Amtrak 5 year plan is nothing more than the same

[Anonymous]

Not a bad idea. If you have read some of my previous posts on other threads, I would like to start building a new high speed rail grid between cities of five million in metropolitan populations such as: Detroit-Chicago, Dallas-Houston, Orlando/Tampa-Miami, Los Angeles-San Francisco, Philadelphia-Cleveland, etc.

Then in the second phase attempt to link these with cities of two million in metropolitan populations such as; New York City-Montreal, New York City-Toronto, Orlando-Jacksonville-Atlanta-Charlotte-Raleigh-Washingon DC, Cleveland-Detroit, Chicago-Milwaukeee-Minneapolis, Chicago-St.Louis-Kansas City-Denver, Houston-New Orleans-Jacksonville, Dallas-Kansas City, Dallas-Austin/San Antonio -Houston, Chicago-Indianapolis-Louisville-Nashville-Atlanta, Portland-Seattle-Vancouver, Los Angeles-San Diego-Phoenix. Most of the rest of the major cities would not be far from one of these lines, probably at most a two hour bus ride. Many cities of less than two million in metropolitan populations would be on these lines that I haven't mention.



There would be a direct link between the northeast to the midwest, the midwest to Texas, Texas to the southeast, and the midwest to the southeast. And yes, this would not happen overnight, but over a period of ten to twenty years.

The problem I see with gradually upgrading the current railroad tracks, other than the northeast corridor, is that these tracks belong to private freight railroads. There will always be conflicts with them as far as slots are concerned, and in my opinion running a passenger train at 100 or 120 mph is not fast enough. And if we go faster there will probably be a safety problem with the different speeds of passenger versus freight. Frankly, the Europeans are satisfied with state of the art, already defined technology TGV going 186 mph. We could save some funds by going without electricity with the JetTrain's 150 mph.

But gradually upgrading railroad track up to 90 mph, and then again to 120 mph, and then again to 150 mph is a three step process which will probably cost more in the long run than stepping ups to 150 mph to begin with....

[Modelcar]

....Perhaps Amtrak was destined to not do well when the budget was never adequate to fund it properly. No one with proper knowledge of passenger rail service has said it ever would make money...It is a service, not a money making venture....It sure would be nice if it could turn a profit but almost nowhere in the world does passenger rail make money....As for making money the airline business has practally never made money since it's been serving the public. Either we fund it to operate it properly or don't do it at all. There are first rate passenger rail services in other parts of the world...seems to me if it is to be provided here for the service we should figure out how to fund it so it can be a first class operation. This Administration in Washington now for sure won't do it.

QM

[Anonymous]

Most of us who believed that Amtrak was doomed from the start, believed the Federal Government could not run anything right, because political compromises rarely work in the real world. Obviously, we were right! Mother Nature simply compromises with no one - Politician or not!

Nixon nationalized passenger service in order to relieve a so-called private industry of a money losing public responsibility. It was not intended to make money. No private entity was will to run passenger trains then and none are willing to now - unless subsidized. Amtrak was therefore subsidized from the start. The silly pipe dream of a profitable Amtrak is only a recent invention of a glory seeking prior Amtrak CEO.

Nixon was the only President who ever supported Amtrak. Every other president has tried to kill it and was refuted by a congress afraid of their own constituents. The only reason Amtrak still exists at all is continued public political support. The public wants passenger trains. It is the beholden politicians who don't.

In California, A major passenger renasonce is underway, started by the initiative process a dozen or so years ago - not by politicans. Billion dollar passenger rail bonds were passed, while legislated highway bond issues went down to defeat at the polls. After that, to get their highways approved the highway lobby rascals added rail money to highway bonds so they too would pass. Oh well, we've now got a booming passenger service, even during a recession.

Mr Gunn can do nothing now except to provide life support to Amtrak and hope the patient survives its deathbed. He is in a box, put there by beholden politicians who want us dependant on only one mode of transportation (airlines for long haul and automobles for short haul). Why? Far more money was and will be spent on the highway system, air infrastructure, cars, trucks, and airplanes than ever would have been required for improved rail service. More money to the beholden and their lobbyist supporters is what its about!

As to the Administration's plan, pawning it off to the states amounts to nothing more than re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Interstate transportation simply cannot be arranged without significant Federal involvement. That's why the framers of the Constitution set up a strong Federal Government in the first place.

The admisistration's plan shirks its constitutionally required duty to govern and provde for interstate commerce. It will be dead on arrival in congress anyway, unless it is significantly revised.

Having said all that, it is still very obvious that major reform is necessary. The states should be more involved, like California is. But the problem will not be solved by changing who pays - any more than changing who cares for health care will fix that problem. Basic structural changes in the industry and in the infrastructure are needed.

One acute need is for a method of dispatching that gives priority to scheduled trains, while unscheduled trains generally run on a first come first serve basis. This may be require an independant dispatching authority on any line where multiple entities run trains. The railroads will probably refuse. So what! Force it on them - they are all publically chartered anyway - and they all want and are receiving publically funded right of way improvements already. If they want to get - they have to give a little too.

Another need is sufficient public capital funding to allow a marketable and financially viable service to be provided. Two or three trains a day on all routes, with at least one day train available at every station is minimum. Also the station at days end should have hotel accomodations available within walking distance, and a continuation schedule available the next morning.

We could go on and on, but IF the administration and any other politican wants my continued support, they better get real - real soon. I suggest all the traveling public take the same attitude, and let it be heard in Washington and in the State Houses.

RmC

[Anonymous]

Instead of running the Texas Eagle all the way from Chicago why not leave the Chicago to Dallas/Ft Worth to the airlines and put on a series of daily trains such as Dallas-Houston, Dallas-Atlanta, Dallas-Kansas City ( extend the Heartland Flyer) and Dallas-San Antonio. Even though these trains are relatively long distance they cover mileages that should be capable of being done in a day at almost any speed. The schedules can be designed to be much more user friendly. Adherence to the schedule becomes much easier than with a longer distance train. Passengers travelling long distances are inconvenienced but that is traffic that should probably go by air anyhow. The thorny question is how all this is funded. Unlike some previous speakers, I feel there is a place for passenger rail transport in the north american context. Just as we do not have airports in every town or interstates in every town one cannot have passenger rail service in every town. I think the key is to focus on corridors between major metropolitan centres that have rail access and are located appropriate distances apart to support rail service. I think one has to look at rail passenger service as a long term project and it is important to get the building blocks right. Start with daily return service between selected points and then gradually increase frequencies to 2-4 trains a day before starting service on another corridor radiating out from the same city. There is some truth to the adage "build it and they will come". I am not suggesting building white elephants but a gradual incremental approach leading eventually to higher speeds and increased frequencies.

[Anonymous]

Instead of running the Texas Eagle all the way from Chicago why not leave the Chicago to Dallas/Ft Worth to the airlines and put on a series of daily trains such as Dallas-Houston, Dallas-Atlanta, Dallas-Kansas City ( extend the Heartland Flyer) and Dallas-San Antonio. Even though these trains are relatively long distance they cover mileages that should be capable of being done in a day at almost any speed. The schedules can be designed to be much more user friendly. Adherence to the schedule becomes much easier than with a longer distance train. Passengers travelling long distances are inconvenienced but that is traffic that should probably go by air anyhow. The thorny question is how all this is funded. Unlike some previous speakers, I feel there is a place for passenger rail transport in the north american context. Just as we do not have airports in every town or interstates in every town one cannot have passenger rail service in every town. I think the key is to focus on corridors between major metropolitan centres that have rail access and are located appropriate distances apart to support rail service. I think one has to look at rail passenger service as a long term project and it is important to get the building blocks right. Start with daily return service between selected points and then gradually increase frequencies to 2-4 trains a day before starting service on another corridor radiating out from the same city. There is some truth to the adage "build it and they will come". I am not suggesting building white elephants but a gradual incremental approach leading eventually to higher speeds and increased frequencies.

[BRAKIE]

Those of us that didn't fall for the big lie of 71 knew Amtrak was doom to fail.Again and again tax dollars has been thrown down the tubes for a failed system.When will they let Amtrak fade away? It has proved time and again it could not make money and has continued to loose money hand over fist since 1971.Now this 5 year pipe dream????

[Anonymous]

Kay Bailey Hutchinson did co-sign the Hollins bill last year. Hollins wanted to give Amtrak close to $5 billion a year: $4 billion to fix and build new high speed tracks, and $1 billion to operate the trains..... Like I said, she has the votes to kill Amtrak, but she does not have the votes sadly to fix Amtrak.....and neither does Hollins.....

[Anonymous]

Amtrak claims its long distance trains lose $200-250 million or so each year, yet, Amtrak wants $1.8 billion next year. Does this mean that Amtrak loses $1.6 billion running and fixing the northeast corridor each year?

Frankly, for a few of years of the $1.6 billion the northeast corridor is costing Amtrak to run and maintain, Amtrak could build new high speed railroad lines somewhere else. Surely, there is enough in the budget to put in a slow local between Dallas and Houston.

Just how much does one trainset cost? A few million for a couple of Genesis engines, and a million per car, how about three or four cars. Would $10 million be enough? I repeat, how much is Amtrak losing operating and maintaining the northeast corridor....

Maybe Amtrak should concentrate on losing some money operating trains, and let someone else fix the railroad lines, such as the states being served by the northeast corridor....

Asking for state help works both ways....

[Anonymous]

"The sun has riz, and the sun has set, and we aint out of Texas yet". I learned that living in Dallas, so I too am a misplaced Texan- that said its a long d____ way from anywhere in Texas to anywhere else. I don't think you have a realistic idea of the finances that Gunn has to work with- or the vision of the Bush administration that has had it out for Amtrak for years. Maintaining the staus quo is a miracle sometimes. ( I too, am embarrased that Bush is from Texas, though I aint posing nude like the Chicks did- great picture though)

What I don't see is Texas putting up any money for your day time train from Dallas to Houston. Here in NC we have bought the equipment to free us from Amtrak equipment problems, own the track from Charlotte to Raleigh and points east and pay amtrak for two and in the next few years three trains a day. its been a real fight to keep the money in the budget, but we have a vision and the support has been there to fight off the highway boys. When Austin puts up the cash, and not Rick Perry's dream scheme, I'll change my mind.

[Modelcar]

...I have read and understand that Kay Bailey Hutchinson is a strong supporter of trying to make Amtrak better....If she has the power of the votes on her side please have her help deliver a budget ample enough so Mr. Gunn CAN do wonders and get equipment repaired so more frequencies of running can be initiated to serve all people better.

QM

[Anonymous]

Both plans as far as I am concerned missed the mark. As one posted below, on most of the track Amtrak runs on across the country, it is already split.

Therefore, I have to agree with you. Amtrak needs to run on its own tracks everywhere....

[Anonymous]

It has been my experience that the attendants will help if one asks nicely. And yes, if you don't tip them, they could care less about you. You probably didn't tip them....

As far as the condition of the depot, blame the city of Joliet. Amtrak leases just about everything. The platform's condition is a sign of the landlord, not Amtrak's fault.

[Anonymous]

Very well said. However, Texans want to be able to travel to the midwest, the northeast, to the southeast, and to the west. The problem is, we can't get there in 14 hours.

Its around 900-1000 miles to Chicago from Dallas, to Atlanta from Dallas, and another 900 miles from either to New York City. Or there abouts.

It takes 22 hours to get to Chicago. If we had high speed rail, if not the state if the art TGV's 186 mph but with the unelectrified less than the state of the art JetTrain's 150 mph, we could get to Chicago in 6 hours, or so. We could get to New York City in 12 hours, or so.

Simply put, Texas' Amtrak service is awful. One must catch the train in the late afternoon, to go north and south on the Eagle. One must catch the train in the late afternoon to go east or west and switch onto the Sunset Limited after spending the night in San Antonio in the wee hours of the morning. Or if one is going east, one must catch a bus in Dallas near midnight and catch the Sunset Limited in Houston in the early morning hours. This is awful.... even though the lines on Amtrak's map looks great, in practice, it is awful..... And why Amtak has not put in a daily local between Dallas and Houston is beyond me!

It is as if Mr Gunn wants Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson to deliver her death threat to Amtrak.... She has done her best to improve Amtrak's service in Texas, but Amtrak refuses to deliver. At this rate of improvements, zero, she will deliver her death threat. She has the votes....

[Anonymous]

I am a Canadian so there may be a lot that I am missing about American politics but you are quite right that the vision has to match the budget realities. The fight has to be with the makers of the budget not the implementers of the budget.From what I saw of Mr. Bush's plan is a lack of co-operation and probably rightly so from the states. I can just see how 1 state in the middle of a route can destroy service for all the other states on the same route. This is planning at its best! The real inadequacies that have to addressed is the unreliable funding levels for rail transit in both the US and Canada. While there is a place for the long distance passenger train maybe by focusing on short distance service with multiple frequencies the overall service would be improved. By short distance I mean nothing longer than 14 hours by rail. Obviously if the speed were improved the distances could be greater. Having shorter trips also increases the ridership because more of the travelling public is served a more convenient times. Shorter trips also increases schedule reliability and severely limits the excuses the railroads can come up with for delays which in turn boosts ridership.On the downside shorter trips does not necessarily improve equipment utilization as transcontinental equipment is moving on a 24/7 basis where as on short routes the equipment would sit idle overnight.This is offset by reduced capital costs as coaches are less expensive than sleepers. Does it feel like we are going in a circle? With respect to the UK experience,we already have it in North America; the freight railroads are the infrastructure companies and Amtrak and Via are the Train Operating Companies with the exception of the NE Corridor and therein lies the problem with the whole system.
ian

[Modelcar]

...."I'm afraid without any vision"...How Can David Gunn have much of a vision. Each year the adminstration seeks to slice the budget controlling what Amtrak can or can not do. Which came first, the chicken or the egg...Budget or greater plans for improved service. Gunn can't do much improvement with budget money seemingly always going to "other" means of transportation systems. If other areas of Amtrak are not supported....It is my wi***hat the tax dollars don't go to just the N E C either. I'm on the side of supporting our rail transportation system but not just one area for a special group.

QM

[dknelson]

Last friday I was railfanning at Joliet Illinois which during the afternoon sees a number of Amtrak trains including the Tx Eagle and the Ann Rutledge.
The Amtrak stop at the depot is not on the track nearest the depot however and a deteriorating platform means that some passengers get off on ballast.
So the train stops, the conductor throws down the bench steps but way too far away from the train to do anybody any good and then as the passengers get off, many of them needing some help, he deliberately stands too far away to be of any assistance, with his BACK TURNED to the passengers.

If Amtrak tried to fire the guy (clearly a graybeard with plenty of seniority) I am sure he would fully expect his union to come to his complete defense -- a variation on cutting off your nose to spite your face.

I have never seen anything like it -- certainly not on the Hiawatha Service or the Empire Builder that we see here in Milwaukee. I am not am Amtrak basher but I know of a dozen or so that were created this last Friday.

5 year plan? Anyone wanna buy a used Superliner?
Dave Nelson

[RudyRockvilleMD]

Do you mean David Gunn's 5 year plan or the administration's plan for Amtrak. Neither of these plans seem realistic on their own although some combination might be workable. One part of the Administration's plan which would split the NEC into an operating company and an infrastructure company is DOA. To run a railroad you need to control both the operations and the infrastructure. Great Britain's privatized railroads, which were divided into an infrastructure operator plus 27 train operating companies, is a good bad example of how not to go about passenger service.

[Anonymous]

I didn't notice any improvements in service with Amtrak's 5 year plan. It is nothing but the same.... I'm afraid without any vision, Congress will close Amtrak once and for all. I doubt seriously whether any congressmen outside the northeast corridor will vote to improve the northeast corridor without improvements in service to their areas. Yes, I meant Texas.... Our service is at rock bottom!