passenger trains

[CG9602]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TARGUBRIGHT

Just how much more money does Amtrac need??? After 30 years of Goverment funding they should at least be able to provide desent service on the trains they are currently running!!! Lets not forget the price of those tickets, It costs less to fly from Chicago to Denver than to take a train. My question is, what did they do with all the money that was given them already????
TIM A

QUOTE:
It doesn't take a ROCKET sciencist to see why you can drive and fly cheaper than AMTRAK.
1. Air Traffic Controllers are paid by the FEDS.
2.Airports are heavily subsidized by local communities and the FEDS.
3.HIGHWAYS are buillt and maintained by the TAXPAYERS.
Pay for some of the cost of right of way for the rails, dispatchers and other infrastructure and see what kind of rail transportation you can get. - Tom

Amtrak has recieved less in 32 years than the roads get in one year. Check the DOT statistics. $33 billion to the US highways in the last year alone. Amtrak got less than $1 billion, and has never had the funding to get the service in a state of good repair. No wonder you had such a bad experience. Amtrak has never had, and has been denied, the funding to provide good service. DonClark needs to re-post his comments from the other post here. he has brought up some very good points as to why AMTRAK is the way it is now. Also, could TARGUBRIGHT provide some specifics as to what happened to turn him off from passenger trains? Was TARGUBRIGHT expecting a cruise?

Amtrak is just a service provider, not the same as a full railroad.

[CG9602]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TARGUBRIGHT

Just how much more money does Amtrac need??? After 30 years of Goverment funding they should at least be able to provide desent service on the trains they are currently running!!! Lets not forget the price of those tickets, It costs less to fly from Chicago to Denver than to take a train. My question is, what did they do with all the money that was given them already????
TIM A

QUOTE:
It doesn't take a ROCKET sciencist to see why you can drive and fly cheaper than AMTRAK.
1. Air Traffic Controllers are paid by the FEDS.
2.Airports are heavily subsidized by local communities and the FEDS.
3.HIGHWAYS are buillt and maintained by the TAXPAYERS.
Pay for some of the cost of right of way for the rails, dispatchers and other infrastructure and see what kind of rail transportation you can get. - Tom

Amtrak has recieved less in 32 years than the roads get in one year. Check the DOT statistics. $33 billion to the US highways in the last year alone. Amtrak got less than $1 billion, and has never had the funding to get the service in a state of good repair. No wonder you had such a bad experience. Amtrak has never had, and has been denied, the funding to provide good service. DonClark needs to re-post his comments from the other post here. he has brought up some very good points as to why AMTRAK is the way it is now. Also, could TARGUBRIGHT provide some specifics as to what happened to turn him off from passenger trains? Was TARGUBRIGHT expecting a cruise?

Amtrak is just a service provider, not the same as a full railroad.

[Anonymous]

On my homepage everyone can see I have ridden Amtrak often lately during my vacations. My first ride was to Chicago, the end of track of the Texas Eagle. My second ride was to Los Angeles, the other end of track of the Texas Eagle/Sunset Limited. My third trip was a loop around the west going clockwise, riding the Coast Starlight and the Empire Builder. My fourth trip was a loop around the east going clockwise, riding the Three Rivers and Silver Meteor. My fifth trip I rode the California Zephyr. My sixth trip I rode the Capitol Limited. My seventh trip I rode the Southwest Chief and the Surfliner. Finally, my last trip I rode the Lake Shore Limited and Acela. I have seen by train every state west of the Mississippi River except South Dakota and Wyoming. I have flown to Hawaii before, and would love to take an Alaskan cruise. I have seen by train every state east of the Mississippi River except for Michigan, the New England states, Kentucky, and Tennessee. I have driven thru Tennessee and Kentucky before, and have ridden the Heartland Flyer to Oklahoma City. In fact, Amtrak has taken me to more states in the last few years than I have seen by driving.

Even my boss has become interested in a train ride. I showed him Amrak's web site, and showed him some fares to several different cities. His last plane trip wasn't a nice experience, sitting next to a person who should have purchased two seats. I think I have him convinced to go with a sleeper.....

[Anonymous]

On my homepage everyone can see I have ridden Amtrak often lately during my vacations. My first ride was to Chicago, the end of track of the Texas Eagle. My second ride was to Los Angeles, the other end of track of the Texas Eagle/Sunset Limited. My third trip was a loop around the west going clockwise, riding the Coast Starlight and the Empire Builder. My fourth trip was a loop around the east going clockwise, riding the Three Rivers and Silver Meteor. My fifth trip I rode the California Zephyr. My sixth trip I rode the Capitol Limited. My seventh trip I rode the Southwest Chief and the Surfliner. Finally, my last trip I rode the Lake Shore Limited and Acela. I have seen by train every state west of the Mississippi River except South Dakota and Wyoming. I have flown to Hawaii before, and would love to take an Alaskan cruise. I have seen by train every state east of the Mississippi River except for Michigan, the New England states, Kentucky, and Tennessee. I have driven thru Tennessee and Kentucky before, and have ridden the Heartland Flyer to Oklahoma City. In fact, Amtrak has taken me to more states in the last few years than I have seen by driving.

Even my boss has become interested in a train ride. I showed him Amrak's web site, and showed him some fares to several different cities. His last plane trip wasn't a nice experience, sitting next to a person who should have purchased two seats. I think I have him convinced to go with a sleeper.....

[Anonymous]

I have travelled all over the US and Canada by auto, planes and trains. If I am travelling from Seattle to New York, I will take a plane but if I travel to San Francisco, I take Amtrak. I have driven that route many times and will never do it again.
Each mode of transport has its place, each can do a good job if given the opportunity. All forms of transportation are heavily subsidized, most of the subsidies are hidden while Amtrak is not. Take a close look at your real estate tax and see how much goes to subsidize the local airport. How many millions of $ has the govt. given the airline in the past couple of years? I should say billions. The same goes for freight carriers. For instance, barge lines on the Columbia River pay only 11% of the out of pocket expense that it costs the Corp of Engineers to provide their free r.o.w. provide locks at the dams etc. This is from a report from the US Govt. If the automobile paid its own way, fuel taxes would be $4.50 per gallon. this if from another study I read a few years ago.
Passenger trains perform several functions, 1- commuter trains, 2- Short (local) trains under 200 miles. and 3- Long distance cruise trains. Each needs to be tailored to their potential customer base. I believe that headway is being made in #1 and #2 but we shall see if the long distance trains will be improved anytime soon.

[Anonymous]

I have travelled all over the US and Canada by auto, planes and trains. If I am travelling from Seattle to New York, I will take a plane but if I travel to San Francisco, I take Amtrak. I have driven that route many times and will never do it again.
Each mode of transport has its place, each can do a good job if given the opportunity. All forms of transportation are heavily subsidized, most of the subsidies are hidden while Amtrak is not. Take a close look at your real estate tax and see how much goes to subsidize the local airport. How many millions of $ has the govt. given the airline in the past couple of years? I should say billions. The same goes for freight carriers. For instance, barge lines on the Columbia River pay only 11% of the out of pocket expense that it costs the Corp of Engineers to provide their free r.o.w. provide locks at the dams etc. This is from a report from the US Govt. If the automobile paid its own way, fuel taxes would be $4.50 per gallon. this if from another study I read a few years ago.
Passenger trains perform several functions, 1- commuter trains, 2- Short (local) trains under 200 miles. and 3- Long distance cruise trains. Each needs to be tailored to their potential customer base. I believe that headway is being made in #1 and #2 but we shall see if the long distance trains will be improved anytime soon.

[Anonymous]

Passenger trains seldom if ever make money. If the buerueocrats in DC decide who and how to pay for them, there will be plenty of trains for everybody to ride. But how much will it cost and who exactly gets the bill?

[Anonymous]

Passenger trains seldom if ever make money. If the buerueocrats in DC decide who and how to pay for them, there will be plenty of trains for everybody to ride. But how much will it cost and who exactly gets the bill?

[jchnhtfd]

The economics of transportation of people is hideously complex, and much of the discussion (above, elsewhere, and previously in many places -- not to mention Congress or Parliament, various State/Provincial legislatures, and City governments) revolves around what are fundamentally economic questions: who pays, and how much, and for what.
While I have no desire to get into vast and terrible detail, it is exceedingly important for clarity in discussion to remember that both air and private car (highway) modes of transportation are very heavily subsidised by the government. Airports, terminals (and the highways to them), and the air traffice control and navigation systems are almost entirely government funded, and on the ground side, the highway system is entirely government funded. Further, on the ground side, very few people actually know how much it costs them to drive a given distance (they usually just figure gas, if they figure at all).
On the other hand, passenger rail service (including commuter) is subsidised only grudgingly, if at all. It does make a difference, really it does. If the airlines had to pay the all up cost of air transportation, ticket prices would be about four to ten times what they are now.
If a country or region wants passenger rail, it is necessary that there be a government subisdy. If they don't, that is a political decision.
As someone said above, at least Amtrak has a president now who says it like it is...

[jchnhtfd]

The economics of transportation of people is hideously complex, and much of the discussion (above, elsewhere, and previously in many places -- not to mention Congress or Parliament, various State/Provincial legislatures, and City governments) revolves around what are fundamentally economic questions: who pays, and how much, and for what.
While I have no desire to get into vast and terrible detail, it is exceedingly important for clarity in discussion to remember that both air and private car (highway) modes of transportation are very heavily subsidised by the government. Airports, terminals (and the highways to them), and the air traffice control and navigation systems are almost entirely government funded, and on the ground side, the highway system is entirely government funded. Further, on the ground side, very few people actually know how much it costs them to drive a given distance (they usually just figure gas, if they figure at all).
On the other hand, passenger rail service (including commuter) is subsidised only grudgingly, if at all. It does make a difference, really it does. If the airlines had to pay the all up cost of air transportation, ticket prices would be about four to ten times what they are now.
If a country or region wants passenger rail, it is necessary that there be a government subisdy. If they don't, that is a political decision.
As someone said above, at least Amtrak has a president now who says it like it is...

[Anonymous]

The people don't know how much everything costs. They haven't a clue how much a rural interstate highway costs. They haven't a clue how much an urban freeway costs. They haven't a clue how much an adequate freight/commuter railroad line costs supporting speed of 79 mph, They haven't a clue how much high speed rail will costs supporting speeds of either 120 mph, 150 mph, or 186 mph. They haven't a clue how much light rail costs supporting speed of 79 mph. They haven't a clue how much a monorail costs supporting speed of 79 mph. The public is misinformed. It is our job to inform them.

Yes, costs vary somewhat. I have had a devil of a time getting firm numbers, as anyone on this web site will confirm, I am all over the place. But I have been able to conclude with the numbers I have confirmed that railroad tracks are cheaper than an interstate highway, whether high speed, light rail, commuter, or freight. What varies the costs is the location of the right of way, whether urban or rural. What varies the costs is the number of overpasses, underpasses, bridges, and tunnels. What varies the costs is whether the right of way is a new one that has to be purchased, or an old right of way that already exists, more so than whether the new railroad is electrified or not, which by the way is $3 million a rail mile.

Here is a map in which I have drawn in some lines representing some high speed rail(HSR) links I would like to have built. Some of the lines are duplicated, are very close and can be eliminated, such as the second line going from the NEC to Florida and the second line going from Texas to either Georgia or Florida. The total distance of the rest of these HSR lines minus the two I mentioned is about 7,000 miles. Adding the two lines will bring the total distance to less than 9,000 miles.

The cost will probably be somewhere inbetween $12 million to $18 million per mile, depending on the terrain. Figuring an average of $15 million per mile may be too simple, but I shall go with this number. Notice that the below totals are about the same amount the Federal DOT spends in two years. I support a moratorium on highway and airport construction for two years to build this network of HSR instead.

7,000 miles @ $15 million per mile is $105 billion.
9,000 miles @ $15 million per mile is $135 billion.

This is approximately the same price as a rural 4 lane interstate highway. An urban interstate interchange can cost up to and over $1 billion.....

http://homepage.mac.com/donclark/.Public/DonHSR.jpg

[Anonymous]

The people don't know how much everything costs. They haven't a clue how much a rural interstate highway costs. They haven't a clue how much an urban freeway costs. They haven't a clue how much an adequate freight/commuter railroad line costs supporting speed of 79 mph, They haven't a clue how much high speed rail will costs supporting speeds of either 120 mph, 150 mph, or 186 mph. They haven't a clue how much light rail costs supporting speed of 79 mph. They haven't a clue how much a monorail costs supporting speed of 79 mph. The public is misinformed. It is our job to inform them.

Yes, costs vary somewhat. I have had a devil of a time getting firm numbers, as anyone on this web site will confirm, I am all over the place. But I have been able to conclude with the numbers I have confirmed that railroad tracks are cheaper than an interstate highway, whether high speed, light rail, commuter, or freight. What varies the costs is the location of the right of way, whether urban or rural. What varies the costs is the number of overpasses, underpasses, bridges, and tunnels. What varies the costs is whether the right of way is a new one that has to be purchased, or an old right of way that already exists, more so than whether the new railroad is electrified or not, which by the way is $3 million a rail mile.

Here is a map in which I have drawn in some lines representing some high speed rail(HSR) links I would like to have built. Some of the lines are duplicated, are very close and can be eliminated, such as the second line going from the NEC to Florida and the second line going from Texas to either Georgia or Florida. The total distance of the rest of these HSR lines minus the two I mentioned is about 7,000 miles. Adding the two lines will bring the total distance to less than 9,000 miles.

The cost will probably be somewhere inbetween $12 million to $18 million per mile, depending on the terrain. Figuring an average of $15 million per mile may be too simple, but I shall go with this number. Notice that the below totals are about the same amount the Federal DOT spends in two years. I support a moratorium on highway and airport construction for two years to build this network of HSR instead.

7,000 miles @ $15 million per mile is $105 billion.
9,000 miles @ $15 million per mile is $135 billion.

This is approximately the same price as a rural 4 lane interstate highway. An urban interstate interchange can cost up to and over $1 billion.....

http://homepage.mac.com/donclark/.Public/DonHSR.jpg

[Anonymous]

Don [:)]

As always you have your "ducks in a row". You cite fact and not fiction. Your opinion is based on facts and not emotion. I wi***he money spend on all forms of transportation would have been dolled out in equal shares. If that ever happens we will see a decline in the heavily funded air travel area and an increase in the lightly funded Amtrak. It is past time that the government gave Amtrak a more equal share and not the minuscule (compared to the other amounts given to air, and road) funding it receives. It has bearly survived, and some routes have not, because they are NOT given the funding necessary to provide decent service. Amtrak is using the railroad's track and should help pay for them. The incentives once offered by Amtrak for "on time" arrivals should be reinstated, thus providing a much better incentive for passenger train travel. But the funding isn't there and as they say "the squeeky wheel get the grease". So the paying freight customers get faster and better service than Amtrak.

Everywhere I go people are saying they will never fly again. NEVER. Yet they have precious little other alternative than to drive. Why, because Amtrak lacks the funding to provide service everywhere it is needed. And it is needed where there are no trains. If I want to go east or west and a train I must first to north or south all the way to Chicago or San Antonio. I cannot head directly east to Memphis, Knoxsville, Atlanta, Nashville or other cities east of me because their is no train. I cannot head directly west to Fort Smith, Tulsa, Oklahoma City, Amarillo, Albuquerque, Phoenix, or Flagstaff because there is no train. If we had more trains more people would ride. But until Amtrak gets EQUAL funding like the other forms of transportation we won't see more trains.

[Anonymous]

Don [:)]

As always you have your "ducks in a row". You cite fact and not fiction. Your opinion is based on facts and not emotion. I wi***he money spend on all forms of transportation would have been dolled out in equal shares. If that ever happens we will see a decline in the heavily funded air travel area and an increase in the lightly funded Amtrak. It is past time that the government gave Amtrak a more equal share and not the minuscule (compared to the other amounts given to air, and road) funding it receives. It has bearly survived, and some routes have not, because they are NOT given the funding necessary to provide decent service. Amtrak is using the railroad's track and should help pay for them. The incentives once offered by Amtrak for "on time" arrivals should be reinstated, thus providing a much better incentive for passenger train travel. But the funding isn't there and as they say "the squeeky wheel get the grease". So the paying freight customers get faster and better service than Amtrak.

Everywhere I go people are saying they will never fly again. NEVER. Yet they have precious little other alternative than to drive. Why, because Amtrak lacks the funding to provide service everywhere it is needed. And it is needed where there are no trains. If I want to go east or west and a train I must first to north or south all the way to Chicago or San Antonio. I cannot head directly east to Memphis, Knoxsville, Atlanta, Nashville or other cities east of me because their is no train. I cannot head directly west to Fort Smith, Tulsa, Oklahoma City, Amarillo, Albuquerque, Phoenix, or Flagstaff because there is no train. If we had more trains more people would ride. But until Amtrak gets EQUAL funding like the other forms of transportation we won't see more trains.

[wallyworld]

The legal funding framework of Amtrak is such a hybrid patchwork based on socialist intent, reluctantly funded by capitalist taxpayers and inconsistantly operated by the least efficent management one could find, the federal government. It's no big surprise everyone views providing an increased subsidy like the plague.
1. Bid out the privatisation of the Northeast Corridor Service, but keep the infrastructure in federal hands.
2. The best managers of operations are the railroaders. Guarantee them a reasonable profit margin with performance incentives. Let them put their own corporate logos on the equipment and their professionalism and corporate pride will also serve as an incentive. They can build a decent LCL service in partnerhip with Federal, UPS, etc. How knows perhaps the mail?
3. Dissolve Amtrak and let the states decide and fund whatever corridors they decide upon. Isn't that the basis of all short distance rail travel that has been pretty successful? If the federals really want to do something constructive, give the railroads a break when they want to electrify a passenger corridor. It will cut down on pollution and bring us a system comparible to that in Europe.
4. Speed it up. Drop the Cities of Everywhere and target your runs where we really need an alternative to the automobile. Our urban areas nearly without an exception need interurban transportation. Get out of the government running what are in effect leisurely and unprofitable tourist trains.

Let's face it, our federal rail network is a third world operation compared to that of Europe.

[wallyworld]

The legal funding framework of Amtrak is such a hybrid patchwork based on socialist intent, reluctantly funded by capitalist taxpayers and inconsistantly operated by the least efficent management one could find, the federal government. It's no big surprise everyone views providing an increased subsidy like the plague.
1. Bid out the privatisation of the Northeast Corridor Service, but keep the infrastructure in federal hands.
2. The best managers of operations are the railroaders. Guarantee them a reasonable profit margin with performance incentives. Let them put their own corporate logos on the equipment and their professionalism and corporate pride will also serve as an incentive. They can build a decent LCL service in partnerhip with Federal, UPS, etc. How knows perhaps the mail?
3. Dissolve Amtrak and let the states decide and fund whatever corridors they decide upon. Isn't that the basis of all short distance rail travel that has been pretty successful? If the federals really want to do something constructive, give the railroads a break when they want to electrify a passenger corridor. It will cut down on pollution and bring us a system comparible to that in Europe.
4. Speed it up. Drop the Cities of Everywhere and target your runs where we really need an alternative to the automobile. Our urban areas nearly without an exception need interurban transportation. Get out of the government running what are in effect leisurely and unprofitable tourist trains.

Let's face it, our federal rail network is a third world operation compared to that of Europe.

[edblysard]

Hi Don,
Your right, the general public has no idea what it cost to drive from point A to point B, or to fly L.A to Chicago.
They know what the ticket cost, but not why it cost that much.

More to the point, they dont really care why it cost that, as long as it works.

If you were to break down all the cost of the federal interstate system, chart it out, put it in a format the simplest of us could understand, explain the cost of every single factor, from wear and tear and maintainance, to the electricity used to run the lights for the overhead signs, to the bolts that hold the guardrails in place, almost to a tee, every one you showed your figures to would look you in the face, and say, "Uh huh, and whats your point?"

The general public has no concept of cost vs. return, nor would they really understand it even in its simplest form.

The people who would benefit most from commuter rail are the same people who have no choice but to take public transportation, the lower middle class and the poor.

Those who can afford not to use public transportation, the upper middle class and affluent, view rail, commuter rail especially, as a excersise in public utility building, or a social service.

Those who would benefit most from high speed passenger service, city to city or coast ot coast, the average middle class, still wouldnt care what it really cost.

Compare selling high speed rail, or commuter rail to the general public in the same manner you would sell them a automobile.

Not a one of the aboved mentioned groups care one whit what the deprecation on a sheet steel stamping mill is, or the cost of the gaskets around the windshield, nor would they understand that every single part of their new car carrys some incremental and additional manufactoring cost or overhead in storage and transportation of these parts.

But every single one of the same groups cares about what comes with the car, which new do-dads, CD player and accesories comes on it, how fast is it, is it reliable, and the final sticker/drive out price.

No one ever sold a car to anyone because the total manufactoring cost was less than another name brand car.

But they sell a whole bunch of cars to people who care what it looks like, does it work, and how much is the drive out price.

If we want high speed passenger service between major cities, or coast to coast, we have to sell it to the public in simple, clear, "this is what you get, this is what it will do, and this is what it will cost" terms.

Ever hear of someone complaining that they dont fly a certain airline, because its maintainance cost over runs exceed its maintainance budget?

Almost all of us on this forum agree with Don Clark, that the cost per mile of building new highspeed rail is tremendously cheaper than almost every other type of transportation available today.

Almost every one outside of this forum could care less, or wouldnt grasp the concept or the cost benefits in that statement, nor how it comes about.

But if we sold it to them, on the same basis they buy everything else, sell them the fact that it works, a ticket cost this much, and heres what you get for that ticket price, and show them that they can go coast to coast cheaper, and in more comfort than on a airline, they will buy it.

Sell it to them under the umbrella of national security, sell it to them as a safe alternative to flying, promise them the goverment can and will build it quickly, and run it like a public service.

We have to put it in terms they understand.
This is what you get, this is what you pay to use it.
Period.
But most of all, we have to SELL it.

Not just talk about it on forums or chat rooms.

We, they people who hear and read the intelligent, detailed statements from Don, and others like him, have to find a way to prompt the industry to take Don's information and sell the product to the public.

Seen any serious adds on TV, or in print outside of the fan magazines or trade journals?
No, and most likley you wont, unless someone convinces the elected officals to pu***his in the congress as a security concern or show the greater public benefit.

We have to get them to sell it for us, to the very people who need it most, but dont even know it is a feasible alternative.

The goverment is really good at "selling" things it sees as a benefit to itself.
Note the "war: in Iraq.
It was sold, and sold farily well to the public.
GW said, "hey, we are the good guys, they are the bad guys, so lets go kick butt and save the world, and give a little payback for 9/11"
We bought it.
Had he followed that statement with, "oh, and by the way, we are going to pump 87 billion dollars into their economy after we win", we would have said "yeah, when pigs get pilot licenses" and never bought into it.

Dont worry the public with the details, they really dont care or understand.

But they will worry about what the ticket cost, were the train will go, when will it get there, will it be on time, and what all do they get for the ticket price.

If we have 87 billion to rebuild the infrastructure of a nation sitting on top of one of the largest oil reserves in the world, we must have at least half that much to build a sensible, affordable highspeed rail system for ourselves.

Stay Frosty,
Ed

[edblysard]

Hi Don,
Your right, the general public has no idea what it cost to drive from point A to point B, or to fly L.A to Chicago.
They know what the ticket cost, but not why it cost that much.

More to the point, they dont really care why it cost that, as long as it works.

If you were to break down all the cost of the federal interstate system, chart it out, put it in a format the simplest of us could understand, explain the cost of every single factor, from wear and tear and maintainance, to the electricity used to run the lights for the overhead signs, to the bolts that hold the guardrails in place, almost to a tee, every one you showed your figures to would look you in the face, and say, "Uh huh, and whats your point?"

The general public has no concept of cost vs. return, nor would they really understand it even in its simplest form.

The people who would benefit most from commuter rail are the same people who have no choice but to take public transportation, the lower middle class and the poor.

Those who can afford not to use public transportation, the upper middle class and affluent, view rail, commuter rail especially, as a excersise in public utility building, or a social service.

Those who would benefit most from high speed passenger service, city to city or coast ot coast, the average middle class, still wouldnt care what it really cost.

Compare selling high speed rail, or commuter rail to the general public in the same manner you would sell them a automobile.

Not a one of the aboved mentioned groups care one whit what the deprecation on a sheet steel stamping mill is, or the cost of the gaskets around the windshield, nor would they understand that every single part of their new car carrys some incremental and additional manufactoring cost or overhead in storage and transportation of these parts.

But every single one of the same groups cares about what comes with the car, which new do-dads, CD player and accesories comes on it, how fast is it, is it reliable, and the final sticker/drive out price.

No one ever sold a car to anyone because the total manufactoring cost was less than another name brand car.

But they sell a whole bunch of cars to people who care what it looks like, does it work, and how much is the drive out price.

If we want high speed passenger service between major cities, or coast to coast, we have to sell it to the public in simple, clear, "this is what you get, this is what it will do, and this is what it will cost" terms.

Ever hear of someone complaining that they dont fly a certain airline, because its maintainance cost over runs exceed its maintainance budget?

Almost all of us on this forum agree with Don Clark, that the cost per mile of building new highspeed rail is tremendously cheaper than almost every other type of transportation available today.

Almost every one outside of this forum could care less, or wouldnt grasp the concept or the cost benefits in that statement, nor how it comes about.

But if we sold it to them, on the same basis they buy everything else, sell them the fact that it works, a ticket cost this much, and heres what you get for that ticket price, and show them that they can go coast to coast cheaper, and in more comfort than on a airline, they will buy it.

Sell it to them under the umbrella of national security, sell it to them as a safe alternative to flying, promise them the goverment can and will build it quickly, and run it like a public service.

We have to put it in terms they understand.
This is what you get, this is what you pay to use it.
Period.
But most of all, we have to SELL it.

Not just talk about it on forums or chat rooms.

We, they people who hear and read the intelligent, detailed statements from Don, and others like him, have to find a way to prompt the industry to take Don's information and sell the product to the public.

Seen any serious adds on TV, or in print outside of the fan magazines or trade journals?
No, and most likley you wont, unless someone convinces the elected officals to pu***his in the congress as a security concern or show the greater public benefit.

We have to get them to sell it for us, to the very people who need it most, but dont even know it is a feasible alternative.

The goverment is really good at "selling" things it sees as a benefit to itself.
Note the "war: in Iraq.
It was sold, and sold farily well to the public.
GW said, "hey, we are the good guys, they are the bad guys, so lets go kick butt and save the world, and give a little payback for 9/11"
We bought it.
Had he followed that statement with, "oh, and by the way, we are going to pump 87 billion dollars into their economy after we win", we would have said "yeah, when pigs get pilot licenses" and never bought into it.

Dont worry the public with the details, they really dont care or understand.

But they will worry about what the ticket cost, were the train will go, when will it get there, will it be on time, and what all do they get for the ticket price.

If we have 87 billion to rebuild the infrastructure of a nation sitting on top of one of the largest oil reserves in the world, we must have at least half that much to build a sensible, affordable highspeed rail system for ourselves.

Stay Frosty,
Ed

[Anonymous]

Moving people is a service, not a profit source.

Beginning with canals and harbors, the federal government has funded capital intensive transportation projects in concert with the several states. In most cases these projects are state - federal ventures, often with local money added to the pot.

For years the government provided subsidy to passenger rail service through mail contracts. When the mail left the rails, so did the trains. In response to this unintended consequence of transfering federal mail subsidies from trains to airlines, Congress created the creature we know as Amtrak. Like any transportation service, Amtrak lives on money. Since its creation the apparent intention of the federal government has been death by starvation.

Direct subsidy is only one way the government can encourage passenger rail service. Public policy encouraging freight railroads to allow operation of reliable high speed passenger trains is another, perhaps better, method. Amtrak's small usage payments do little to encourage freight railroads to share their track. Would their attitude change if main lines hosting high speed, on time passenger trains were exempt from local property taxes? Would they invest in capital improvements such as increased siding length, double tracking and signal improvements if they could claim the cost of the projects as a tax credit in the year they spent the money

With the infrastructure and performance issues addressed by tax policy, we then move to operations. The federal government should invest in Amtrak infrastructure as it invests in most other transportation projects - 80% federal dollars with the remainder from state, local or private sources. The federal tax applied to airline tickets should also apply to Amtrak tickets. The government would use this money to provide the same services for Amtrak (traffic control, terminal security, etc) it provides to the airlines. Amtrak could then lower ticket prices by the amount of the tax becoming more competitive with pre tax airline fares.

With the cost of services provided by the government to other modes removed from the direct Amtrak budget, we can more correctly identify the direct cost of providing service. Fares should cover most if not all of the direct service cost. Where they don't, a specific formula would identify the state and federal share of the operating deficit.

Amtrak needs a dedicated funding source to insure survival

Last, Amtrak needs to rething its' "train" paradigm. A train need not be a locomotive and set of cars moving from A to B. It can be a dynamic transportation mode, allowing a one seat ride between multiple destinations. Airlines hub passengers by herding them between planes. A modern rail system can facilitate cross platform transfers and through routed cars. Self propelled vehicles whether diesel or electric can open new corridors, and offer greater frequency on existing ones.

<steps down from the soapbox>

[Anonymous]

Moving people is a service, not a profit source.

Beginning with canals and harbors, the federal government has funded capital intensive transportation projects in concert with the several states. In most cases these projects are state - federal ventures, often with local money added to the pot.

For years the government provided subsidy to passenger rail service through mail contracts. When the mail left the rails, so did the trains. In response to this unintended consequence of transfering federal mail subsidies from trains to airlines, Congress created the creature we know as Amtrak. Like any transportation service, Amtrak lives on money. Since its creation the apparent intention of the federal government has been death by starvation.

Direct subsidy is only one way the government can encourage passenger rail service. Public policy encouraging freight railroads to allow operation of reliable high speed passenger trains is another, perhaps better, method. Amtrak's small usage payments do little to encourage freight railroads to share their track. Would their attitude change if main lines hosting high speed, on time passenger trains were exempt from local property taxes? Would they invest in capital improvements such as increased siding length, double tracking and signal improvements if they could claim the cost of the projects as a tax credit in the year they spent the money

With the infrastructure and performance issues addressed by tax policy, we then move to operations. The federal government should invest in Amtrak infrastructure as it invests in most other transportation projects - 80% federal dollars with the remainder from state, local or private sources. The federal tax applied to airline tickets should also apply to Amtrak tickets. The government would use this money to provide the same services for Amtrak (traffic control, terminal security, etc) it provides to the airlines. Amtrak could then lower ticket prices by the amount of the tax becoming more competitive with pre tax airline fares.

With the cost of services provided by the government to other modes removed from the direct Amtrak budget, we can more correctly identify the direct cost of providing service. Fares should cover most if not all of the direct service cost. Where they don't, a specific formula would identify the state and federal share of the operating deficit.

Amtrak needs a dedicated funding source to insure survival

Last, Amtrak needs to rething its' "train" paradigm. A train need not be a locomotive and set of cars moving from A to B. It can be a dynamic transportation mode, allowing a one seat ride between multiple destinations. Airlines hub passengers by herding them between planes. A modern rail system can facilitate cross platform transfers and through routed cars. Self propelled vehicles whether diesel or electric can open new corridors, and offer greater frequency on existing ones.

<steps down from the soapbox>