Axe Amtrak!

[Anonymous]

I don't have a anser for cost of trip but there
toll free number or there web sight might help ya.
I been following the news of the latest cut backs of amtrak.And there a great possibility of
us losing the the long hail trains. I say let them. It's going to happen. And Feb was the month
the goverment was to come up with some salutions.
I read some there ideas and I agre that freights
need a another crack at it. When they dumped the passeger service many years ago they there wasn't
any halling of rail roaders and ups freight at the end of the train. Now look at them now. You see more freight cars than passenger cars on a train.
Let the freight railroads do that!! I read that
artical under railage .com. I think It would be neat have BNSF hauling passenger in there colors
and tagging along few box cars and half dozen rail roaders.As long as they pull freight to they might have a chance. And another thing frieght railriad
need to try just @ twice a week on there long runs
is hauling cars. Like from Pittburgh to La. or Chicago to Wash state People don't like driving long distances but sure like to have there car when they get there. Thats what will get more people attracted to take long distance trains too and like it similar to the Florida route and illimanate the in between stops

[Anonymous]

I don't know what you class as 'small' but I live in a town of 12,000 (OK, it has a university) on the West Coast of Wales. We have a train every two days Monday to Friday, with reduced workings at the weekend (Sundays are pretty dire!).

Jason.

[Anonymous]

You mentioned that you had pins in your ankel. I understood that to mean that you had been helped by a surgeon. We are lucky to live in these times. My mother recently had her second knee replaced. I'm glad medicine has advanced sufficiently to help her as well.

Can anyone tell me what it would cost to ride an Amtrak train say one hundred miles or so and on what route? I may take some time to call the Amtrak and Trailways stations in Richmond to see what are the real rates. Also, can someone tell me how much Amtrak receives in government subsidies?

Catch you later. - Ed

[jsanchez]

Some of the Long distance services have actually made money at times, Northeast to Florida routes and Autotrain. So there is still viability to even the long distance trains if ran right and serving popular travel markets.

James

[thirdrail1]

I am in a small town with a short line railroad in the Florida panhandle on the Gulf of Mexico.

[Anonymous]

People will have to learn to wait for a plane (that's what we do in the UK!) rather than hailing them like a cab.

[Anonymous]

From my own experiences, buses are OK for short journeys, but trains are more relaxing for medium- and long journeys. I find it easier to read a book on a train than in a bus (or as a car passenger).

But Gregg, it is terrible that you don't have the option of either a train or bus. What size town do you live in?

Jason.

[thirdrail1]

Where I live there is NO train service OR bus service. I would ride the train if there were one that provided the service I wanted when I wanted it. Last time I rode Amtrak was a roomette from Washington to Jacksonville over 10 years ago. I rode CSXT's private train northbound. First class rail was less than air plus a night in a decent hotel in Jacksonville, so yes rail can be market priced. What did you mean about "find some help"?

[Anonymous]

It sounds like you wouldn't ride the train at free market prices either. Let me know if I misinterpreted your response.

I would like the government to pull its support from the airlines as well, and let the individual passengers pay for the infrastructure like the terminals, traffic controlers, safety inspection, security, etc. but I don't think that is likely to happen.

Sorry to hear that you have a bad ankle but it is good to hear that you have been able to find some help. If it's any comfort, I believe the current airport security problems will improve in the comming months as these guys are able to address specific problems.

Nice chatting with you. - Ed

[thirdrail1]

The mail was originally pulled from the railroads to help the airline industry. If the airline industry had to pay for the airports and the traffic control system their prices would go up to the point that Amtrak could undercut the airlines on much of the mail and in many passenger markets as well. Personally, I drive anywhere I can get to in a day, and since I'm retired, i simply don't go anywhere I can't get to in a day. I fractured my ankle in 1990 and have two stainless steel screws in my ankle, so I'm sure not going to fly now and get strip searched like Rep. Dingell! Had a hard enough time convincing the security cretin the last time I flew that I didn't have a shiv in my shoe.

[Anonymous]

I hope you won't consider this 'twisting the knife' but, I wonder if you would ride that Superliner at free market prices (e.g. without government subsidies and at a price where Amtrack earns a profit)? I probably would be willing to ride the Superliner as a purely recreational event, but I doubt I would make a habit of it.

And I agree that my feeling about a 'level playing field' extend into the airline industry as well.

As a side question, do you think the mail would be transported by train if there were no subsidies involved and the post office had to go through the free market?

[thirdrail1]

On the very lowest end, perhaps trains do compete with buses. But there is about as much similarity between a Superliner sleeping car and a Greyhound bus as there is between it and a 737. I would more than willingly ride overnight in a Superliner, but you'd have to shackle me and put me under armed guard to force me to ride overnight in a Greyhound! Besides, buses are harder to find than trains in many parts of the country. They can't compete with the highly subsidized airlines either.

[Anonymous]

I agree that passenger train service in the US is just not going to make a profit. Except for some short distance commuter movements, there is not enough demand.

In my opinion, trains are not competing with air planes. They are competing with buses. You would have to have alot of riders going the same place, on a very reliable schedule to make passenger rail profit.

I don't want tax dollars to prop up an industry when there isn't enough demand for it to work. Sorry if this upsets anyone, but I think it is the straight truth.

[Valleyline]

The only thing that's kept Amtrak going for as long as it has is the long distance trains, not because of their passenger counts but for the political support they've generated in Congress. Support for rail passenger service of any kind will sharply drop if service is to become limited to high density corridors at the expense of dropping service to middle America. Let's face it, Amtrak's losses are being generated in the northeast corridor as well as by the lomg distance trains. I'd like to think that US railroads are smart enough to operate profitable passenger services, but the world wide record shows nothing but government subsidies no matter how popular the services are.

[jsanchez]

Take the TGV between Paris and Brussels and tell me trains won't fit into peoples needs for fast transportation between cities. The TGV's actually make money as do Japan's privatized bullet trains.As for profitabilty if the airlines had to cover the costs or air ports and air traffic controllers they would never make a profit, most aren't now with the heavey subsidies. Also if you can quote me the profit margin or rate of return on highways, interstates, the 7 billion big dig highway project in Boston, I would agree with you. I think major highways should be ran at a profit as the are in some other countries.

[RudyRockvilleMD]

I agree the future of rail passenger travel lies in the short to medium distance corridor type market, and possibly in the long term, in genuine high-speed train corridors; I define high speed as an AVERAGE speed of 125 mph. The concept behind the high-speed train is that it can be competitive timewise or perhaps faster than flying in terms of portal-to-portal travel time for trips of 200 - 400 miles provided the corridor has the ridership potential. However it won't be cheap, and it will take a sales job.

Others have pointed out the holes in the Amtrak Reform Council's plan to reform Amtrak; it smacks too much of the privatization of British Rail which in my experience (October, 2000) is a collassal failure. I think the Amtrak Reform Council should have been thinking in terms of reforming intercity railroad passenger travel rather than concentrating on reforming Amtrak.

If you examine the statistical appendix to Amtrak's FY 2000 Annual Report you will see the ridership trend for the long distance trains since 1991 is declining or is flat while the ridership trend for the short to medium distance trains is increasing so this is a good reason for abolishing them. Perhaps some long distance trains like the Auto Train or the Coast Starlight could be turned over to private operators as land cruise trains. The other point to remember is the security hassles that currently accompany flying. Presently domestic passengers are advised to arrive at the airport 2 hours before their flight is scheduled to leave because of the delay in clearing security; but, this state of affairs won't last forever. Already the DOT is looking into ways to speed the clearence through security so passengers won't have to spend more than 10 minutes going through the process. When that happens the passenger train could lose an hour's advantage over flying in short-to-medium hual corridors so what might have been timewise competitive with flying in a certain corridor will no longer be.

[Anonymous]

As much as I love trains, I have to reluctantly admit that, aside from a few short distance, high-density corridors, passenger rail travel is as obsolete as ocean-going luxury liners. Which is to say, obsolete as a means of transportation, but perfectly viable as a means of recreation and tourism.

Air travel has too many technological advantages for trips beyond a couple of hundred miles, and car travel is so much more flexible for short trips.

We keep talking about reforming Amtrak to provide routine NY-LA passenger service, but that's never going to happen. The airlines will always win that battle. What we ought to be thinking about is a) making those high-density short hauls viable, and b) encouraging tourist railways (which don't need and shouldn't get tax dollars).

I'm sure that doesn't sit well with a bunch of folks, but it's the world as I see it.

[Anonymous]

As long as we continue to operate passenger service at automobile speeds on freight rails, we will never have a rail service the American public will embrace. We need to develop 21st Century trains that can move at 200+ mph without grade crossings or shared rails. Until we get independently owned and operated, professional high speed rail systems that can compete with the airlines on routes under 500 miles, our national rail system will always be just a Burger King on rails. Compare Amtrak's schedule with Greyhound Bus Lines:
New York to Los Angeles in 64 hours for $1018, no first class available (bus: 71 hrs/$129).
Chicago to St. Louis in 5 1/2 hours, $42 one way, no first class (bus: 5+05/$30).
St. Louis to Pittsburgh in 18 hours $86 one way (bus: 15 hrs/$87). No first class.

[Anonymous]

True, we live in a the "I want it 5-minutes ago" age. I myself have been and at times still am guilty of that attitude. But, everytime I have ridden a train, I have made it a point to talk to as many folks as I can and find out why they took the train. Most echoed the same sentiments, that train travel was slow, etc. However, many also said that once they realized they could RELAX, they knew it was a better way to travel. I don't think the problem is going to be keeping riders, there are 265 million people in the country so we don't have a thin market for railroads to sell to. The problem is going to be getting people to try rail travel.

As for the delays and priority of the passenger trains, well, that is where the national transportation strategy comes in. Rebuild and expand the rail infrastructure, use technology to push more trains down the line, and make cooperation and coordination of paramount importance. As a side note, what about building up all the abandoned or little used segments of rail right-of-way that exists in this country and letting the passenger trains use those? Takes the passenger trains out of the freight roads hair and gives the freight road one more alternative when needing to reroute traffic.

There are ways to get where we need to be. But we need to start now and make a concerted effort at getting it done. The public is willing to try mass transit again, just look at the continued growth of commuter rail. Local, state and Federal agencies just need to be locked in a room and forced to work together to get transportation heading in the right direction. If we wait another 30 years, it may be too late.

[BRAKIE]

While it is true America needs passenger trains,both short and long haul,the real question is How? We live in a "Right Now and Hurry,Hurry Generation". Today most folks worry more about how fast they can get there and do nothing once they do get to where they are going.Next time you are in your car you can see this by the way they drive.I can not see these folks getting on a train for a 7 hour or longer train ride.Folks are complaining about the long wait they have at the airports getting through security check points.How much more would they complain if the train was late and they miss their flight? It would amount to lost riders for the train.Lost riders means lost profits on the bottom line.You can not operate a business when the botton line shows red in the profit column.One only needs to look at Amtrak to see this or look at the failed short lines.If you would put the passenger train in the hands of big business,it will not last long again the profit line.Now,the answer may just lay in the past.At one time the railroads give top priority to passenger trains and woe to the dispatcher that held up a passenger train! Would this work today with top priority intermodel trains like the UPS trains? I don't think so.

[Anonymous]

Amen! Although I don't agree completely with all your points, I do think you hit a home run with that one. Especially the part about the "balanced passenger system..." What most everyone fails to recognize is the imporance of that aspect. America needs a transportation strategy badly. Sept 11 proved that with no doubt. Couple this with the ever increasing driving population, continuing cheap gas prices, unchecked urban sprawl and a host of other conditions and what you have is a headed into mass gridlock.

I admit, taking a train from coast to coast is both economically and time prohibitive. Airlines have the advantage hands down. But if I have the choice of driving 6 hours, taking the train for 7 or flying for 4 (taking into account layovers, etc) to get to a destination, I will take the train. The advantages far out weigh the disadvantages. Less tiring, less wear on my car, better food, interesting people and more time to take advantage of.

Imagine this. You shop online for the best airfare across country and find a really good one. But it is from a city about 3 hours away. No problem, you hop on the next passenger train to that city where you connect to a light rail out to the airport. Utopia? Did it in South Korea. Did it in England. Why shouldn't I be able to do it here?

It's going to be a long haul but the railfans out here need to speak up. We need to support passenger and freight railroads as part of a well balanced national transportaion system. Even if you don't like one or the other, at least do it for the folks that need jobs.

[jamesedwbradley]

I am constantly surprised by the so-called 'railfans' who oppose our passenger-train system; it would seem proper for us to support all trains, both passenger and freight. As to Amtrak, consider the advantages of having a single, unified national system with one management and the resulting coordination of purchasing, equipment, and services. I'm not in a position to criticize its management and indulge in name-calling or labeling of them as 'hacks' or people insensitive to bottom lines. I DO think maybe Amtrak has not conducted thorough market research to identify passenger demand, and may be running services based more on tradition than on need. We fans must recognize that (particularly long-distance)passenger trains now serve several niche markets: 'heritage tourists' interested in actually seeing (and in some cases showing their children) our country; small-town residents far from any airport; some folks who are reasonably leery of flight, who just like trains, or are wedded to rail by personal or family tradition; singles such as students and service personnel who like the comfort and camaraderie of trains. There are shorter-distance markets for business and general travelers. I was raised in the days of economic regulation when each mode was said to have its 'inherent advantage(s)', and feel that the buses aren't adequate to long-distance travel and should be spokes to rail-station hubs, plus interconnectors in certain cases where rails are circuitous; if this smacks of 'central planning' so be it! The object is public passenger service (the privacy aspect is important in the auto's popularity; people apparently will forego privacy for airline speed). A balanced passenger system calls for all modes to be used. I certainly DO NOT want to see long-distance rail service given over to 'cruise trains' for the super-rich ($3000-5000 a head to me is for super-rich)!
Jim Bradley Hawk Mountain Chapter Natl.Ry.Hist.Soc.

[Anonymous]

Think about the U.S. past. Passenger lines were the main way the west was conquered. It could still be effective, but it will take some time and ingenuity.

[Anonymous]

I agree that the economic conditions do not exist at this time for a National passenger rail network. Because of the interstate highway system, busses currently perform this function and I can't envision a rail system that would outperform the bus in this country right now. People just don't wan't to give up that much freedom over their own schedule. A passenger rail system may work in parts of the northeast but I don't see it anywhere else. I'm not talking about light commuter rail because that is essentially an exposed subway; another animal. And although the government gives our money to the highway system and to airports and airlines I don't think it should give our money to maintain a passenger rail system. Passenger rail should be allowed to live or die on its own. I also think that letting the private railroad industry perform this function is the only honest way to see if it can happen.

I have been told that Europe has passenger rail transportation the way it should be, but it is provided by the people through the government via MASSIVE taxation. Where do you think the three dollars or whatever a gallon they pay in taxes goes? Passenger rail may not be right for the USA.

[BRAKIE]

Well,Why would any railroad want to take over a dead or dying horse? The by gone years of passenger trains are gone,their time has passed.It was not the railroads who killed the passenger train,it was our very own goverment that help build airports and interstates.Even today they give Amtrak millions on one hand and give airlines the same help with the other hand.Make sence to you? Build a high speed rail line? HA! Not on your life,the NIMBYs won't let that happen.The EPA won't let that happen,The green peace folks won't let that happen, then you have the ect,ect,ect,and so on that will not allow it.yeah,I can see the class action law suits now!

[Anonymous]

And my reasons for wanting passenger rail to stay alive are purely selfish. Airline travel sucks and driving the mind numbingly dull interstates with their never ending adds for cookie cutter hotels and fast food is something I can take very little of.

Of course the freight roads would let passenger rail die. Their management would be too wrapped up in trying to take over each other like the 19th Century mine-is-bigger-than-yours leftovers that they are. They wouldn't have time to pull their heads out and do some forward thinking about how they could win back both freight from trucks and passengers from the airlines while actually making a buck doing it.

Sad..

[Anonymous]

My wish for the demise of Amtrak is strictly for selfish reasons. If the frieght carrier's don't run the passenger business, then let it die. Then frieght trains would'nt have to sit at various places and wait for the longest times because of poor dispatching from some individual who should never have left his desk at Yellow Cab! There could be some sweet job's for us lowly frieght haulers again if the private lines take over once more...Bring it on...Hommie

[Anonymous]

Okay, I have to throw my two cents worth in on this one. Amtrak as an entity is not at fault here. The people who run it and the people who oversee it are. Amtrak was handed a mandate to take over the the shoddy remnants of passenger trains service in this country and to do it with basically junk. It has been hamstrung since day one and battered by a constant stream of "Oh wait, you need to do it this way or else" micro-management. Over time, management has lost focus on the real mission, running a railroad, and instead has had to concentrate on fending off the wolves who would shut Amtrak down. So now the ARC wants to privatize it. What good will that do? The private sector wanted to get rid of it in the first place, that's how Amtrak got started in the first place. The Brits tried turning their national rail system over to private companys and I can tell you from first hand experience it isn't working.

Many things need to happen. Amtrak management needs to be sacked and replaced with a board of directors made up of real railroaders, people with experience. Congress needs to get off it's dead butt and fund it enough to make it competitive in both price and service (I live in Charleston, SC, and it would take me 12 hours to get to Atlanta by Amtrak. Big strike right there). And finally, a dynamic national transportation strategy for the next 50 years that includes roads, ships, planes and trains needs to be drafted and implemented.

I have traveled to many places around the world and used foriegn mass transit every place I went. America is pathetic when it comes to this service for many reasons. As has been stated in previous posts, those countries with viable mass transit systems are ones who have barriers to the use of private conveyance and whose governments provide the lions share of funding. But due to America's size, both in population and in land mass, we have to appoach the issue of rail transit from a bigger picture (aka the transportation strategy). Simply putting a bullet in Amtrak and letting free enterprise handle it won't do it. It's going to take a lot more than that to get passenger rail service out of the quagmire Uncle Sugar has gotten it into.

[Anonymous]

For a very recent (2001) insight into the British system, you should try:

"Broken Rails" by Christian Wolmar (He writes in the fortnightly publication 'RAIL' here in the UK).

The only 'disadvantage' is that it was published just before Stephen Byers put Railtrack into Administration.

All those thinking of changing the funding, structure and organisation of a rail system need to read this book!

Jason.