Sure fire fix for Amtrak..

[Anonymous]

Mr. Gunn,

So, you wi***o save Amtrak? I'm afraid that no amount of expertise in "railroading" is gonna help you do "that", you need to master the art of the venue where that victory can be "won".

When in Rome...etc

What you need to do, is increase your next budget request by $800 million dollars, citing the need to be able to make "campaign contributions" in a competitive environment....

I'd love to hear the windbags in congress adress that one....

[Anonymous]

Took two trips on Amtrak. One to Califonia the other to Denver.Found service to be poor. For the same money could have flown and got there faster.Amtraks wounds are self inflicted.I do not care if Amtrak shuts down tomarrow.Save me some tax money.

[Anonymous]

Another sure fire fix would be to adjust the speeds on the interstates to 35 m.p.h. for cars and 80 m.p.h. for trucks. Fines for exceeding the limits would be $100 for each mile over the posted speed for autos.

[Modelcar]

....One wouldn't make much difference to adjust the truck speed to 80 MPH on interstates as many of them are doing that now...

Does anyone remember when car speed limits WERE 35 MPH during WWII.

QM

[Anonymous]

One could carry this to the next step. Shut down the airlines and save me much more tax money.

Out of the Department of Transportation's annual budget highways get $33 billion, airports $12 billion, and Amtrak might get $1.2 billion (last year $562 million).

Keep this in mind when you protest against the pity sum Amtrak receivess. We could save at least ten times as much if we shut off the airlines subsidies.

But I will agree with you about one thing. The Amtrak of today won't survive in the long run. A modern Amtrak running TGV high speed rail trains along a few corridors can compete with the airlines, for half the airlines subsidy.

A high speed rail network connecting the four largest population centers east of the Rockies can compete with the airlines: New York City to Chicago, New York City to Miami, Dallas and Houston to Atlanta or Jacksonville, And Dallas and Houston to Chicago. A nice parralegram of four high speed trains capable of reaching the end of their legs in about 9 hours.

Considering that the state of Texas Trans Texas Corridors plan quotes the cost of building electrified double track high speed rail lines at $20 million per mile, this 4,000 mile parralegram would cost around $80 billion. $80 billion is a little more than twice what the DOT spends on highways each year.

Doubling this plan to include more mileage and destinations with branches off this main line of the parralegram would be nice too. If we are going to support Amtrak with subsidies, we might as well get a state of the art modern system. As it is today we are getting an aged middle of the 20 century system.

[Anonymous]

Even if Amtrak were to get Hi speed trains with concrete ties and welded rail between high population centers I do not believe it would make it.The service is still bad. The food is bad. The cars are dirty. The tickets expensive.Example, on the trip to Denver I got out at the first stop to clean the window so I can see out of it.
TIM A

[Anonymous]

At least you were able to clean your window. From my experience with airliners, their little windows are dirty too. At least Amtrak offers a nice large window!

As far as I can tell Amtrak keeps their cars as clean as any bus or airliner.

Quite frankly, Amtrak needs to modernize as quickly as possible. High speed trains with dedicated passenger tracks averaging 125-150 mph could cover the distance of Dallas to Chicago and Dallas to Atlanta in less than 9 hours at 125 mph, and in 6 hours at 150 mph.
This is about the time it takes to drive out to the airport, find a parking space, wait in line to get throught security, fly the distance, wait for luggage, get a rental car, and drive to your destination in the other city. There would be no need to run trains at night, and more than likely depending on the speed, Amtrak could offer double or triple the daily service it offers now.

[Anonymous]

And who's going to pay for all this, and in whose back yard will it be?

[Anonymous]

Any transportation project such as that would have to come from Goverment spending. I traveled alot in Europe by rail. All of there Hi speed rail services are funded by the Goverments. The difference being, they provide very good service at a resonable price. I believe no passenger rail service in today's world could ever turn a profit.But that should not be used as a excuse for poor service.
TIM A

[Anonymous]

I agree...if you can't run it right, don't run it! I always disagreed with "dirty window railroading".

[GerFust]

Add to that the local and state taxes spent on roadways, building airports, and other infrastucture that Amtrak doesn't see. Airlines must receive way more than 10 times the funding in tax revenue.

[Anonymous]

You make a good point. Now that I think about it I have flown on some Airplanes that were of equel quality. Maybe we hold Amtrac to a higher standard from listening to the old timers talking about rail travel back in the 50's. My Father used to travel alot on business. He would talk constantly about which railroad gave the best service.
TIM A

[Modelcar]

.....Amtrak service and equipment is no doubt on par with the funding that is provided for it to provide that service. In view of how the government is now structured I hesitate to look forward to the kind of funding it will now receive. And curing the problems with new and better ideas and equipment is now really going to be questionable. Lets hope for a miracle that somehow Mr. Gunn can work the almost impossible.

QM

[Anonymous]

Fair question. Of course any high speed rail network would not be built overnight, more than likely it would follow the example of the interstate highway system and take a few decades to finish. If we took a couple of billion dollars from the airports and highways that DOT is already spending: $4 billion a year over 20 years would total $80 billion.

With this $80 billion, we could build 4,000 miles of a designated passenger only double tracked electrified high speed rail network. While we would have to electrify some existing track in the cities , when we hit the countryside we could build on new right of way.

The Texas Trans Texas Corridors, a fifty year plan by the Texas DOT, set the price of new double tracked electrified high speed rail at $20 million per mile at FY2000 dollars. These numbers are not cooked.

4,000 miles would connect the northeast corridor already built to Miami and to Chicago, and build a line to Texas from Chicago and from Atlanta, not to mention a line from Chicago to Atlanta. None of these legs of a parralegram would be more than 900 miles in length.

If a train could average 150 mph including stops, 900 miles could be done in 6 hours. If a train only averaged 120 mph, the same 900 miles would take less than 8 hours.

States that would be included would be Massachusettes, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Deleware, Maryland, DC, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Kentucky, and Tennessee.

Just about everybody living east of the Mississippi River would be living within a couple of hours drive to a high speed rail line, whether by bus, car, or even a slow local train that individual states might fund. There would be no need to have sleepers unless Amtrak wanted to run trains at night. There would be no need to have two lines going down the eastern seaboard, or for that matter from the northeast corridor to the midwest. Well, at least from the start. That might change as we expand the system at a later date.

Obviously, this would be the starter plan, but I would support expanding the system to Minneapolis and Denver from Chicago, possibly a short line from Toledo to Detroit, and from Toronto and Montreal to New York City, not to mention eventually extending from Texas to Mexico City. I would even support possibly one transcontinental line to LA from Denver that went south to Alberuerque and then west along I-25 and I-40. Notice that these extras don't add up to 4,000 miles, and could be constructed in a second 20 year plan.

If people want to ride a train through the 37 tunnels west of Denver, they can ride the slow ski train already in operation. Why should Amtrak operate a transcontinental there when a local already exists?

Connecting the four largest popluation centers: NY (NE corridor), Chicago (Midwest), Dallas/Houston(Texas), and Atlanta/Orlando/Miami(Georgia/Florida) should be the initial starter network. I would support an Oakland to Los Angeles high speed train too.

One thing is for certain, taking a couple of billion dollars away from airport and highways won't affect traffic or airports much in the long run.

[Anonymous]

Y'know, this all looks doable on paper, but until the American ideal of our own cars is replaced and transportation at whatever destination is developed, these ideas are pie-in-the-sky musings, I'm afraid. Before that kind of $$$ can be diverted from high profile lobbys (auto mfgs, airlines and trucks), a complete mindset metamorphasis must occur. I wouldn't bet a dime on it at 10,000 to 1. Similar subjects to this have come up in these posts before, and as before, I'm no fan of Amtrak. It's need and subsequently, its service are the only things more despicable than the airlines. Outside of the corridors, I believe Amtrak has no place. The NEC, west coast and a few others merit improvement, but that's all. The $$$ would be better spent getting trucks off the interstate system and on rails. Everyone would be safer.

[Anonymous]

You know as well as I do that our railroad traffic is near capacity already. There ain't no way we are going to get the trucks off the interstates and on the railroads when Union Pacific cannot guarantee a on-time weekly delivery of coal to a TXU power plant in Texas!

Therefore, there will be more and more freight on the interstates! There is a reason why the state of Texas Department of Transporation has embraced the Trans Texas Corridors of turnpikes, freight, commuter, and high speed passenger rail, not to mention power lines, fiber optic lines, and pipelines.

I suggest you read about the Trans Texas Corridors at this website:
http://www.dot.state.tx.us/ttc/ttc_home.htm

Not only are our railroads and highways at capacity, many of our major airports are too!
For short hops of up to 600-900 miles, a limited high speed train is cheaper than building more larger airports and more airport terminals and gates. My 4,000 mile parralegram with a sla***hrough the middle from Chicago to Atlanta is not pie in the sky dreams. Actually it is a bare minimum! WE ARE FACING GRIDLOCK IN 20 YEARS! Instead of cutting the DOT budget, we should be increasing DOT's budget!

[Anonymous]

Rail service failures are due to a multitude of conditions, not just gridlock. In fact, now that there is a downturn in the economy, there is much more rail capacity than before. The real reason much higher rail freight is difficult is that shippers feel a greater schedule adherence with trucks than with rails. The need for passenger rail on dedicated rights of way or a more conventional approach is several generations away if at all. Now is not the time to inflict that cost on anyone! We all love our cars. I guess we can agree to disagree...that's what this forum is about methinks. Have a good day! gdc

[Anonymous]

Yada,yada,yada, blah,blah blah. All the answers but no viable solutions.

[Anonymous]

No one has all the answers, my friend, and the solutions in rail-based passenger transport has not evolved in the minds of people (read customers and a source of revenue and/or justification). Within that thought there are a plethera of solutions, much too many to list here, besides, in this forum, many already have had their day in the sun. We still disagree, but it's regrettable that your last post had an element of rudeness. Just because someone does not share your thoughts, doesn't make them right or wrong. I was in the rail industry 35 years, how about you? gdc

[wabash1]

in about every post i read you have this idea to get the trucks off the highway and get rid of the trucks. it seams like you want to do away with trucks, never see one again anywhere, in the citty or on the highway is this true.

[Modelcar]

....I like traveling in my auto as much as anyone. Interstates are a fine way to move from point A to point B as long as it is not over run with traffic and yes a high percentage of that traffic is trucks. We all surely agree trucks are here to stay and do a valuable service. Fact is even now...in metropolitan areas it is not fun or at times even safe to travel on our interstate system. We cannot continue to build interstates hundreds of feet wide to accommodate our increasing truck and passenge traffic which will continue to increase as time passes. So development of rail freight and passenger traffic can serve to help our crunch...If the powers to be can figure how to do it. And pay for it.

QM

[Anonymous]

"J", obviously, getting rid of trucks in their entirety would be devastating to our national interests. After all, NS revived the Roadrailer concept. But, there just too many of them on the interstate system and all of us would be better served, including you, if more were moving intermodal. More rail jobs of all kinds, better profitability for the rails and much less congested highway(s). gdc

[Anonymous]

"If the to be can figure how to do it. And pay for it". Now there's the rub, is it not?

[Anonymous]

As I stated before the railroads are near capacity already. Obviously you have never sat in an Amtrak sleeper compartment on the Texas Eagle and waited two hours for seven Union Pacific freight trains in North Little Rock, Arkansas. And the train was on time, in its window, when it arrived in North Little Rock in the middle of hundreds of miles of double track on the former Missouri Pacific main line!
This has happened to me both times when I rode the Eagle to Chicago to see my grandchildren.

And yes, Texas Utilities, the largest electric/gas utility in Texas had to switch railroads from Union Pacific to Burlington Northern Santa Fe because Union Pacific could not deliever coal from the Powder River region ON TIME! Keep in mind TXU had to buy their own coal cars, because neither railroad could afford any! And if the railroads cannot afford to buy coal cars for a large utility that will depend on them for the next three decades or more, something is wrong with the railroads. And anyone who rides Amtrak knows what is wrong: THE TRACKS ARE SO POOR THE TRAIN GOES TOO SLOW! Averaging less than 30 mph in Texas! No wonder the Eagle cannot attract in Texas passenger traffic!

[Anonymous]

As I stated before the railroads are near capacity already. Obviously you have never sat in an Amtrak sleeper compartment on the Texas Eagle and waited two hours for seven Union Pacific freight trains in North Little Rock, Arkansas. And the train was on time, in its window, when it arrived in North Little Rock in the middle of hundreds of miles of double track on the former Missouri Pacific main line!
This has happened to me both times when I rode the Eagle to Chicago to see my grandchildren.

And yes, Texas Utilities, the largest electric/gas utility in Texas had to switch railroads from Union Pacific to Burlington Northern Santa Fe because Union Pacific could not deliever coal from the Powder River region ON TIME! Keep in mind TXU had to buy their own coal cars, because neither railroad could afford any! And if the railroads cannot afford to buy coal cars for a large utility that will depend on them for the next three decades or more, something is wrong with the railroads. And anyone who rides Amtrak knows what is wrong: THE TRACKS ARE SO POOR THE TRAIN GOES TOO SLOW! Averaging less than 30 mph in Texas! No wonder the Eagle cannot attract in Texas passenger traffic!

[Anonymous]

It ain't that difficult. It is a matter of priority, and wanting to do it. But the time will come when instead of being a want, it will be a need!

[Anonymous]

Yes, we do love our cars today. Yet, the EPA is putting pressure on the states to clean up the air in many cities, just about every city of over 500,000 in population and their states will soon lose federal highway funding because no one is doing anything to meet the air standards. And why? We love our big cars.

However, the state of California passed, and other states are soon to follow, gasoline mileage of at least 28 mph average (city-highway). Which means it won't be long before we won't be able to buy compacts, the only thing that will meet the requirement is a sub-compact! More than likely the car companies will put out glorified golf carts to meet California's legislation.

The question remains though, will you enjoy driving a glorified golf cart across the country? I doubt it!

[Anonymous]

Yes, we many of us disagree. However, the Texas Department of Transportation has 50 year plan for this new century, putting all of our infrastructure needs on the docket. We are facing more gridlock, not just on the highways and at the airports, but also on railroad tracks. While many will place their head in the sand and ignore the problems, it is becoming obvious that all forms of transportation will be needed and funded. At least the state of Texas has recognized that railroads built by private companies with different goals for their mainlines in the 19th century, don't necessarily fulfill the roles and needs of the 21st century.

[Anonymous]

All of a sudden a generalized conversation has gotten specific. Maybe what's wrong with the Texas Eagle is that it doesn't fly either at track speed or 30 m.p.h.less. I'm sorry that you've had such a disappointing experience with Amtrak and there are probably a multitude of reasons why those things happen. But ask yourself what you would do if the host railroad was yours as a sole propriety. Where are you going to put your emphasis if an Amtrak train were forced on you? If you answer honestly, then maybe you'll think twice before blaming the carriers.
It has been our experience that the power companies prefer to own their own equipment. The cars are dedicated and the linehaul rates are cheaper. They can also lease them to others, or sell them...their discretion. Have a safe day...gdc

[Anonymous]

We can only speculate on what we will need in the future. Taxing for high-speed, dedicated passenger rail now would be like a surcharge placed on Columbus's voyages to fund stealth technology.