internet and find anything. The risk is greater for someone to be allergic to an animal over a human. The risk is greater for an animal to have fleas lice and/or ticks than a human. Now, someone complains about fleas or bugs and the car is off the road for a minimum of 72 hours. That's 72 hours of lost revenue. Additionally, as I previously mentioned there aren't facilities at each turn around point. Some trains ping pong back and forth all day. The risk of a human causing problems on the train that can't be easily corrected is not as great as an animal....and transporting people is the business of Amtrak. You can argue that a passenger is someone or something that pays a fare. To that I say, you could pay a fare to transport a box of frogs and snakes. Does not mean Amtrak should for the sake of revenue?

Of course not.

Maybe Amtrak should get rid of seating and sell space. First come, first serve pick a spot, we'll charge you by the square inch and do what you want with it. That may bring in revenue and now you don;t have to worry about the cost of maintaining seats and their associated cost, luggage racks or baggage cars. Stools can be rented at your boarding station and returned when you arrive at your station. It might make money and people might like it so we should try it, right? Do you know how many employees Amtrak could cut if they went to a seatless trains? Why let the risk of failure stop this plan?

Right?

Is there any indication of how many of the other 533 of our elected representatives have any interest in advancing this nonsense? A gazillion bills are introduced in every session and sink without trace. Carrying pets aboard trains should be a commercial decision and left entirely up to Amtrak.

miamicanes wrote:More examples of drama-free rail travel with pets around the world:

Britain: http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/stations_ ... imals.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Essence: your pet has to be leashed, in a carrier, or in a private room. You have to buy a ticket for each seat your pet occupies in public coaches. In theory, rail operators could refuse... but in practice, the public backlash would be severe. The British have a long habit of traveling with their pets. For some bizarre reason, pets aren't allowed on Eurostar. Legislators in France and England have been trying to pass a law to force them to allow pets for years, but due to the way Eurostar's charter was written, neither country can unilaterally pass laws governing it... and getting the two governments to agree 100% about *anything* is nearly impossible.

France: http://www.seat61.com/dogs-by-train.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Pets allowed on all trains, including TGV.

BeNeLux, via Thalys: http://www.thalys.com/be/en/services/be ... urney#pets" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
No problem, just don't annoy other passengers. If your dog barks a lot, they reserve the right to exile him (and possibly you, if he's leashed and not in a carrier) to the baggage car, in which case you'll have to stand for the remainder of the trip.

Netherlands: http://www.nshispeed.nl/en/before-you-g ... rting-pets" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
No problem. If the train travels through Germany, pets aren't allowed in the buffet car.

Spain: http://www.renfe.com/EN/viajeros/info/animales.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
No big deal. Pets are only allowed in sleeping cars if the room is entirely yours (ie, you can't have pets in a couchette room shared with strangers).

Russia:
Generally allowed, but often consigned to second class. Travel between Russia and Finland with pets is allowed.
http://www.russiantrains.com/en/page/ab ... ets-sapsan" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.russiantrains.com/en/page/ab ... ts-allegro" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Italy: http://www.trenitalia.com/cms/v/index.j ... 16f90aRCRD" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Allowed. In sleeping cars, the room must be entirely yours.

... and so on. Anti-pet policies seem to be a uniquely American perversion.

The last I looked this isn't Russia, France, Sri Lanka, China, Italy, Uganda, Greece, Norway, Taiwan,Germany, Canada, the Falkland Islands or any other country you've mentioned and Amtrak doesn't operate in the countries you mentioned. Their policies and practices are irrelevant here.

Some countries still allow stoning. Does that make it right, here? Some countries have a lower crash worthiness standard. Does that make it right here?
if you saw someone run a red light, would you do it? If you got caught, would you say "well that car did it and nothing happened so it must be all right" to the judge?

*sigh* I'll ask again, since when someone else asked, it was ignored. Why should Amtrak have so many problems with crated, small pets as carryon, when the airlines don't? What makes Amtrak so special? At least seating isn't pre-assigned on Amtrak (yet) so if someone has a problem with the pet, they can move or be moved, while on most airlines, seating is pre-assigned and you're stuck. Even so, it's not like you can just move into the next plane to get away.

MattW wrote:*sigh* I'll ask again, since when someone else asked, it was ignored. Why should Amtrak have so many problems with crated, small pets as carryon, when the airlines don't? What makes Amtrak so special? At least seating isn't pre-assigned on Amtrak (yet) so if someone has a problem with the pet, they can move or be moved, while on most airlines, seating is pre-assigned and you're stuck. Even so, it's not like you can just move into the next plane to get away.

It was in part answered. For one thing, typically airlines fly point to point where they can clear and clean the entire cabin between a flight (even if it's a quick once over). Amtrak trains run point to point, but passengers don't. So it's a bit tougher to clean up between pets.

That said, I'm ambivalent.

I think smaller crated animals in coach may be ok. Larger animals may be ok in sleeprs.. only.

Even though I am an animal lover myself, I personally hope this bill never passes. It would just open way too much liability on Amtrak's part should something go wrong (ever hear of Murphy's Law?).

On one hand I don't think there are enough travelers who want to bring their pets along to make this bill justifiable.

On the other hand, while other countries have allowed pets on trains with no reported problems, as another poster said we Americans are in the unfortunate habit of pushing the envelope; "It's not on the list, so I'm gonna do it!"

We also happen to live in a lawsuit-happy society, so if by chance the bill does pass and Amtrak must allow pets on board, it's only a matter of time before something happens and next thing you know Amtrak is caught up in a whole bunch of litigation they simply cannot afford.

Another angle on all of this:

Across the United States, most states, counties, and cities have health laws in place that prohibit owners from bringing pets into enclosed public areas (supermarkets, restaurants, etc.) where food is sold, prepared, or consumed.

Airlines fly over these places, so terrestrial health rules presumably don't apply. However, Amtrak not only travels through these places, but also makes stops in jurisdictions where an Amfleet filled with Pit Bulls could conceivably run afoul of local "no pets" food safety restrictions.

Food vs. pets vs. passenger health wouldn't only be at issue in Amtrak's dining and lounge cars, but also in its sleepers and especially its coaches -- which, after all, partly function as "Open 24 hours" dining rooms for many (if not most) of the railroad's passengers.

So if a health official -- or a passenger who discovers dog fur in his omelet -- wanted to make a case of it. . . .

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

I don't know about Cleveland, but in South Florida, laws about pets and grocery stores/restaurants are pretty much ignored (or at least, aren't rigidly enforced for the sake of rigid enforcement). Publix (our main grocery chain) won't tell you it's "ok" to bring your dog in, and they might ask you to leave if you have a dog on a leash, but I've seen plenty of dogs and cats in carriers, backpacks, and dog/cat strollers, and I've never seen them make a big deal about it.

As far as municipalities with conflicting laws go, remember: it's well established by decades of supreme court decisions that the interstate commerce clause triumphs over everything, and railroads are pretty much the definition of "interstate commerce". I suppose we could have some municipality make a big stink someday if a 100% in-state HSR train broke down in a municipality where pitbulls are illegal, or a local cop saw one get off a train at the station to poop, but unless they could demonstrate that the individual was transporting the dog to a county where pitbulls are illegal, I doubt whether any sane prosecutor would want to get tangled up in it because it would raise too many ugly, awkward legal issues that don't necessarily have straightforward answers. One false move, and that same prosecutor could end up getting his county's whole pitbull ordinance overturned. As a practical matter, they'd be smart to just look the other way unless they had a reason to believe the pitbull was intentionally being brought into the county for any reason besides transiting through it.

I think it's also pretty well established that a restaurant's duty to serve sanitary food ends with furnishing it to you in sanitary, untainted condition in a closed container. Whatever happens past that point is your own problem. Otherwise, the same argument could be made for prohibiting room service at a hotel. It might be different if you were talking about a compartment shared between strangers, but even in other countries, you're generally required to get your own private room if you want to have pets with you.

As far as lawsuits go, it's important to separate hysteria from cold facts. Yes, there are people who are allergic to cats and dogs. And almost without exception, the extent of exposure can be summarized as "sneezing, watery eyes, and runny nose". Somebody who's genuinely so vulnerable that they could literally go into anaphylactic shock from even casual residual exposure to a cat or dog would probably have to go out in public wrapped in Tyvek and breathing through a respirator.

And if an equipment problem means they have to allow pets in a bedroom normally not used for pets, so be it. They're already going to be sending the train into the shop to fix that equipment problem. Having a cleaning lady who makes $12/hour give the room a little extra attention with a vacuum cleaner, carpet cleaner, and windex while the repair crew does whatever needs to be done to fix the other room won't really add much expense relative to the cost of taking the car out of service to do the repairs in the first place. We're talking about low-grade mild allergens here, not fsck'ing Ebola virus. Does Amtrak sterilize roomettes if it discovers they were used by somebody with a cold or flu? Or even pneumonia, MRSA, or tuberculosis for that matter? No, they don't. I'd be surprised if they even sprayed Lysol into the room after a blatantly ill passenger disembarked.

Food for thought: if the same logic most of the anti-pet people are using to question the business case for allowing pets on trains were taken to its logical next step, Amtrak would probably be shut down, and every HSR project ever made in America would be permanently dead. Is it, or is it not, defensible to launch a new service based upon guesstimated demand when no other meaningful data exists? If someone is going to argue that the business case for allowing pets on trains is "unknown", and therefore must not be allowed to happen, then what makes HSR any different?

By comparison, the cost of replacing the carpet in one bedroom and one roomette in Amtrak's 77-odd sleeping cars for cleaning ease, and making some changes to the reservation system, is almost nothing compared to the cost of building a single mile of new HSR track. Are there people who'd prefer to not get a "pet room" when they travel? Of course. Is their preference strong enough to actually make Amtrak lose the sale? I seriously doubt it. Compared to the financial risks of HSR, the financial risks of allowing pets are almost nonexistent.

EastCleveland wrote:Another angle on all of this:

Across the United States, most states, counties, and cities have health laws in place that prohibit owners from bringing pets into enclosed public areas (supermarkets, restaurants, etc.) where food is sold, prepared, or consumed.

Airlines fly over these places, so terrestrial health rules presumably don't apply. However, Amtrak not only travels through these places, but also makes stops in jurisdictions where an Amfleet filled with Pit Bulls could conceivably run afoul of local "no pets" food safety restrictions.

Food vs. pets vs. passenger health wouldn't only be at issue in Amtrak's dining and lounge cars, but also in its sleepers and especially its coaches -- which, after all, partly function as "Open 24 hours" dining rooms for many (if not most) of the railroad's passengers.

So if a health official -- or a passenger who discovers dog fur in his omelet -- wanted to make a case of it. . . .

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

Amtrak trains operate in interstate commerce and are exempt from local regulation by way of Federal preemption. Same as aircraft operating in airspace. By way of example, many state-county-municipal laws/ordinances prohibit the serving of alcoholic beverages at certain times or days such as Sunday mornings. Amtrak does not have to cease sales during these times as the train passes through those jurisdictions.

Ken W2KB wrote: Amtrak trains operate in interstate commerce and are exempt from local regulation by way of Federal preemption. Same as aircraft operating in airspace. By way of example, many state-county-municipal laws/ordinances prohibit the serving of alcoholic beverages at certain times or days such as Sunday mornings. Amtrak does not have to cease sales during these times as the train passes through those jurisdictions.

Amtrak didn't sell alcoholic beverages on the Texas Eagle on Sunday morning in Arkansas a few years ago. The 21st Amendment granted the power of alcoholic sales to the States, and Constitution always outranks Legislation, always!
On most subjects you'll be right about Federal legislation outranking State and local governments, but not with alcohol sales where the Federal government gave that away specifically.

miamicanes wrote:I don't know about Cleveland, but in South Florida, laws about pets and grocery stores/restaurants are pretty much ignored (or at least, aren't rigidly enforced for the sake of rigid enforcement). Publix (our main grocery chain) won't tell you it's "ok" to bring your dog in, and they might ask you to leave if you have a dog on a leash, but I've seen plenty of dogs and cats in carriers, backpacks, and dog/cat strollers, and I've never seen them make a big deal about it.

Which is another problem. People that try to flout the current ban will certainly push the envelope with this proposal.

miamicanes wrote: As far as municipalities with conflicting laws go, remember: it's well established by decades of supreme court decisions that the interstate commerce clause triumphs over everything, and railroads are pretty much the definition of "interstate commerce". I suppose we could have some municipality make a big stink someday if a 100% in-state HSR train broke down in a municipality where pitbulls are illegal, or a local cop saw one get off a train at the station to poop, but unless they could demonstrate that the individual was transporting the dog to a county where pitbulls are illegal, I doubt whether any sane prosecutor would want to get tangled up in it because it would raise too many ugly, awkward legal issues that don't necessarily have straightforward answers. One false move, and that same prosecutor could end up getting his county's whole pitbull ordinance overturned. As a practical matter, they'd be smart to just look the other way unless they had a reason to believe the pitbull was intentionally being brought into the county for any reason besides transiting through it.

You are entitled to your opinion. However, your opinion is devoid of fact. You are incorrect. See my response to Ken W2Kb as an example. There are others.

miamicanes wrote: As far as lawsuits go, it's important to separate hysteria from cold facts. Yes, there are people who are allergic to cats and dogs. And almost without exception, the extent of exposure can be summarized as "sneezing, watery eyes, and runny nose". Somebody who's genuinely so vulnerable that they could literally go into anaphylactic shock from even casual residual exposure to a cat or dog would probably have to go out in public wrapped in Tyvek and breathing through a respirator.

You make it sound like a mild inconvenience. Splendid. Pepper spray can cause the same amount inconvenience. Would you like it if someone sprayed it in your face? It's all subjective. What is important to you isn't important to me. Therefore, I ask why is your pet more important than people with allergies not being comfortable?

miamicanes wrote: And if an equipment problem means they have to allow pets in a bedroom normally not used for pets, so be it. They're already going to be sending the train into the shop to fix that equipment problem. Having a cleaning lady who makes $12/hour give the room a little extra attention with a vacuum cleaner, carpet cleaner, and windex while the repair crew does whatever needs to be done to fix the other room won't really add much expense relative to the cost of taking the car out of service to do the repairs in the first place. We're talking about low-grade mild allergens here, not fsck'ing Ebola virus. Does Amtrak sterilize roomettes if it discovers they were used by somebody with a cold or flu? Or even pneumonia, MRSA, or tuberculosis for that matter? No, they don't. I'd be surprised if they even sprayed Lysol into the room after a blatantly ill passenger disembarked.

How do you know? How do you know how pets impact certain people? How do you know what Amtrak does at their facilities in know cases? Please back up your statement that they don't sterilize cars after known outbreaks. Please point to your source so we may all read along. However, let's imagine you're 100% correct. Why would you really want to add another layer to it? Why increase the risk. If you're willing to believe the trains may not be properly cleaned after passengers, what makes you think it would receive a proper cleaning after the pets have been aboard?

By your own thought process, that is more than enough reason for this bill not to pass.

miamicanes wrote: Food for thought: if the same logic most of the anti-pet people are using to question the business case for allowing pets on trains were taken to its logical next step, Amtrak would probably be shut down, and every HSR project ever made in America would be permanently dead. Is it, or is it not, defensible to launch a new service based upon guesstimated demand when no other meaningful data exists? If someone is going to argue that the business case for allowing pets on trains is "unknown", and therefore must not be allowed to happen, then what makes HSR any different?

By comparison, the cost of replacing the carpet in one bedroom and one roomette in Amtrak's 77-odd sleeping cars for cleaning ease, and making some changes to the reservation system, is almost nothing compared to the cost of building a single mile of new HSR track. Are there people who'd prefer to not get a "pet room" when they travel? Of course. Is their preference strong enough to actually make Amtrak lose the sale? I seriously doubt it. Compared to the financial risks of HSR, the financial risks of allowing pets are almost nonexistent.

I would counter that many HSR projects are not assuming the risks. Additionally, if may or may not be prudent to launch a new service depending on what it is. However, as I indicated, are there better uses for limited funds? Are there other projects that have less risks that would also benefit the for the monies spent on this (such as a bike space?) My answer is yes.

Ken W2KB wrote: Amtrak trains operate in interstate commerce and are exempt from local regulation by way of Federal preemption. Same as aircraft operating in airspace. By way of example, many state-county-municipal laws/ordinances prohibit the serving of alcoholic beverages at certain times or days such as Sunday mornings. Amtrak does not have to cease sales during these times as the train passes through those jurisdictions.

Everything you stated other than Amtrak is incorrect. We've covered this before.

From Chapter 7 of the FOIA acquired Service Standards Manual for TS and OBS Employees Thread, I quote:

• The sale of alcohol is determined by the state
or region through which the train is traveling.
• Amtrak must be in compliance with the laws
of the state where the train is located or
operating through. (Refer to Figure 7-7)

Figure 7-7 has every restriction by state in a nice chart. Most OBS employees know this off the top of their heads. The current manual indicates nothing has changed. I see South Carolina is still holding on to their ban of alcohol sales on days of statewide elections.

ThirdRail7 wrote:

miamicanes wrote:I don't know about Cleveland, but in South Florida, laws about pets and grocery stores/restaurants are pretty much ignored (or at least, aren't rigidly enforced for the sake of rigid enforcement). Publix (our main grocery chain) won't tell you it's "ok" to bring your dog in, and they might ask you to leave if you have a dog on a leash, but I've seen plenty of dogs and cats in carriers, backpacks, and dog/cat strollers, and I've never seen them make a big deal about it.

Which is another problem. People that try to flout the current ban will certainly push the envelope with this proposal.

miamicanes wrote: As far as municipalities with conflicting laws go, remember: it's well established by decades of supreme court decisions that the interstate commerce clause triumphs over everything, and railroads are pretty much the definition of "interstate commerce". I suppose we could have some municipality make a big stink someday if a 100% in-state HSR train broke down in a municipality where pitbulls are illegal, or a local cop saw one get off a train at the station to poop, but unless they could demonstrate that the individual was transporting the dog to a county where pitbulls are illegal, I doubt whether any sane prosecutor would want to get tangled up in it because it would raise too many ugly, awkward legal issues that don't necessarily have straightforward answers. One false move, and that same prosecutor could end up getting his county's whole pitbull ordinance overturned. As a practical matter, they'd be smart to just look the other way unless they had a reason to believe the pitbull was intentionally being brought into the county for any reason besides transiting through it.

You are entitled to your opinion. However, your opinion is devoid of fact. You are incorrect. See my response to Ken W2Kb as an example. There are others.

miamicanes wrote: As far as lawsuits go, it's important to separate hysteria from cold facts. Yes, there are people who are allergic to cats and dogs. And almost without exception, the extent of exposure can be summarized as "sneezing, watery eyes, and runny nose". Somebody who's genuinely so vulnerable that they could literally go into anaphylactic shock from even casual residual exposure to a cat or dog would probably have to go out in public wrapped in Tyvek and breathing through a respirator.

You make it sound like a mild inconvenience. Splendid. Pepper spray can cause the same amount inconvenience. Would you like it if someone sprayed it in your face? It's all subjective. What is important to you isn't important to me. Therefore, I ask why is your pet more important than people with allergies not being comfortable?

miamicanes wrote: And if an equipment problem means they have to allow pets in a bedroom normally not used for pets, so be it. They're already going to be sending the train into the shop to fix that equipment problem. Having a cleaning lady who makes $12/hour give the room a little extra attention with a vacuum cleaner, carpet cleaner, and windex while the repair crew does whatever needs to be done to fix the other room won't really add much expense relative to the cost of taking the car out of service to do the repairs in the first place. We're talking about low-grade mild allergens here, not fsck'ing Ebola virus. Does Amtrak sterilize roomettes if it discovers they were used by somebody with a cold or flu? Or even pneumonia, MRSA, or tuberculosis for that matter? No, they don't. I'd be surprised if they even sprayed Lysol into the room after a blatantly ill passenger disembarked.

How do you know? How do you know how pets impact certain people? How do you know what Amtrak does at their facilities in know cases? Please back up your statement that they don't sterilize cars after known outbreaks. Please point to your source so we may all read along. However, let's imagine you're 100% correct. Why would you really want to add another layer to it? Why increase the risk. If you're willing to believe the trains may not be properly cleaned after passengers, what makes you think it would receive a proper cleaning after the pets have been aboard?

By your own thought process, that is more than enough reason for this bill not to pass.

miamicanes wrote: Food for thought: if the same logic most of the anti-pet people are using to question the business case for allowing pets on trains were taken to its logical next step, Amtrak would probably be shut down, and every HSR project ever made in America would be permanently dead. Is it, or is it not, defensible to launch a new service based upon guesstimated demand when no other meaningful data exists? If someone is going to argue that the business case for allowing pets on trains is "unknown", and therefore must not be allowed to happen, then what makes HSR any different?

By comparison, the cost of replacing the carpet in one bedroom and one roomette in Amtrak's 77-odd sleeping cars for cleaning ease, and making some changes to the reservation system, is almost nothing compared to the cost of building a single mile of new HSR track. Are there people who'd prefer to not get a "pet room" when they travel? Of course. Is their preference strong enough to actually make Amtrak lose the sale? I seriously doubt it. Compared to the financial risks of HSR, the financial risks of allowing pets are almost nonexistent.

I would counter that many HSR projects are not assuming the risks. Additionally, if may or may not be prudent to launch a new service depending on what it is. However, as I indicated, are there better uses for limited funds? Are there other projects that have less risks that would also benefit the for the monies spent on this (such as a bike space?) My answer is yes.

Ken W2KB wrote: Amtrak trains operate in interstate commerce and are exempt from local regulation by way of Federal preemption. Same as aircraft operating in airspace. By way of example, many state-county-municipal laws/ordinances prohibit the serving of alcoholic beverages at certain times or days such as Sunday mornings. Amtrak does not have to cease sales during these times as the train passes through those jurisdictions.

Everything you stated other than Amtrak is incorrect. We've covered this before.

From Chapter 7 of the FOIA acquired Service Standards Manual for TS and OBS Employees Thread, I quote:

• The sale of alcohol is determined by the state
or region through which the train is traveling.
• Amtrak must be in compliance with the laws
of the state where the train is located or
operating through. (Refer to Figure 7-7)

Figure 7-7 has every restriction by state in a nice chart. Most OBS employees know this off the top of their heads. The current manual indicates nothing has changed. I see South Carolina is still holding on to their ban of alcohol sales on days of statewide elections.

In all seriousness, as someone who has training & experience in handling most domestic animals, and have done so for nearly two decades, I can say that trains are no place for pets. Unless you're using a train to evacuate there is no reason at all to bring any pets on any train trip. If you're moving across country, send your dogs via air cargo, birds, best to sell them as they DO NOT handle any type of travel well, same for fish & exotics. Just leave them home where they are safe and feel safe and not a burden to you or a bother to anyone else.