Although I will address HSR needs in general at a later post lets look at some representative population figures and travel.Since the only route in the USA that is even close to a HSR (its not IMHO ) is the NEC.
1. The 2010 Thanksgiving rush has shown that the bargin hunters will go for the NEC regional trains as some have sold out first but now the ACELAs are now selling out even though additional ACELAs have been scheduled. It may be that the higher fare passengers expect to be able to get a seat closer to departure? Does this indicate a pent up demand for for rail travel? I have no idea. Also because there is not enough ACELAs the most AMTRAK can schedule is one per hour.
2. Barcelona - Madrid Spain is a route that had about 1 train every other hour until a few years ago. Now the AVE HSR travels between those them from 2:38 - 3:20 depending on stops and some minor routing differences. Service is every half hour (except mid day) from 0600 - 2000. Population? Barcelona 1.6M urban 3.87M.. Madrid 2.9M urban 3.87M. Train capacity over 400?
3. Paris - Lyon France HSR now 1:57 - 2:15 with every half hour service from 0554 - 21-54 ( except hours 0900 - 1200. Population Paris 2.1M Metro 5.7M and Lyon 1.4M metro unknown. 2 connected TGVs run most of these schedules with a capacity of over 800 passengers per train.
4. An unanticipated result of these examples is in France the RER (regional) has a lot more passengers commuting into Paris with a 1 hour commuting range. The same is starting around Madrid as they have another HSR line going to the SSW.
5. How many USA city pairs can we name with these population numbers or greater that may be able to get similar rail (HSR ?) timings? What would be their ridership?
6. IMHO it is not how far or fast someone can travel but how long it takes?
I have worked for the government. Political pressure always tempts government agencies to spread themselves too thin in an attempt to make the most voters happy. Resources spread too thin result in substandard service and in fact makes the most voters unhappy.
Any transportation option needs to be fast, frequent, and on time. One train a day will never be considered useful transportation by any significant number of travelers.
The NEC is a great example of successful. Pick ONE more corridor and do it right and see if it gets used by the population along it. Use the success to demonstrate the need for ONE more corridor. Continue slow continuous growth as appropriate. Don't try to build HSR everywhere. Build it where there is a market.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
wairoa Subsidisies are a fact, of every single form of transportation, as far as I know. Pretending otherise is disengenuous. Saying HSR can not be a profitable venture in the USA is unknown, and unless HSR happens we shall never know. What boggles my litttle, addled, brain is, since when has the USA chosen to become a nation based on fear, and risk averse? Fine, lets not invest in HSR (incase it fails). Let's not let the nation invest in anything that may mean failure. Lets all make fun postulations, which are little more than people attempting to sound far cleverer than God ever blessed them to be(I must include myslef here as I am a person too), and above all, lets keep sending money to Saudi Arabia and any other crackpot state, just because we are afraid of failing. I swear to God above, everybody should have to go through bankruptcy at least once in life, and then have to start all over from scratch. Let's invest in HSR, and railroads generally, and all manner of infrastructure. If we can spend approximately a trilllion bucks a year on military and related causes(50% pork in my opinion, yes I have spent 17 years in the military) we can invest in the arteries that feed and run the nation.
Subsidisies are a fact, of every single form of transportation, as far as I know. Pretending otherise is disengenuous. Saying HSR can not be a profitable venture in the USA is unknown, and unless HSR happens we shall never know.
What boggles my litttle, addled, brain is, since when has the USA chosen to become a nation based on fear, and risk averse?
Fine, lets not invest in HSR (incase it fails). Let's not let the nation invest in anything that may mean failure. Lets all make fun postulations, which are little more than people attempting to sound far cleverer than God ever blessed them to be(I must include myslef here as I am a person too), and above all, lets keep sending money to Saudi Arabia and any other crackpot state, just because we are afraid of failing.
I swear to God above, everybody should have to go through bankruptcy at least once in life, and then have to start all over from scratch.
Let's invest in HSR, and railroads generally, and all manner of infrastructure. If we can spend approximately a trilllion bucks a year on military and related causes(50% pork in my opinion, yes I have spent 17 years in the military) we can invest in the arteries that feed and run the nation.
There is no "all" or "never" here. If we want to improve energy efficiency, reduce polution - particularly in places where it's worse, improve mobility and reduce oil consumption, then we need to get busy on the things that will do the most for the least investment and effort, and do them ASAP. HSR is not high on the list most places because it does so little, but does it at a very high price.
Things that would be higher on the list would be urban/suburban transit and conversion of truck load freight to rail.
The former wins because the majority of miles traveled by people are in that setting - not intercity travel, and it is generally cheaper to provide capacity with transit than by building urban freeways.
The latter wins, predominantly because the fuel savings are 300-400%, not the 20% that intercity rail has over air travel - and the sheer number of gallons consumed is so much larger.
That said, there are certainly places where HSR and HrSR are likely winners. Those locations would be predominantly in growth areas where the cost of adding extra highway or air capacity would high. Madison WI and Iowa City wouldn't seem to be a good fit. NEC extensions would, however, since they leverage the service already provided to beef up an existing, very functional network.
I would think Empire Service, Norfolk (south side), and Charlotte-Raleigh-Richmond are interesting because they might be able to operate with little or no ongoing subsidy. This appears to make HrSR projects more palatable to taxpayers. They don't seem to mind huge investments as long as there is no ongoing subsidy.
Another factor here is the huge price tag for these projects. $800M for Madison to Milwaukee? The original NEC upgrade in the mid-60s was $91M. That included a pair of TurboTrains, a fleet of Metroliners*, and two tracks of ties and welded rail from DC to NY.
(*not sure if the $91M paid for all 80 Metroliner MUs or just the first two four car trainsets. Anybody know?)
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Phoebe Vet I have worked for the government. Political pressure always tempts government agencies to spread themselves too thin in an attempt to make the most voters happy. Resources spread too thin result in substandard service and in fact makes the most voters unhappy. Any transportation option needs to be fast, frequent, and on time. One train a day will never be considered useful transportation by any significant number of travelers. The NEC is a great example of successful. Pick ONE more corridor and do it right and see if it gets used by the population along it. Use the success to demonstrate the need for ONE more corridor. Continue slow continuous growth as appropriate. Don't try to build HSR everywhere. Build it where there is a market.
Change "voters" to "riders" and you've caputured the arguement. In addition to NEC, there is the LA-SanDiego corridor as well as Chi-Stl and Chi-Det mini corridors which are doing quite well, too as well as the growing Ore-Was-CAN Northewest.
But your middle paragraph, PhoebeVet, is the most misunderstood yet contains the secret to success. Look at successful shopping areas. Not one store of each description or service, but several; not one restaurant but dozens. I know of a drug store that was ready to quit knowing a chain was opening around the corner from him. In the first two weeks the new store was open he lost 15% of his business; after that he had a steady 25% gain. Another client I had opened a McD's. Within six months BK opened right next door. Was McD scared? NO! He showed me he was doing 150 cars an hour until BK opened after which both he and BK did 200 cars an hour each. Next year, the redheaded girl with pigtails was drawing 250 cars an hour. How many supermarkets do you go to a week to satisfy your shopping needs? I bet more than one. The whole point is that no, one train a day or one a week, does not a usable service make. Stop thinking "running trains" and start thinking "providing service". Service is where the use is, service is where the return is, service is where the riders are, service is what it is about...not running a train.
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
blue streak 1 5. How many USA city pairs can we name with these population numbers or greater that may be able to get similar rail (HSR ?) timings? What would be their ridership?
OK. There are 21 Metro areas in the US with >2.5M in Metro area, so we'll stretch that, and we'll stretch the 3 hour time thing a bit, too. Here's the list. It's short.
Boston-NY-Phila-DC,
Houston-Dallas
Chicago - Detroit
LA - Pheonix
LA-San Diego
Chicago - StLouis
Chicago - Minneapolis (a big stretch)
LA - SF (a stretch)
SF - Seattle (a big stretch)
Miami-Tampa
Atlanta - Tampa (a big stretch)
Atlanta - DC (a big stretch)
If there is a market and real service can be provided to meet the market demand, then there is no "stretch". Just do the market research, determine the level of service needed to meet the need (inlcudes frequency, accomodation, start and end timings, and costs) and provide that level of service not just a token round trip to say you tried. Do baseball batters only get one pitch before they'er called out?
Phoebe Vet . Political pressure always tempts government agencies to spread themselves too thin in an attempt to make the most voters happy. Resources spread too thin result in substandard service and in fact makes the most voters unhappy.
. Political pressure always tempts government agencies to spread themselves too thin in an attempt to make the most voters happy. Resources spread too thin result in substandard service and in fact makes the most voters unhappy.
How so true. This is what is happening with the small $8B + in the first appropriation.
Phoebe Vet Any transportation option needs to be fast, frequent, and on time. One train a day will never be considered useful transportation by any significant number of travelers.
Again a good point. I look at your Piedmont stats and we find that the second train has now caused a more than doubling of traffic on just the Piedmont trains. On top of that Carolinian traffic is up but unless you work for NC DOT you cannot find out how much additional traffic CLT - Raleigh is there. That is just with 3 RTs a day. When will the 4th be started?
Now lets look at the Newport News - RICHMOND - WASH as well. With 3 - 4 Regional RTs that work oppposite to the Palmetto, Meteor, Silver Star, & Carolinian traffic has picked on all the trains although the LD trains are capacity limited RIC - WASH. Now Va is planning another RT
Phoebe Vet The NEC is a great example of successful. Pick ONE more corridor and do it right and see if it gets used by the population along it. Use the success to demonstrate the need for ONE more corridor. Continue slow continuous growth as appropriate. Don't try to build HSR everywhere. Build it where there is a market.
IMHO you aare correct but can there ever be and political stamina?
That Atlanta - DC route goes through Charlotte (709 thousand city 2.1 million metro, with 36% growth in the last ten years), Raleigh (405 thousand city 1.7 million metro), and Richmond (200 thousand city 1.2 million metro).
henry6 If there is a market and real service can be provided to meet the market demand, then there is no "stretch". Just do the market research, determine the level of service needed to meet the need (inlcudes frequency, accomodation, start and end timings, and costs) and provide that level of service not just a token round trip to say you tried. Do baseball batters only get one pitch before they'er called out?
Baseball hitters are out often on the first pitch - if they swing, put it in play but don't reach base. They do get some more at-bats in the game, though....and they better make a good attempt on each one, swinging only at good pitches to hit, to carry the analogy a bit deeper.
It was also mentioned that there was a network effect with implementation of HSR, the regional and local stuff got a boost. So, maybe the best attempts would be in places where there is already some sort of network. NEC extensions and the Chicago hub and perhaps LA and maybe SF. Beyond that, we may be swinging at balls in the dirt.
blue streak 1 Now lets look at the Newport News - RICHMOND - WASH as well. With 3 - 4 Regional RTs that work oppposite to the Palmetto, Meteor, Silver Star, & Carolinian traffic has picked on all the trains although the LD trains are capacity limited RIC - WASH. Now Va is planning another RT
[/quote]
[quote user="oltmannd"]
That would give wha? 2 additional RTs WASH - RICHMOND and the present 2 RIC terminators continue on to Norfolk? for 4 to Norfolk?
Speaking of LYNCH wonder if another RT is in the cards? Main item would be a schedule that could attract riders? If a second one would double ridership then go for it? Of course nothing can be done for either of these routes until much more single level equipment becomes available either from California cars being built and replacing some single level trains out of Chicago and/or an order for more Viewliner 2s ( does not seem to be any progress on that front?)
The above schedule would give 6 Regional RTs and the 4 Long distance trains. This gets AMTRAK up to 10 RTs along with Phoebe's fast (well not that fast) and frequent service. (service emphasized not just running trains).
oltmannd Pretty sure VA is just going to do 3-4 RT on the south side all the way to Norfolk and leave the Peninsula service to Newport News as is. This is intriguing service, though. For fairly cheap (unless they gold-plate the stations) they can get a 79 mph corridor extension done. I think the expectation is that it should do at least as well as the Lynchburg train and might not need any ongoing subsidy.
Pretty sure VA is just going to do 3-4 RT on the south side all the way to Norfolk and leave the Peninsula service to Newport News as is.
Don Oltmannd: you bring up a very important question that Phoebe Vet will probably address.
What is enough service to be counted as frequent?. I will give some examples that have occurred on AMTRAK and would like for peple that have lived or are living in these areas think. Will take them in geographic locations. Note as a rule I am not aware of how many seats available on each train. Maybe some one can provide some information on # of seats.
1. The San Diego service -- Originally was 3 RTs and then California started a 4th. Ridership balloned until we now have 12 RTs.
2. LAX - Santa Barabra -- started with 2 Ca supported and now at 5 with the Coast Starlight a 6th but only stopping at SBA.
3. San Jose - Oakland - Sacremento Started with ( ? ) and now weekdays 4 RTs from SJC and 8 RTs OAK - SAC.
4. Oakland - Bakersfield --- now 4 RTs and SAC - BFD 2 RTs with bus connections from OAK and SAC to Stockton for train not originating at those stations. Capitol corridor has announced additional cars are now available to add another car for these trains boosting the trains from 4 to 5 cars (25% iincrease) or about 400 passengers max capacity (?).
5. Cascades corridor. --- Started with 2 SEA - PDX RTs + coast Starlight northbound and now 4 RTs + Starlight. This route is completely overloaded + 2 additional trains for the thanksgiving holiday.
6. CHI - MKE started with ( 3 or 4 ) and now 8 RTs.
7. CHI - STL ---- 3 Lincoln services now 4 + Eagle.
8. STL - Kansas City -- 2 RTs has not been changed and there has not been as dramatic ridership growth.
9. CHI - Kalamazoo, Mi --- Moved up to 4 RTs and AMTRAK added a 5th for the Labor day holiday?
10. CLT - Raleigh --- 3rd RT seems to have doubled Piedmont traffic and unknown what additional traffic on Carolinian.
11. WASH - Richmond - Newport News -- . There were no short distance at first except for the 3 Long distance trains; now there are 4 to Richmond with 2 continuing to NPN + 4 Long Distance. This route has the largest number of passengers and revenue / train of any of the short haul trains of AMTRAK.
12. PHL - Harrisburg Keystone service - started with 4 - 6 RTS (?) now 14 weekday RTs and ridership moved from 25,000 / Month to over 125K (?).
13. NY - Albany - Niagra Falls. --- This route I do not know how ridership and # trains has increased.
14. Downeasters --- Started with 4 now 5 RTs ridership growth has been fairly linear.
So IMHO it appears that once 3 or more likely 4 RTs on any route is implemented the ridership becomes a frequent route and passenger growth baloons? 4 - 6 certainly should be the minimun # of HSR trains on any route. A good example will be the CLT - Raleigh MSR then continuing HSR on to Petersburg - Richmond - WASH.
As always all corrections welcomed.
The existing service includes three round trips between Charlotte and Raleigh, with a fourth round-trip planned for start-up in the second quarter of 2014. NCDOT is trying to arrange financing for a fifth round trip after completion of the Charlotte Gateway Station in city center..
The existing service includes three round trips between Charlotte and Raleigh, with a fourth round-trip planned for start-up in the second quarter of 2014.
NCDOT is trying to arrange financing for a fifth round trip after completion of the Charlotte Gateway Station in city center..
The best suggestion yet, by far.
The figure published in several reports on the California project has been between $30 to 60 mil. per mile. Even that seems high, but where does a figure several times that come from? I found the 800 mile figure refers to the whole system with a bunch of eventual branches beyond the core. From what I understand, it is the price of the land in the city areas that is really jacking up the price.
The figure published in several reports on the California project has been between $30 to 60 mil. per mile. Even that seems high, but where does a figure several times that come from? I found the 800 mile figure refers to the whole system with a bunch of eventual branches beyond the core.
The figure published in several reports on the California project has been between $30 to 60 mil. per mile. Even that seems high, but where does a figure several times that come from?
I found the 800 mile figure refers to the whole system with a bunch of eventual branches beyond the core.
From what I understand, it is the price of the land in the city areas that is really jacking up the price.
Which makes you wonder why they didn't plan to use existing ROW/track in those areas. It would be a great place to start the conversation about FRA car construction standards and maybe be able to deliver a more sensible HSR product.
They are planning to use the Caltrain right-of-way from San Jose to San Francisco, and running into a buzz saw of opposition from Union Pacific and several of the cities along the route. From south of San Jose all the way to SF, the land around the Caltrain tracks and US101 is almost completely occupied by commercial, industrial, and residential development. If armchair analysts propose that growing transportation needs would be better served by highways, they should make sure to compare apples with apples. Adding highway capacity in this particular area will be impressively expensive--prior to the 1989 earthquake, Caltrans (the CA highway department) was proposing double-decker highways because the cost of adding lanes on the ground was prohibitive, but the collapse of the Cypress structure put an end to that.
oltmannd .... Another factor here is the huge price tag for these projects. $800M for Madison to Milwaukee?
....
Another factor here is the huge price tag for these projects. $800M for Madison to Milwaukee?
The cost for Madison - Milwaukee seems high top me too, even taking the TALGOs into account. Similarly, the cost of Chicago - Saint-Louis tripled from about $0.3B to $1.1B. I haven't seen any breakdown of either to get the full picture. One possibility may be the cost of new (mostly) quad gates and flashers and crossing surfaces, even for private and farm (access to field) crossings, that could add up. Then again, Milwaukee - Madison is much shorter than Chicago - Saint Louis.
Initial high costs are being looked at and not the return and benefits in the long run. You get thirsty, take a drink of water or soda or beer? What is it that will quence your thirst best in your mind. Water is probably the cheapest and beer the more expensive of the three. Which do you choose?
henry6 Initial high costs are being looked at and not the return and benefits in the long run. You get thirsty, take a drink of water or soda or beer? What is it that will quence your thirst best in your mind. Water is probably the cheapest and beer the more expensive of the three. Which do you choose?
Running with that analogy, not only is water the least expensive choice, it is in many cases the healthiest. Soda is really hard on your teeth -- regular soda is pretty much just sugar calories, OK in instances where you are doing a lot of hard, sweaty work but otherwise not so good, diet soda will just make you hungry because it plays games with your body's sense of having consumed something sweet but not getting any food satisfaction in return. Beer is said to be good for you only in the strictist moderation. So just what is the comparison to people looking at the costs of trains?
As to these long-term benefits, there is a crash program in these parts to rally support for the train in Wisconsin. Yes, I will engage in I-told-you-so -- I was pleading with my local advocacy colleagues for months now to close ranks politically with Madison Mayor Dave about the Downtown Madison train station, and to lay of nagging WisDOT, Amtrak, and the Mayor's Office about backwards facing seats and checked baggage and concentrate on building a unified political coalition in support of the train. Some few short months ago, the worst thing people thought would happen is that half of the seats on the Talgo would be in a permanent backwards-riding position and that checked baggage would not be offered out of Madison (This is not a Madison-Milwaukee commuter train! This is an intercity train! Backwards-facing seats are unacceptable!).
OK, let's talk benefits. At the behest of our local advocacy group, I e-mailed Mayor Dave in support of the train, and he responded right away, asking that people email Governor Elect Walker who is currently the Milwaukee County Executive. Mayor Dave also linked to the Midwest Highspeed Rail Association page where people are also going ballistic over what is happening.
What is the first thing I see on the MHSRA Web page? That the train uses "multiples less" fuel than competing (auto, air) modes. Well no, it does not. Hard figures are hard to come by -- the Amtrak system saves perhaps 20-30 percent; the Vision Report assumes systems of regional corridors with day trains with those evil fixed backwards-facing seats that may save 50 percent over driving. Where does this claim that the trains uses "multiples less" fuel than driving come from? Rick Harnish's (I am picking on him by name because MHSRA has this completely unverifiable claim front and center) vivid imagination?
I absolutely, positively, certainly, refuse to advocate for trains based on the putative benefit of solving the "Peak Oil" or "imported oil" problem. I simply will not write a letter-to-the-Editor or an e-mail to an elected official citing that as a benefit for the train because with current technology and current Amtrak operating practices (i.e. Cabbage Cars), it is not so. So what are benefits are there that justify the 810 million expense (it is someone's money, even if it just came from the Federal Source of Money from on high)?
I e-mailed Mr. Walker asking him politely to reconsider his position, claiming that the train and especially the Downtown Madison train station (the hated Downtown station, the one over which our local advocacy people were giving a grilling of the WisDOT person last June), this train may have low ridership now, but we have to think 20 or 50 years in the future when all of this will change and the train will be much more expensive. And if someone around here comes back to me on the nearly 800,000 people on the Milwaukee-Madison Hiawatha, building the ridership to that level required years of patience, and it required a narcist Illinois Governor to practically shut down the Illinois road system. Also, Milwaukee Mitchell Field has 7 times the passenger boardings of Madison Dane County Regional, suggesting that the low 100,000 range would be realistic, at least initially for Milwaukee-Madison.
This is crunch time on the Madison train, but I am not, absolutely not, going to advocate for the Madison train based on multiples of the passenger MPG of cars because it is simply not true, and in my position, it would be a violation of scholarly ethics and scientific integrity to claim otherwise. MWHSRA, I guess, is in a position to just make stuff up.
So just what are the benefits that justify the Madison train? I petitioned Mr. Walker on the basis of unspecified and long-term contribution to "economic development", and I am thinking that Mayor Dave has in mind his theories of "smart growth", "density in development", and a boost to the Madison Downtown area.
But energy saving? It just isn't so. Time saving -- make me laugh, counting on a 2015 deployment of PTC for the 110 MPH speed is another fantasy. Congestion on the Madison-Milwaukee leg of I-94. Ha, if people call that congestion, there are many other parts of the country with a more serious need for the train. In other words, to advocate on the basis of long-range benefits, we have to flap our arms and make stuff up, but I don't feel ethically constrained about speaking of "long-term economic development" because something that general and non-specific is something that there isn't any hard evidence to say otherwise. So, just what are the long-term benefits of the Madison train?
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Do you drink water when you really want, or need, a beer? or some kind of sports or health drink? I hold to the analogy because most people will probably pick up the concept without analyzing the nutritiousness and effects of various liquids. Just like they don't anyalyze the value and long run returns of rail versus highway or air.
henry6 Do you drink water when you really want, or need, a beer? or some kind of sports or health drink? I hold to the analogy because most people will probably pick up the concept without analyzing the nutritiousness and effects of various liquids. Just like they don't anyalyze the value and long run returns of rail versus highway or air.
I can't figure out whether the train is the water, the Coke, or the beer. Is the train the low-cost alternative that is good for you? Or is it the higher-cost beer that a person would enjoy more than a glass of water? Or is the higher-cost beer actually a better choice because alcohol in strict moderation helps you live longer whereas the soda, which many people prefer in taste to the beer these days, will give you Type-2 diabetic disease in the long run?
And after my rant, are people around here telling me I need a beer?
Paul Milenkovic I can't figure out whether the train is the water, the Coke, or the beer. Is the train the low-cost alternative that is good for you?
I can't figure out whether the train is the water, the Coke, or the beer. Is the train the low-cost alternative that is good for you?
Exactly the questions that have to be asked and answered and understood by all: public, politicians, planners.
Me, bourbon. On the rocks. I'll drink to that!
HarveyK400 One possibility may be the cost of new (mostly) quad gates and flashers and crossing surfaces, even for private and farm (access to field) crossings, that could add up. Then again, Milwaukee - Madison is much shorter than Chicago - Saint Louis.
One possibility may be the cost of new (mostly) quad gates and flashers and crossing surfaces, even for private and farm (access to field) crossings, that could add up. Then again, Milwaukee - Madison is much shorter than Chicago - Saint Louis.
This brings up a big question that I have not heard anyone address except your question.
1. Why does street and highway crossing improvements come out of this ROW improvements MSR pot?
2. My understanding is usually US FHW funds are used for crossing improvements whether it is adding crossing warnings or upgrading present ones. That is what happened on the improvements in my location.
3. So why isn't those same funds allocated for the MSR upgrades? I understand that the gasoline tax fund is considered in debt. but still?
4. Does anyone have an idea of the cost for a 4 quad gate system with maybe center line barriers?
5. Some states at one time may have required the RRs to allow these unprotected crossings? If so shouldn't the costs of these crossing signal upgrades / initial installations come from federal highway funds? That may be a significant portion of the costs?
6. Private crossings? Boy what another bucket of worms?i
and to lay of nagging WisDOT, Amtrak, and the Mayor's Office about backwards facing seats and checked baggage and concentrate on building a unified political coalition in support of the train. (This is not a Madison-Milwaukee commuter train! This is an intercity train! Backwards-facing seats are unacceptable!).
Have you been able to convince them that all new AMTRAK LD train cars built in the future will have some backwards facing seats?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.