schlimm Don: I do think you have a good point how having viable transit at both ends of an intercity rail line, whether HSR or not, makes rail an option as opposed to the car. I also think that metro regions that already have decent existing transit should be served with improved intercity rail service (as henry likes to say!) first. The places that have had the foresight to develop and in part, pay for their transit systems, should get intercity services first, not metro areas that lag. Paul M: I am beginning to think that approaching intercity rail services on a state and/or regional level may be more sensible than on a nationwide level, given the very differing patterns of travel, distances, metro areas, etc. make a one size fits all approach unpalatable for many so that stagnation occurs.
Don: I do think you have a good point how having viable transit at both ends of an intercity rail line, whether HSR or not, makes rail an option as opposed to the car. I also think that metro regions that already have decent existing transit should be served with improved intercity rail service (as henry likes to say!) first. The places that have had the foresight to develop and in part, pay for their transit systems, should get intercity services first, not metro areas that lag.
Paul M: I am beginning to think that approaching intercity rail services on a state and/or regional level may be more sensible than on a nationwide level, given the very differing patterns of travel, distances, metro areas, etc. make a one size fits all approach unpalatable for many so that stagnation occurs.
I wonder if state by state is too restricted while nationwide is too unrestricted and unwieldly. I think more in terms of regions: New England and Mid Atlantic., te Near-Midwest from Chicago to Cleveland, Cinciannati, Indianapolis, Memphis, St. Louis and Minniapolis-St Paul, the Far Midwest to Salt Lake City, Sante Fe, et al., and the Pacific Coast, Southeast and Southwest.. REgions and city pairs and groups with traditional ties. Then an Amtrak to operate inter regional trains.
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.
oltmannd schlimm: If I have offended Don in anyway Not offended..... You are going to have to try MUCH harder.
schlimm: If I have offended Don in anyway
If I have offended Don in anyway
Not offended..... You are going to have to try MUCH harder.
I have no inclination to do that. I don't always agree with you, though mostly I do. Your knowledge of the rail world is a valuable asset. I lived in metro Atalanta in the 80's and recall the arguments about any expansion of MARTA, especially to the NW into Cobb. I guess that is still a struggle? Have they expanded services to the east toward Snellville ("Where everybody is somebody") and Lawrenceville?
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
schlimm If I have offended Don in anyway
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
schlimm Nice discussion Don, but you are delusional if you think the main determining issue in WI or OH was passenger train service. I doubt if many voters in either state gave a fig about that issue, pro or con. Being in the industry or as an interested bystander, it is easy to lose perspective about rails and the general public.
Nice discussion Don, but you are delusional if you think the main determining issue in WI or OH was passenger train service. I doubt if many voters in either state gave a fig about that issue, pro or con. Being in the industry or as an interested bystander, it is easy to lose perspective about rails and the general public.
Of course I did not mean Don is psychotic or in any way mentally ill. I used the term "delusional" in the everyday sense of having been mislead about something (which is possible) and believing it to be true even though it is not. If I have offended Don in anyway, I am very sorry, but I doubt if someone as sharp as Don would have misunderstood my usage.
I don't have contacts in Ohio, but quite a few in Wisconsin, who are active politically, both left and right. The rail issue was not a factor in their vote, although about half were aware of the issue but felt it was not a significant matter.
Additionally, i think a large number of Americans are fed up with politically-ideological radio and government, liberal and conservative, etc., because they are pragmatists in the American tradition of getting stuff done.
Of course it is not wrong to take money others turned down! But we all get wrapped up in spin! Each side spins it's "take" on a subject and rabidly expresses it without hearing the other side; or caring about the other side. The real fact is that those in power rather have us arguing amongst ourselves than paying attention to what they're really doing!
schlimm or as an interested bystander, it is easy to lose perspective about rails and the general public.
or as an interested bystander, it is easy to lose perspective about rails and the general public.
Um, I guess I can't get away from mental-health analogies either. Is that what folks in the mental health profession call "projection?"
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Don Oltmann could be wrong, or in error, or mistaken, or perhaps even misinformed on Wisconsin or Ohio politics. But delusional? That is a pretty strong word, and I am thinking that you don't really mean that Don is suffering from major mental illness. I guess it is sort of like calling someone an idiot in a heated political discussion -- one often doesn't mean that person is subject to a clinical definition of a level of intellectual disability, rather, that one strongly disagrees with that person's point of view.
On the topic of the WI passenger train, I was talking to a fellow in the model railroading community who is not a member of the local advocacy group and hence has an independent point of view, and this person self-identifies as being a liberal, so I guess you can't ascribe the bias that he is following a conservative or Republican party line in opposition to trains. I was talking with him about the advocacy people being crabby this year and my not wanting to do the Madison Model Railroad show to have to deal with a less-than-cheerful outlook when people are supposed to be having fun with model trains.
He asked me, "Don't you ever listen to right-wing talk radio in this state? The train was pretty much all they talked about this election season."
What I gathered from this is three things. One is that the average person in this state pretty much likes their car, thank-you-very-much, and there is this perception, a suspicion, that the train isn't simply an alternative for those of us who want a car-free life style, especially as we get older and driving becomes more iffy. Rather, it is perceived in the context of the Green Campaign, where when you get a new toilet, it doesn't flush cleanly, when you get a new light bulb, it has a funny shade of white to it, when you rake your leaves to the curb, you get scolded for letting them spill into the street instead of keeping them on the parkway, and so on. There is this suspicion, perhaps borne of misinformation, or dare I say paranoia (OK, another misuse of a mental-illness word in politics) that the people who want trains want to take your car away.
On the other hand, at a meeting of our local advocacy group, one board member expressed a hatred of people "who drive Hummers" and opined that gas should be taxed at the levels in Europe so as to discourage driving and especially wasteful driving of big vehicles, and that the revenue should be put into a world-class train system. This person is pretty forceful in expressing their views, and I somewhat meekly suggested, "As an advocacy group, do we really want to advocate for trains on the basis of opposing cars? I am wondering if we would lose ground if we did that", to which the reply was that the remarks about taxing gas were a personal opinion, expressed within the confines of the board meeting but not for general public consumption, or something to that effect.
A person is entitled to their own opinion, and as a younger person, I felt the same way about strong public policies to suppress cars and encourage trains, but as I got older I began to appreciate the utility of having a car, say, to visit my parents 4 hours drive away in a rural area where they will never get train service, to help them out as they got older and more frail without having to give up my city job and without requiring them to move.
But when people oppose the train on the basis that the pro-train faction is anti-car, perhaps this is not misinformed or paranoid or delusional, perhaps this reflects the reality of what many who support the train are actually thinking.
The second thing is that the train was to serve the state capital of Madison, and Madison is symbolic, in the minds of many in the rural areas of the state, of a strong central government that wants to run their lives. Yeah, yeah, you can all weigh in about how would you like to do without state roads and state Highway Patrol, and state prisons to keep dangerous people off the streets and so on, but symbolism plays a strong role in politics, and both the liberals and the conservatives often vote their feelings rather than reasoned opinions.
The third thing is the Madison Overture Center. They say you don't look a gift horse in the mouth -- if someone gives you something for free, you don't start being all critical about what you are going to get -- but what if that gift horse will drive you broke with vet bills? A lady by the name of Pleasant Roland makes a small fortune selling what are rather expensive American Girl-brand dolls to indulgent grandmothers across this land to give to their granddaughters, and that small fortune becomes somewhat larger when that enterprise is bought by toy maker Mattel, and a large sum of money is donated to the City of Madison (a gift horse!) to replace an otherwise servicable Civic Center theatre for seeing road company Broadway shows, classical music concerts, and other forms of art. This Overture Center, long story short, has become something of an albatross on the City on account of its operating subsidy.
My final remark is that we are all part of one United States rather than citizens of feuding state entities. So if the money leaves Wisconsin and Ohio, where there is not the political support to pay the operating subsidy, (Really. Just because you belong to the advocacy group and think that the subsidy is "chump change" in the WisDOT budget doesn't mean everyone else in the state has the same point of view.), so it goes to New York, Virginia, or some other place where it services a social purpose. Is that so wrong?
FIrst of all, I really enjoyed your commentary!
This is an interesting topic because there is so much misinformation spread about by both sides. On one hand, you have Wendel Cox's "passenger trains are old, archaic and evil" point of view and on the other you have the passenger rail advocates' "trains are intrinsically good, no matter what. God himself said so" point of view.
A majority of people say they want more passenger trains of all types. OK. So, what happened in Wisc and Ohio? The trains were made a major talking point in both campaigns and the anti-train people won. Hmmm. Does this mean people in those states don't want trains or they just don't think they are worth the cost? The dirty little secret here is that the most people have no idea that most train service would require a significant, on going operating subsidy. Heck, the folks that ride the express commuter bus with me each day have no inkling the farebox recovery is less than 50% of the operating cost. They got very upset at some proposed fare changes, thinking it would increase the operating profit of the service. Ongoing operating subsidies for intercity passenger transportation can be politically unpalatable. Investment in infrastructure is less so.
Trains have roomy seats. Here and now. But there is nothing intrinsic in that. The seat width and pitch can be changed. There is nothing keeping RR coaches from being fitted with 3-2 seating with knee-knocker pitch. In fact, airline passengers have been trading seating space for reduced fares for quite a while now. I'm sure, if asked, passengers will say they want both, but this is truly and either/or proposition. I suspect if we ever get some true HSR and hire for profit operators to run it, we'll wind up with less seating area than Amtrak provides now.
Infrastructure investment in PPPs ala the UP and the St. Louis/KC service can work. That is certain. It's been seen in Pennsylvania's Keystone service and the recent DC-Lynchburg NEC extension. However, many times it can be extremely costly compared to the benefits and alternatives. These projects often come in with huge price tags for reasons I can't always fathom. Hundreds of millions for a route a couple hundred miles long, big chunks of it through rural areas where highway congestion and air quality problems are few, carrying a couple hundred folks a several times a day. The same money could be used to move 10x the folk in and around major metro areas where congestion relief and air quality improvement exist for every passenger mile of service provided. Cities like Atlanta, Charlotte, Dallas and Houston are struggling mightily to find money to expand their urban/suburban transit services. $800M is enough to build a couple ancillary commuter rail lines in Atlanta, each worth a lane or two of urban interstate highway capacity. Maybe we should do these projects first. They help solve the "first mile/last mile" problem of intercity train travel to boot.
The train is a good alternative to driving or flying, but given the current suburban nature of US society, a car is pretty much a requirement and the incremental cost of operating it on the occasional intercity trip is not so great, particularly when more than one person is in the car. If the US becomes more urbanized (and building transit services first might be a way to promote this) then doing with a car becomes a real option and intercity train travel starts looking better.
I think improved intercity train service in the US is a good idea. I also think the price is too high and we need to get city/suburban transit up to speed in more places before spend too much to 'connect the dots'. We also need to find ways build and operate the service more efficiently. Even the Republicans in VA woke up an took notice when the DC-Lynchburg train covered it's operating costs (even Amtrak's very high operating costs!) Now, they are on to doing a Norfolk-Petersburg - Richmond NEC extension - at a seemingly reasonable cost of $87M. http://trn.trains.com/Railroad%20News/News%20Wire/2010/12/Agreement%20reached%20on%20Norfolk%20passenger%20service.aspx
So many comments miss so many facts, such as presented in my guest commentary on our NPR station KWMU
http://www.stlpublicradio.org/programs/commentaries/commentary.php?cid=1269
henry6 oltmannd: Maybe the answer is to move the trucks out of the way of the passengers rather than the other way around, although I suspect the best answer is some of both. Playing Devil's Advocate, what have you accomplished by maintaining the Status Quo?
oltmannd: Maybe the answer is to move the trucks out of the way of the passengers rather than the other way around, although I suspect the best answer is some of both.
Maybe the answer is to move the trucks out of the way of the passengers rather than the other way around, although I suspect the best answer is some of both.
Playing Devil's Advocate, what have you accomplished by maintaining the Status Quo?
Amtrak is pretty much status quo. Freight railroading not so much. Lots of domestic intermodal conversion the past several years. Particularly this year. Big plans afoot, too.
oltmannd Maybe the answer is to move the trucks out of the way of the passengers rather than the other way around, although I suspect the best answer is some of both.
Thanks to the folks in Iowa, Ohio, Wisconsin and New Jersey, New York has been able to garned more money to put toward faster passenger rail between Buffalo and New York City.
But a question I posed on another thread has to considerd, too. The question: if we want bigger trucks, and triple trailers on our highways, why aren't we putting more money into passenger rail to protect and serve the traveling public? Or if we don't want to serve the traveling public with passenger rail service, why are we worring about putting them in harm's way with more trucks, bigger trucks, and triple trailer trucks? Which scenerio should we follow? Each seems to be at odds with the other except if you ar a politician tryiing to get money.
henry6 Ever drive NYC to CHI? Why? You're dead tired by the time you hit Ohio and *** near dead by Gary, Indiana. Wouldn't a train serve you better in Chicago than a two day sleep in the Windy City? Seriously, though, NYS is working on HSR across the state. HSR in this case meaning 100+ mph track in many areas most seperated from CSX freight traffic. Higher than today's speeds are also being worked on in other areas. PA is also doing well with Keystone projects west from Philadelphia. Ohio we know has killed any such upgrading of track, so, yeah, you're probably right, there will be no real increase in attractiveness of LSL or any other train between Gotham and Chi. However, if PA, OH, IN and IL were to take NY's lead and improve the route, it would be a viable route for more "service" as I define it and not just track for running trains. Both the PRR and NYC did what, 16 hour or better service between the two cities. If there were even four round trips a day on such routing, there might be a chance of marketable and usable service. Especially if the east end of the routes were tied to NY's Empire Corridor or PA's Keystone services. (I'd run one train Cleveland-Chicago, split one via Water Level the other around the Horseshoe combining westbound.)
Ever drive NYC to CHI? Why? You're dead tired by the time you hit Ohio and *** near dead by Gary, Indiana. Wouldn't a train serve you better in Chicago than a two day sleep in the Windy City? Seriously, though, NYS is working on HSR across the state. HSR in this case meaning 100+ mph track in many areas most seperated from CSX freight traffic. Higher than today's speeds are also being worked on in other areas. PA is also doing well with Keystone projects west from Philadelphia. Ohio we know has killed any such upgrading of track, so, yeah, you're probably right, there will be no real increase in attractiveness of LSL or any other train between Gotham and Chi. However, if PA, OH, IN and IL were to take NY's lead and improve the route, it would be a viable route for more "service" as I define it and not just track for running trains. Both the PRR and NYC did what, 16 hour or better service between the two cities. If there were even four round trips a day on such routing, there might be a chance of marketable and usable service. Especially if the east end of the routes were tied to NY's Empire Corridor or PA's Keystone services. (I'd run one train Cleveland-Chicago, split one via Water Level the other around the Horseshoe combining westbound.)
A recent segment of Sixty Minutes featured a story on the dire financial condition of many of the nation's states. At the top of the list is California. Its bonds are rated just about junk status. Following closely behind it is New York. Its Lieutenant Governor said that he has been unable to do anything about the dire financial situation in New York. It is facing massive deficits.
The federal government is deep in debt. And it is likely to get worse. Whether it will be able to help fund high speed rail is questionable. So how will New York fund high speed rail?
henry: No matter how well-marketed for price, convenient departures, et.,, any service from CHI-NYC is a non-starter because it would be much too slow. Even if you increased the average (sustained) speed to 79 mph, it would take 12 hours. That is not going to be competitive with flying, and driving is still much cheaper and only 4-6 hours longer. To be competitive you would have to have ultra high speed (at an ultra high cost to build) equipment running at an average speed of 200 mph to make the run in a little under 5 hours. Marketing means studying a route for feasibility and anything longer than about 300 miles is pointless until speeds are averaging about 150, i.e., a three hour run for cities 450 miles apart..
The ACL service is not a commuter service in the same sense as you are thinking. It is an evenly distributed service without peak or rush hours, more like a regional rail service but not long distance. Good example of how rail can alleviate highway congestion, move people through rough weather, and meet the needs of employers, employees, and the general public. Any commuters probably change to frequent, quick, PATCO service direct to downtown Philly rather than remain on the NJT train up and around the back to get to 30th St. Station. But LSL is LD, and west of Buffalo, being the loner on the tracks, is not well marketed. There is no well marketed (i.e. equipment, time sensitive, and price scheduled between NYC and Chi anylonger. Both the Broadway and the Century have been buried in the passenger train graveyard.
You are talking about what is essentially a commuter service, where much of the ridership uses it for daily round trips to and from work. The LSL is not a commuter train and seems to serve a very limited (I would say pointless) role west of Buffalo or Cleveland.
schlimm I was talking about average speed. If a top speed were only 45 mph, why bother? In some locations because of road congestion, etc. a 45 mph average would be great, but that is probably commuter services, not corridors of 80 miles or longer where the highway speeds get well-above 65.
I was talking about average speed. If a top speed were only 45 mph, why bother? In some locations because of road congestion, etc. a 45 mph average would be great, but that is probably commuter services, not corridors of 80 miles or longer where the highway speeds get well-above 65.
Right. The service has to be researched, designed, marketed, scheduled, maintained and cost effective for a given application. The Lake Shore Ltd. is part of the Empire State Service between NY and Albany and Syracuse and Buffalo/Niagra Falls. Buffalo to Erie to Cleveland its a single train, then paired again into Chicago. Empire Service is good to Albany, weak to Syracuse and weaker west of there. So a good market survey has to be (re?)done west of Albany all the way to Chicago. NYS is getting HSR money (more since OH, IO, WI and NJ turned their backs on it) and CSX is somewhat agreeable to the plans west of Albany to the PA state line. But what has to be done, and can be done, from there I don't know. NYC used to have quite a fleet of passenger trains through NYS to Cleveland, Cinciannati, St. Louis, Detroit and Chicago. Can the structure take any more than it is doing now?
If the service, meaning frequent and convenient times throughout the day, is not also faster than bus or car, it has little going for it when compared to much cheaper buses or driving your own car. Therefore, what justifies the expenditure? The Lynchburg trains fill a need where the four-lane highway (I recall US 29 is only two-lane in some parts) is congested and thus slow going. But...just calling something a service because it runs frequently and at convenient times doesn't make it so, if it isn't an improvement over the alternative.
Again, it is a matter of desigining and operating a service rather than running trains.
A good example of this is the new Va Lynchburg - WASH service. No interstate but regular 4 lane highway.
henry6 Actually all it has to do is meet the needs of the passengers. Ten times at day a 45mph might just be right for a particular service but not for all services. And that is an average 45mph not an actual; track speeds should be up to 79 or more depending on the distances, dwell times, number of stops, traffic, etc.
Actually all it has to do is meet the needs of the passengers. Ten times at day a 45mph might just be right for a particular service but not for all services. And that is an average 45mph not an actual; track speeds should be up to 79 or more depending on the distances, dwell times, number of stops, traffic, etc.
Pretty good description of NJT's Atlantic City Line....
It's not quite intercity, not quite commuter, not quite fast, but meets a need.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.