AMTRAK

[edblysard]

Kay Bailey Hutchinson will keep it alive, if only barely. She understands that putting all your eggs in one basket, (airlines) isnt a good idea. She has pushed for light rail here in Texas, and has good backing. But unless the public makes its wishes known, nothing will improve. And you can bank on that..
Stay frosty,
Ed

[Anonymous]

It is frustrating when just one cent on the gasoline tax both federal and state could raise enough money to build 20,000 miles of high speed rail across the nation witin 10 years, notice not my little plan of 4,000 miles. Yet, in the past week or so the price of gasoline has gone up more than 10 cents. It is so much a trifle, but.......no dreams, no vision, and no results.....

[Modelcar]

...I don't think subsidizing the N E C only will fly and none of us should stand for it...If we all have to pay, we should all have the service as well.

QM

[edblysard]

Heck, I'd pay a 2cent tax. And your right. Plus, even if it all goes wrong later, the track and right of way could be sold to the freight roads...
Ed

[Supermicha]

I can´t understand why the americans are worry about the "high" gasoline prices. Here in germany, a liter of car gas (prox. 0.26 gallons) costs 1.12 Eures today, that are nearly 1.10 US-Dollars! For one Liter! A gallon would cost nearly 4 dollars. And over 50% of this price are taxes, the so called, "ecologic tax." This money should be used for helping the public transport, but its really used for the payment of the government members. they get 5000 dollars ore more per months for doing nothing, thats not fair.

Micha

[Anonymous]

I agree wholeheartedly. Remember when Amtrak cut the transcontinentals to three or four times a week instead of daily? It seems that more than half of traffic going to Chicago from the west continued on trains eastward. So on days these trains didn't arrive, the eastward trains were not so full.... This is a problem because when you cut routes and frequencies, you lose even more business....

Nevertheless, I am for cutting these trains despite the losses. Amtrak should sell itself for the future, which is high speed trains, and concentrate with all of their hearts on this. The only slow trains I support are the trains that will be replaced by high speed trains. As for the beauty of the Rockies, people can ride the Colorado ski train out of Denver.

[edblysard]

Hi Micha,
But for us here, its is high. Automobiles are as much a part of american life as hot dogs and apple pie. Our whole society is designed around individule mobility. We produce and use millions of automobiles a year, where in your nation, owning a car is somewhat of a luxury, here it is almost as a necessity. Our cities, and our way of life are designed around cars. And I agree, the money should be put back into public transportation.
Ed

[Modelcar]

For now the question is are we going to have anything left to work with for the future of Passenger rail....I see the Senate has yielded the 1.2 Bil and now the House wants to provide 700 some Mil so will they step up to the plate and provide what's needed or kill the whole thing....Gunn says he'll start shutting it down if he doesn't have the operating funds to properly run it....

QM

[Anonymous]

I do not have any doubts whether Congress (House) will fund Amtrak's northeast corridor (Acela) and contracted commuter trains. However, the House is not as clued in as the Senate about the rest of Amtrak's routes.

Some members in the House cannot fathom that the northeast corridor and the contracted commuter lines are at risk. Yet, as far as the Senate is concerned, if not in my state then nowhere.

[Modelcar]

...If we don't fund the complete system...It is not fair to taxpayers to simply run the system on the N E C, etc...the route that many politicians use. All or not any of it. The House needs to get off their duff and match the Senate.

QM

[Anonymous]

I agree with you up to a point. Nevertheless I do see a need to trim some fat, especially in parts of the West where there isn't enough population to support a profit.

I am of the opinion that high speed trains (150-190 mph) will work well along the east coast, to the midwest, down to Texas, and in California. Possibly even earning a profit at least operationally.

I could see a line in the future to the Denver area east of the Rockies, but I do not see in my crystal ball high speed lines thru the mountain passes. I have ridden the California Zephyr, there are 37 tunnels west of Denver.

The trains Amtrak operates out west, except for California, are all big money losers, and always will be. As long as the states of Washington and Oregon support the Cascades trains, I would keep them in operation. The Empire Builder, California Zephyr, Southwest Chief, and even the Sunset Limited west of San Antonio as far as I am concerned can be eliminated.

All of these trainsets would be better used offering more frequency for the Texas Eagle, City of New Orleans, the Capitol Limited, the Cardinal, and the Sunset Limited east of San Antonio. I have done a state study of population which showed that almost 240 million of America's 280 million live in the states that Amtrak should operate in and with more frequency....

As I stated before Amtrak should eliminate the transcontinentals and should concentrate on building high speed rail east of Rockies to cities of at least 5 million in metropolitan population.

For example these cities should be linked by high speed rail first, that is over 5 million in metropolitan population:
Boston, New York City, Toronto, Philadelphia, Washington-Baltimore, Atlanta, Orlando, Tampa-St.Pete, Miami, Houston, Dallas, Kansas City, St Louis, Chicago, Detroit, and Cleveland. Not to mention San Francisco Bay Area and Los Angeles.

Then we should connect to the cities with a metropolian area of more than 2 million:
Minneapolis-St. Paul, Denver, Austin, San Antonio, New Orleans, Pittsburgh, Buffalo, Seattle, Portland, Sacramento, San Diego, and Phoenix. Some would place the Piedmont area of North Carolina into the mix.

After we have accomplished this, we would have a very good high speed rail system. A lot of cities too many to list would be included just by being along the routes connecting to these large metropolitan areas.

The total population along the routes of cities more than 200,000 (there are 97 of these) add up to 180 million. There are a lot of cities smaller than 200,000 (there are hundreds and thousands) along these routes or within 50 miles of these routes. It will be less than the state level 240 million but much higher than the city level of 180 million, My guess is around 220 million.....linked by high speed rail.

Distance, less than 8,000 miles @ 15 million per mile (Florida's numbers)=$120 billion....

[Modelcar]

...I agree there is no way high speed rail can be built to cross the Rockies....unless money would be spent that would have so many 0's no one could count them. Spending for "normal" routes across the western mountains would produce High Speed Rail that would no longer be H S R.

QM

[Anonymous]

Actually, I did not read the article that you mentioned. I just used experience and knowledge to come to those conclusions. In college I did a thesis on railroad accounting. That was done before Amtrack started running the trains. There is a lot material on this subject that needs to be mentioned. Love to talk about it with you and others but unless congress gets something out of it, no improvement(s) will be made. The rail carriers need to benefit too or they will not co operate.

[Anonymous]

In this country commuter trains lose even more money than long distance trains because of the the dead time. Crews get paid 8 hours for two hours work, etc. Plus they are still are run on freight carriers tracks,except in corrdier or on lines owned by the states. Commuter trains get the volume but need to run all the time, which they do not. On rapid transits the volume is there but the costs of the infrastucture is so great. It is like a public highway.

[Anonymous]

I disagree. They do not need to discontinue the transcontinentals. They need more of them, as a matter of fact. I ride the train often and to mee it is a conveniece. IT just needs to be looked at as a public service. All local systems are looked at that way. Any system that carries people on a scheduled basis will lose money. The airlines now are losing money because their profit margins are really lean and even freight is not enough to subsidize the loss.

[edbenton]

No one cares that after 9/11 last year Amtrak came thru in a huge way when the airlines were shut down I remember seeing trains running with every car they could scrape up to meet demand and yet when it came time to belly up to the bar to pay to improve serivce Congress gave 15 bilion in ca***o the airlines and then not one penny to the airlines yet now tthe airlines are saying they need more federal money to survive at least the big carriers. We need to provide a dedicated source of funding to Amtrak so it can improve service and capacity and also set up a dedicate dtrust fund for railroad infastructure improvments but the big freight railroads are against it because they are afaird they would be forced to give up control over decison making yet if there is another major war in the world agin the railroads do not have the capacity to haul all the heavy equitment needed to the ports to be shipped out it would be 1917 all over again. a .5 cent tax on gasoline would provide the money needed for all improvements needed while being fair to all partys involved

[Anonymous]

I also support using the federal funds the government spends on highways and airports for three to four years be used to build a modern high speed rail network instead, Delaying roads and airport projects would be of little loss to the public in the long run, while gaining a high speed rail network the envy of the world would be a great asset. This would raise the necessary $120 billion needed to build such a network QUICKLY, without increasing taxes. It is only a matter of priority, and in this case, high speed rail getting all of the funds for three to four years.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard

You'd never get support to nationalize the freight roads, the stockholders in most class 1s are at last getting a profit from their investment. The railroads themselves would form such a lobby group as you have never seen before. And I doubt very seriously the goverment could affored to buy all the tracks in the first place. While roadways, streets and the interstate system do need maintainance, you would not belive the amount needed for a railroad track. Just keeping all the switches greased would require a small army. But making a nationalized passanger system out of amtrak make sense, and paying freight roads a flat fee for every usage of their tracks, along with some incentive to expedite amtrak trains across their system would work. Heck, we taxpayers have subsidised airlines with free property for airports, no taxes on said land, financial aid/bailouts for years, and outside the rail industry, no one seems to balk. The cost of the land for a airport must far exceed any depot built, and when it wants to, the goverment can sell almost anything to the public. We sure didnt seem to care when the feds handed billions over to the airlines after 9/11, why should we mind the goverment paying for and running our passanger trains? And with the goverment running it, the cost to the rider would at some point come down, if only to make sure there were enought passengers to justify the trains in the first place. Trust me on this, the one thing goverment employees are really really good at is keeping and protecting their jobs.
Ed

Ed
I agree with so many of your comments, not just in this forum but also in the other forums where you have posted. You have shown wisdom and understanding.

Would you run for president please. We need your common sense approach in Washington (and I am sure Amtrak would get better funding).

Look at it this way You certainly couldn't do any worse or screw things up any more than they are now.

The American people need someone like you to fix our broken country. I vote for ED for President.

[edblysard]

Wow...
President, huh?
Not so sure I want the job.
Heres an additional thought about nationalizing Amtrak.
Ever here of the Army, Navy, Air Force or Marines going broke?
Outside of the Pentagon, do most Americans really care how much money any of the armed forces spend, so long as when they are needed, they are there, and do what we paid for?
So efficent have they become we no longer fight wars, so much as selectivly destroy our enemy.
Imagine such a orginazation running your passenger trains?
You bet the trains would be on time!

If it was run as a public service, so much more could be done.
Sold to the public, in the correct manner, as a public service, or even under the umbrella of Home Land security, local and long distance trains could be up and running within the next two years.

Here in Houston, we are building a light commuter rail system, currently from southwest Houston to the Medical Center, just outside of downtown, with a few tracks within the downtown area connecting to the main rail.
We applied for, but didnt recieve federal funds, or as much federal money as wanted.
The end result was that Metro, Metroploitan Transit Authority, used banked cash and a local bond issue to finance most of the project.
The current issue of Trains magazine has a short blurb on the delivery of one of our light rail cars.
But heres the part never mentioned.
The citizens in Harris county voted for the rail system, it wasnt some politicans pet project.
It was sold to the people here as a way to lessen auto traffic congestion, and it will.
We willingly are paying for it out of our own pockets.

Dont let anyone fool you into thinking the general populace dosnt want commuter rail, or passenger trains.
Look at DART, Dallas Area Rapid Transit, or San Francisco's Bart, Bay Area Rapid Transit, both make money, both are expanding, both compete with freeways and remove thousands of cars from the local freeways.

For that matter, take a look at the Trans Texas plan, go to TDOT's web site, Texas Department of Transportation, and check out the huge project they have planned.
The funding has already started.
Now, if a state as tight fisted as Texas can come up with this grand a plan, and actually start the funding process, imagine what the Federal goverment could do, if it was so inclined.

Do railroads make money?

You bet, and they hire the talent to make sure no one but the CEO and the majority stockholders know how much.
If Enron had hired railroad accountants, Ken Lay could have bought ten more manisons, and no one would have ever known or cared.
In fact, outside of Houston and the enegry market, most Americans would have never heard of Enron, even with the new ballpark!

Want Amtrak funded properly?

Close the Northeast corridor for one 24 hour period.
When you reopen it the following day, hand every person boarding the trains a pamplet that says,"If you dont want this to happen more often, tell your congressman to fund Amtrak properly"
My bet is that Gunn would choke on the ca***he next year.

You want to go one better?

Make it a federal project, just like Interstate system is.
Ever see it not being worked on, or improved?
Besides the people stuck in traffic at any of the thousands of improvement sites, ever hear of anyone complaining about how much it cost?
Of course not!
For most of us, the interstate system has allways been there, we expect it to be there, and have never really know anything else.
But we pay for it, every day in fuel taxes, and I have yet to hear a real complaint about it.
Why?
Because we use it every day, with out so much as a second thought of where it came from, who paid for it, or even why it was built in the first place.
Know of anyone who really dosnt want it to exsist?
I dont.
So put passenger trains on the same field and in the same status as the interstate system, then get out of the way.
Heres betting if that happens, the French TGV will look like a go cart racing a
F 16.
Stay Frosty,
Prez Ed?
Nah! It just dont have the right ring to it![:D]

[Anonymous]

Prez Ed?
Nah! It just dont have the right ring to it!



Why not start with the governorship of Texas and work up to prez?

Stay Safe, and Look, Listen, and LIVE

Don't Forget the Troops

[edblysard]

Well, I did work for the Office of the Attorney General, State of Texas, for six years before I went railroading.
And every one of the Generals has run for Governer.
Several made it, so who knows, my wife still works there, she just may be the third female Governor in Texas history.
Stay Frosty,
Ed[8D]

[Anonymous]

Back to the Future

Back in the 70's the Dept of Transportation attempted to keep all the NASA employs that were then being laid off and the air craft industry that was in a world of hurt after the SST was canceled properly occupied until they retired or new defense contracts were issued by entering into a big high speed transportation research program which gave rise to the Transportation Technology Center near Purblo Colo. That was kind of interesting in that one wondered a little about how serious the goverment was when one saw a RS1 switching the Linear Induction Motor test vehicles but over about ten years DOT spent millions and got two high speed programs approved for inter city validation projects. That was as far as it went. The cost of aquiring land and building the infrastructure was 9 significat figures .Something like 1500 miles of LIM track would cost 100 billion dollars to aquire land for and to build. On top of that the systems had to exist out in the toolies so that they and the public would not interact improperly . The NIMBY movement wouldn't let them widen the existing interstates so the polititans gave up and decided that what ever inter city passenger rail systems that were created would have to live on freight railroad tracks. Another point was that the Japanese bullett trains which have arround two hundred miles of right of way costs about 10 billion a year to maintain. You would never be able to run fast between major US cities in that part of the track would always be slow ordered for maintanance. With the observation that the air line industry in the US is in a world of hurt , that the NIMBYs have attacked them too , and that we have grid lock in most major cities we need an integrated system of public funded ground transportation much like METRA in Chicago but larger in scope. I don'tthink that anyone would have built the interstate high\way system if they had even a slight thought of what it would cost to own. Rail based systems operating at moderate speeds don't cost anywhere as much to own and can carry five times the passenger density of an interstate on one third of the realestate. We just need to send some one with a good box of Crayons to Washington to explain that to John McCain.

[oltmannd]

Passenger rail doesn't need Bullet train speed - 110 mph max would get you good bang for the buck and give 60-80 mph avg speeds on most routes. Flying and driving continue to get slower as congestion outpaces new construction and airport hassles continue to increase. Where I live, it's a 45 minute drive to the airport, but you never can be sure of the traffic. It can take close to two hours to get ticketed, check baggage, clear security and get to your gate. So, I have to leave 3 to 3-1/2 hours before the flight in order to be sure to make it (very important in this day of non-refundable tickets). The airport is in the other direction from my usual destination, so those 3-1/2 hours would get me a long way toward my destination before the plane even took off. Assuming I needed to leave a 1/2 hour to get to a suburban stop for an intercity train, 3 hours at 80 mph would get me 240 miles out. Add in an hour's flight time, and the break even point moves to 320 miles. Adding in the train's comfort factor, I'll bet the competitive radius increase to 500 miles or so.

If you take Texas, Florida, New York, Atlanta and Chicago as starting points and play "connect the dots" with major population centers within 500 miles of each, you get a pretty good, European-like network. Those southeast states aren't the sleepy rural states they used to be in 1971. Once established, the heavy-duty links in the network might support upgrading to TGV/ICE/Acela speeds.

Don't discount the freight market of upgrading existing routes to 110 passenger speeds. 90 mph intermodal would finally be able to compete with and beat sleeper cab team driving. This is very high revenue freight. You might even see a new niche market spring up for next-day truck load freight on distances greater than 500 miles.

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jgoose1

Back to the Future
I don'tthink that anyone would have built the interstate high\way system if they had even a slight thought of what it would cost to own. Rail based systems operating at moderate speeds don't cost anywhere as much to own and can carry five times the passenger density of an interstate on one third of the realestate. We just need to send some one with a good box of Crayons to Washington to explain that to John McCain.

Good point about the interstates! Before DDE and the "defense" highway system, there was a fledgling turnpike system being built by the states. You could go all the way from NY to Chicago on tolls roads (still can). I have found that the turnpikes are generally better maintained, plowed and salted than the "free" interstates. I wonder what would have occurred if DDE had just left things to the states. (not that the turnpikes truly pay their own way.... They don't pay property tax on the ROW, for example.)

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by motorman10

I disagree. They do not need to discontinue the transcontinentals. They need more of them, as a matter of fact. I ride the train often and to mee it is a conveniece. IT just needs to be looked at as a public service. All local systems are looked at that way. Any system that carries people on a scheduled basis will lose money. The airlines now are losing money because their profit margins are really lean and even freight is not enough to subsidize the loss.

Or, you can look at some of the cost of the trans-cons as a "subsidy" to the small towns they serve. The Feds have a program to subsidize air travel to small towns that "need" it. With the rail or air subsidies, these towns would wither. Is this in the nat'l interest? I suspect so.

The Bush admin may be onto something when they say they want to states to pick up more of the cost of the trans-cons. The problem is, it is difficult to piece together a route from only those states that want to participate. If ND opts out, then will Minn and Mont. subsidize ND in order to keep the 'builder running? What might work, have Amtrak pay the full cost of operating the train, but have the communities own and operate their own stations. Provision for training and "certifying" employees and facilities would have to be put in place, but it puts some of the burden where it belongs. You want a train, you gotta provide the facilities and personnel.

[RudyRockvilleMD]

[Anonymous]

I have written my congressman, a Mr. Henry Hyde Rep., many times on the fate of Amtrak and the answers I get from his office does not lead me to believe that congress will do anything to save the system. After all, don't they have better things to do with the taxpayers money like paying for a bad war that is getting our young people killed every day? Or how about sending big bucks to foreign addresses without asking the U.S. taxpayer if that is what they want done with our money. Everybody with an interest in keeping rail travel should write their congressmen and senators and keep the pressure on. Stay well.
Pop

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by RudyRockvilleMD


The plan proposed by President Bush is too much like the privitization scheme for the British railroads. The problem with leaving the staffing of the stations to the states is many stations are only stops such as Harpers Ferry, WV and Benson, AZ. So it is difficult to see how having the states pick up the staffing of the lineside stations would help Amtrak financially

Agreed that the British model is stupid and the Bush Plan is too close to the British plan to work.

I was thinking more along the lines of having the small towns and cities own and staff their own stations. (Sort of how the cities own the airports) This way individual communties get to determine the level of service and amenities while releiving Amtrak of the burden. Amtrak would just set minimum standards and provide training.

[kenneo]

QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard

But making a nationalized passanger system out of amtrak make sense, and paying freight roads a flat fee for every usage of their tracks, along with some incentive to expedite amtrak trains across their system would work. Ed

That's how it was done at first. In fact, if you slowed down an Amtrak train, you could find yourself looking for a job. The incentive was that good. The Coast Starlight had a 99%+ ontime record until Congress made Amtrak stop giving incentives. And them days, on time was ON TIME, not within a 15 minute grace period.

[oltmannd]

Congress didn't make Amtrak stop giving incentives. NS still gets incentive payments. What did happen, is the original deal expired at the end of 25 years (1996, or was it 20 years?) and each RR did their own deal with Amtrak. Apparently SP and/or UP didn't go for much in the way of incentives....