Oh- about crossing the Cascades, it would be interesting to see if there was a demand for a Spokane-Seattle Talgo service. Likely by way of Stampede Pass. But what would you name it? The GN's train between Seattle and Spokane was named the Cascade...
Paul Milenkovic schlimm Please allow me to rephrase the question. I am asking you if there is a case to be made for passenger rail in the US? If so, what is it and will you make it on this forum? Allow me to restate the answer I just gave, the response I had given some while on another thread, and the answer I give whenever asked. The case for trains is the same as the case for highways is the same as Steve Balmer's case for Microsoft Windows. Say it with me after dashing out on stage in front of a roaring crowd, sweating profusely, doing a one-arm pushop to throbbing rock music, and yelling at the top of your lungs, "Developers, developers, developers, developers!" I think the strongest case for passenger trains is in enabling communication between population centers so as to enhance that mode of living and working, just as the singular contribution of the automobile has been to facilitate the dispersal of population and the dispersal of work sites. In recent years, with access to the Web search tools that I didn't have 40 years ago when I got interested in advocating for passenger trains, I have become discouraged at the prospect of trains being a way of saving energy and alleviating pollution and traffic congestion or being a cost-efficient solution to the energy, pollution, or congestion problem, especially in a one-for-one replacement of automobile trips. The numbers don't add up. That is why I supported the plan of the then City of Madison Mayor, the Wisconsin Transportation Secretary, and Wisconsin Governor to site a train station in the Madison Downtown, a plan that engendered a strong reaction from the local advocacy community. Madison Mayor David Cieslewicz, himself a real-estate developer, part of a movement towards "smart growth" and 'green development", saw the train in terms of "Developers, developers, developers, developers", that is, as a tool for shaping development of Madison and outlining Dane County in those terms. It is perhaps ironic that much is said in train advocacy circles regarding convincing "greens" of the merits of trains, but when we "closed the deal" with a Green city mayor, we balked at the terms of the sale. Members of the local advocacy group with no interest in selling their suburban homes and moving into one of the Mayor's favored Downtown car-less condos (our past group president told me that in so many words), see the train as a replacement for their car or an airplane booking on long trips. I get criticism for bringing this up (again) on this forum, but the points of view expressed in the local advocacy community reflect views that I see expressed on this virtual community. Before saying that I am repeating myself, I am answering a question that was previously asked. Ultimately the case for passenger trains is one of values and how one wants to live. Some people relish city living and a city downtown workplace; others cringe at the thought. In my case, my formative years were in the transit-friendly near-Chicago environs but my adult lifestyle is definitely auto-centric -- the automobile is the only way I can contribute to operating my parents tree farm over 3 hours drive way. I used to think that the auto and the sprawl it engenders is anti-environment, but when I look for where I live during the climbing turn on a jet departing on Runway 18 from Dane County Regional making the right turn towards Victor 9 heading west, all I see from the air are trees. Cars have become more fuel efficient and safer. Frank Lloyd Wright had similar ideas that suburban and exurban living can be incorporated into a living environment. If ultimately trains are about values, this may explain why the new Wisconsin Governor so forcefully and precipitously "pulled the plug" on the Madison train. No, it is no about saving a few million per year in operating costs for that train, and no, it is not about the oil or the concrete lobbies contributing to the Governor's campaign. When we (I include me in the we as advocating for passenger trains) speak critically of cars, even to point out the disadvantages of being hurt or worse in a wreck or to have to creep along in congested traffic, when the Madison City Mayor wants to build a Downtown streetcar and have a Downtown-to-Downtown single-seat ride to Chicago and talks up car-less condos, a lot of people feel threatened that we want to take their cars away or at least restrict them, taking their freedom to live where they want and to come and go wherever they want. The one take-home message in this is that trains are not about saving oil, saving on emissions, or reducing congestion, they are about the kind of transportation development we see (going forward) in promotion of the living and working arrangements that we see (going forward). And we need to stop scaring people that we are out to save the planet by rolling back the auto-centric lifestyle (love affair with the automobile -- it comes out as scolding and critical when we say that).
schlimm Please allow me to rephrase the question. I am asking you if there is a case to be made for passenger rail in the US? If so, what is it and will you make it on this forum?
Please allow me to rephrase the question. I am asking you if there is a case to be made for passenger rail in the US? If so, what is it and will you make it on this forum?
Allow me to restate the answer I just gave, the response I had given some while on another thread, and the answer I give whenever asked.
The case for trains is the same as the case for highways is the same as Steve Balmer's case for Microsoft Windows. Say it with me after dashing out on stage in front of a roaring crowd, sweating profusely, doing a one-arm pushop to throbbing rock music, and yelling at the top of your lungs, "Developers, developers, developers, developers!"
I think the strongest case for passenger trains is in enabling communication between population centers so as to enhance that mode of living and working, just as the singular contribution of the automobile has been to facilitate the dispersal of population and the dispersal of work sites.
In recent years, with access to the Web search tools that I didn't have 40 years ago when I got interested in advocating for passenger trains, I have become discouraged at the prospect of trains being a way of saving energy and alleviating pollution and traffic congestion or being a cost-efficient solution to the energy, pollution, or congestion problem, especially in a one-for-one replacement of automobile trips. The numbers don't add up.
That is why I supported the plan of the then City of Madison Mayor, the Wisconsin Transportation Secretary, and Wisconsin Governor to site a train station in the Madison Downtown, a plan that engendered a strong reaction from the local advocacy community. Madison Mayor David Cieslewicz, himself a real-estate developer, part of a movement towards "smart growth" and 'green development", saw the train in terms of "Developers, developers, developers, developers", that is, as a tool for shaping development of Madison and outlining Dane County in those terms. It is perhaps ironic that much is said in train advocacy circles regarding convincing "greens" of the merits of trains, but when we "closed the deal" with a Green city mayor, we balked at the terms of the sale.
Members of the local advocacy group with no interest in selling their suburban homes and moving into one of the Mayor's favored Downtown car-less condos (our past group president told me that in so many words), see the train as a replacement for their car or an airplane booking on long trips. I get criticism for bringing this up (again) on this forum, but the points of view expressed in the local advocacy community reflect views that I see expressed on this virtual community. Before saying that I am repeating myself, I am answering a question that was previously asked.
Ultimately the case for passenger trains is one of values and how one wants to live. Some people relish city living and a city downtown workplace; others cringe at the thought. In my case, my formative years were in the transit-friendly near-Chicago environs but my adult lifestyle is definitely auto-centric -- the automobile is the only way I can contribute to operating my parents tree farm over 3 hours drive way.
I used to think that the auto and the sprawl it engenders is anti-environment, but when I look for where I live during the climbing turn on a jet departing on Runway 18 from Dane County Regional making the right turn towards Victor 9 heading west, all I see from the air are trees. Cars have become more fuel efficient and safer. Frank Lloyd Wright had similar ideas that suburban and exurban living can be incorporated into a living environment.
If ultimately trains are about values, this may explain why the new Wisconsin Governor so forcefully and precipitously "pulled the plug" on the Madison train. No, it is no about saving a few million per year in operating costs for that train, and no, it is not about the oil or the concrete lobbies contributing to the Governor's campaign. When we (I include me in the we as advocating for passenger trains) speak critically of cars, even to point out the disadvantages of being hurt or worse in a wreck or to have to creep along in congested traffic, when the Madison City Mayor wants to build a Downtown streetcar and have a Downtown-to-Downtown single-seat ride to Chicago and talks up car-less condos, a lot of people feel threatened that we want to take their cars away or at least restrict them, taking their freedom to live where they want and to come and go wherever they want.
The one take-home message in this is that trains are not about saving oil, saving on emissions, or reducing congestion, they are about the kind of transportation development we see (going forward) in promotion of the living and working arrangements that we see (going forward). And we need to stop scaring people that we are out to save the planet by rolling back the auto-centric lifestyle (love affair with the automobile -- it comes out as scolding and critical when we say that).
Lots and lots of little Truths and a few BIG TRUTHS in there. Well put.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
oltmanndLots and lots of little Truths and a few BIG TRUTHS in there. Well put.
Yes, I think so. But sometimes "it's hard to see the forest for the trees." on here. However, I do believe the claim "I have become discouraged at the prospect of trains being a way of saving energy and alleviating pollution service" for passenger rail over automobiles is hardly the end of the discussion, particularly if the rail is electrified. I suggest anyone interested should visit the DB webpage and go to the Umwelt Mobil Check (Environment Mobil Check)at the bottom of the page for the train you choose to get an idea (also available in English).
.http://reiseauskunft.bahn.de/bin/query.exe/dn?revia=yes&existOptimizePrice=1&country=DEU&dbkanal_007=L01_S01_D001_KIN0001_qf-bahn_LZ003&ignoreTypeCheck=yes&S=Nuremberg&REQ0JourneyStopsSID=&REQ0JourneyStopsS0A=7&Z=Munich+%28M%FCnchen%29&REQ0JourneyStopsZID=&REQ0JourneyStopsZ0A=7&trip-type=single&date=Sa%2C+10.08.13&time=8%3A00×el=depart&returnTimesel=depart&optimize=0&travelProfile=-1&adult-number=1&children-number=0&infant-number=0&tariffTravellerType.1=E&tariffTravellerReductionClass.1=0&tariffTravellerAge.1=&qf-trav-bday-1=&tariffTravellerReductionClass.2=0&tariffTravellerReductionClass.3=0&tariffTravellerReductionClass.4=0&tariffTravellerReductionClass.5=0&tariffClass=2&start=1&qf.bahn.button.suchen=
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
oltmanndArgh! Why would it ever take an outside organization to push Amtrak to do what they should be doing all by themselves. Marketing and pricing of passenger rail service should be a core competency of Amtrak's, don't ya think?
I am reluctant to answer you Don because I have already been rebuked for starting this thread in the first place. Making marketing decisions in political in that it sets Amtrak policy. TEMPO itself is political in that the whole organization is set up to influence Amtrak policy. Politics is the way that we as a nation as the way our institutions make policy and I know of no way to answer your question without being political. Since I have been warned I feel I must use an abundance of caution.
Since my own thread is rooted in Bob Johnston's article which was published in Trains I thought it would be acceptable. But I guess there is something about the no political discussion policy I do not understand.
John
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.