Paul M.: I agree with most of your post. However, I think the basis for Phoebe Vet's suggestion you were "vilifying" (an overly strong term, IMO), was your phrase, "position from inside the advocacy bunker."
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Phoebe Vet Your argument can be equally applied to the act of vilifying opponents by associating them with a fictitious adversarial organization called the "Advocacy Community" as if individual opinions do not exist.
Your argument can be equally applied to the act of vilifying opponents by associating them with a fictitious adversarial organization called the "Advocacy Community" as if individual opinions do not exist.
Where am I villifying anyone? Simply say, "I part company with what your consider to be the mainstream position because of . . . " or "I support what you consider to bet the mainstream advocacy position and here is why."
Villifying?
I am suggesting that if you or anyone you know decides to lay into Essential Air Services, that is probably on a tactical level a bad move, if you want to keep Amtrak around (the thread is still Why Amtrak is worth continuing and improving), and I am villifying people?
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
There is one argument in favor of high Amtrak (or transit) subsidies that I had heard from someone in our local advocacy group, and it goes something like this.
Automobile is actually a high cost mode of transportation. In intercity travel, a modern auto should get 30 MPG that works out to about 10 cents/mile, the cost of the auto plus major repairs over 200,000 miles is about $30000 or 15 cents a mile, lets throw in another 5 cents a mile for un(gas tax) funded road work and 5 cents for insurance, etc, we are talking about 35 cents/mile. IRS allows much more, but consider 35 cents/mile as a baseline for auto operations.
I think there is a good reason to believe that train operating expenses are in the 30-40 cents/mile range. In places where the fares are that high (NEC), Amtrak breaks even on the above-the-contact-patch expenses. On long-distances runs where the fares per mile are lower, not so much.
Airlines, for their packed-in full flights, I saw a number mentioned around here of a 10 cent/mile operating cost.
If you are comparing autos and Amtrak, you could say they are in rough round numbers about equal cost. The reason Amtrak "needs" the big subsidy is that people only figure their gas when comparing a car trip to Amtrak, but by subsidizing Amtrak, you are only leveling the playing field against people not putting a cents/mile meter on the dash of their car.
Yes, but, if you are comparing Amtrak to air, airlines by far "blow away" Amtrak at the expense of offering a more rapid trip, but with the patdown, the cramped seats, the crowds. Perhaps in some short-haul corridors where planes are charging 30-40 cents/mile or more and Amtrak can charge that amount and break even (the low cost of planes may be biased towards longer trips), Amtrak can break even.
Then the argument "Know the cost of everything and the value of nothing" gets wheeled out if its carbarn. You see, the lower cost airline travel is so miserable, you see, whereas the high-cost Amtrak trip is so Frimbo-esquely civilized where we are lavishing tips on car attendents (are you supposed to tip flight attendents, say, in First Class where you do get a lot of personal attention?), Amtrak needs to be subsidized so that those among us who appreciate Amtrak are able to afford to ride it?
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
C'mon people. If you are pointing out "Look, Essential Air Services gets 200 mil", you are setting us up for "OK, Amtrak gets 200 mil." Bad move politically to even bring this up.
The other bad thing to bring up about those bad, bad Republicans wanting to stick it to the liberal opposition where it hurts, the reason Essential Air Services gets 200 mil and Amtrak gets its 1500 mil is that those levels of funding are considered "modem line noise" in the 3 million mil (3 tril) or whatever it has grown to Federal budget.
Look, when we are put in the corner with our backs to the wall over arguments that the proposed rail projects (Madison-Milwaukee) are not cost effective, our fallback position from inside the advocacy bunker is always, "But what Amtrak gets is such a pittance compared to all of the money (wasted) elsewhere in the budget" and we keen "Why are they picking on us?"
In a way, that was the argument behind the Vision Report, that you could probably increase Amtrak 10-fold to about the 10-15 billion/year range and have the Amtrak budget fit within the cracks, but increasing it to the 30-40 billion/year range to bring it to a full par with what they do in Europe would put it even with the highway budget. There are many in the advocacy community who believe that passenger rail should be funded at the same level of the highway budget, out of some sense of fairness or equity or the Europeans do it or if highways get X dollars why don't we get the same. But that level of funding would attract significant scrutiny and you couldn't say we are the poor step child getting budget crumbs.
But when there is a major budget crunch, everything gets scrutinized, even the "line noise" expenditures, and one has pretty much lost the argument on rail that the argument for rail is that it is such a minor expenditure. The reason it is such a minor expenditure is that we could never get more support for it when times were good.
Politicians, GOP included, are very calculating. They will cut programs that benefit voters and regions that are not likely to vote for them in 2012. In the case of Amtrak, the only portions of its route structure that are heavily used are in the Northeast and to a lesser degree, in Midwestern states like Illinois that the GOP does not count on winning. The long distance routes do serve areas in which the GOP is strong, but since the ridership is so small, it has no impact on outcome.
Yes, I do. I never doubted that they would. On the other hand, people want the deficits reduced but they don't want their own favorite project touched. I believe that time will show that every cut the new legislature makes will alienate another segment of voters.
Phoebe Vet For those who keep saying there is little or no subsidy of air travel, this is from this morning's paper: WASHINGTON — A program that subsidizes air service to small airports, often in remote communities, is shaping up as an early test in the new Congress of conservatives' zeal for shrinking the federal government. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., has proposed an amendment to an aviation bill pending before the Senate in order to eliminate the $200 million annual essential air service program. The program pays airlines to provide scheduled service to about 150 communities, from Muscle Shoals, Ala., to Pelican, Alaska. In the House, the Republican Study Committee -- a group of conservative lawmakers -- has also proposed killing the program. Subsidies per airline passenger as of June 1, 2010, ranged as high as $5,223 in Ely, Nev., to as low as $9.21 in Thief River Falls, Minn., according to Transportation Department data for the lower 48 states.
For those who keep saying there is little or no subsidy of air travel, this is from this morning's paper:
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., has proposed an amendment to an aviation bill pending before the Senate in order to eliminate the $200 million annual essential air service program. The program pays airlines to provide scheduled service to about 150 communities, from Muscle Shoals, Ala., to Pelican, Alaska.
In the House, the Republican Study Committee -- a group of conservative lawmakers -- has also proposed killing the program.
Subsidies per airline passenger as of June 1, 2010, ranged as high as $5,223 in Ely, Nev., to as low as $9.21 in Thief River Falls, Minn., according to Transportation Department data for the lower 48 states.
I agree that air travel is far more subsidized than many realize. However, if the GOP is willing to cut the small $200 mil. for the EAS program, doesn't that make it more likely that they will drastically cut or eliminate Amtrak's $2.2 bil. federal subsidy?
The improvement that will have to be made for High-Speed Rail Travel is a dedicated line for Passenger that is elevated, trenched, or tunneled to keep the tracks free of people on foot, automobiles, and animals. There are too many collisions on rail lines at the current speeds. They will increase the collisions greatly if they use the same tracks in the same place.
Andrew
Watch my videos on-line at https://www.youtube.com/user/AndrewNeilFalconer
I wrote this as part of a discussion on a email list that I belong to. For the record, i'm a conservative, but I do believe we are going to need more trains in the future. - Warren
Gentlemen:
What does AMTRAK have for long distance trains? -=- 5 western long distance trains and 7 eastern long distance trains and the auto train.
IMHO it appears that the trains that provide the necessary seats come closer to meeting no subsidity goals.
Many have noted that Auto Train's 20 passenger car trains come close to meeting operating costs. My question is can these 12 LD trains come close to meeting operating costs if they were given the necessary available seats?
1. Take Sleepers first. Sleeper service seems to sell out no matter how many berths are provided for each train (including Auto Train). The extra berths provided at Thanksgiving and Christmas came from placing almost all cars on the road and out of maintenance. I would like someone here take both single level and bi level cars and compare revenue of sleepers and coaches. I have a feeling the numbers will be close?
2. Dinning cars next. When the abortative use of "lite" diners was tried everyone here noted the great decrease in passenger satisfaction and riership.
3. Lounge cars next. Same as #2.
4. Although I agree with you posters saying we need to have more service over the routes the addition f another train on any route has many cost disadvantages. listed are some of the disadantages.
A. One operating crew vs 2 operating crews. May need an assistant conductor for the longer trains.
B. Track time. -- The costs to operate an additional train on host RRs is very high. Train length does not seem to add to host RR costs.
C. additional locos needed on long trains would be an additional cost but the failure of one unit would not delay a train as much.
D. The problem of east coast trains into NYP's 14 car limit needs to be addressed.
E. Empty demand to on some legs needs addressing by maybe adding/removing cars. ex: ATL - New Orleans; Orlando - Miami; NYP - WASH; Memphis - New Orleans? Adding cars that are planned CHI - DEN & Reno - Emeryville; SAS/Tucson - LAX; etc.
F. Intermediate stations would not need additional agents or open station times.
G. If an when a route can justify another train by filling up one of these long trains every day then the costs that go along with the increase of service can be addressed.
Do I like these solutions? Not in any way. But this provides keeping the trains along these routes and eliminates some subsidities.
These solutions are not the same that are required for short distance trains. Routes than can be expanded by Federal, state & local mony can operate with less cost. The prime example is NC DOT service CLT - Raleigh since NC owns the RR tracks and are adding CTC and double track at their cost. Only dispatch costs may add to costs. Raleigh - Petersburg will have benefits to both the MSR between those citys and the Carolinian & Silver Star by reducing travel time maybe 2 hours?
I think the Logic Limited departed some time ago.
henry6 Yes, Amtrak is good and maybe long distant trains are good for some reason. But the issue isn't the value of Amtrak or its long distance or even corrridor trains, but the economic and environmental needs and benefits of each mode of transportation...
Yes, Amtrak is good and maybe long distant trains are good for some reason. But the issue isn't the value of Amtrak or its long distance or even corrridor trains, but the economic and environmental needs and benefits of each mode of transportation...
I do not see how you can say we should not be considering the value of Amtrak, but rather, only consider the value of the need for Amtrak. They are the same thing.
Way too complicated. It is not necessary to look at everything nor is it possible to "set the value of each system at zero or a million dollars, doesn't matter as long as all are considered equal as we begin anew" The issue is passenger rail and Amtrak. Start there and determine what is worthwhile and improve that portion. Discontinue the rest.
My issue is this: we in America are fighiting over modes of transportation and monies to be allotted to help each, whether or not and how much subsidy each receives, he actual costs of providing and using each, etc. Therefore we spend much time analyzing , talking about, quantifying, qualifying, denying, and otherwise argueing over which is best, which gets the most, which gets the least, which should get more, which should get less. We argue big business and private enterprise against government bonds, construction, loans, grants, earmarks, and whatever else. We are at apoint where we must stop this rhetoric and get to work. Set the value of each system at zero or a million dollars, doesn't matter as long as all are considered equal as we begin anew. Yes, Amtrak is good and maybe long distant trains are good for some reason. But the issue isn't the value of Amtrak or its long distance or even corrridor trains, but the economic and environmental needs and benefits of each mode of transportation working as a network rather than desparate and sacred institutions.
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.
henry6" You are needlessly obfuscating the issue. To see what works and makes sense to invest in, look at distances of a corridor and population centers served. Anything over 300-400 miles (4-5 hours) is too far. What is a long distance train? Not hard, look at monthly Amtrak performance reports and they are listed with lots of figures. You want names of trains to d/c? Cal Zephyr, Capital Limited, Cardinal, Crescent Limited, Sunset limited, Empire Builder, Lake Shore Limited, Southwest Chief, maybe others? The amount of traffic they carry compared to air on those routes is negligible. And their operating expenses are much higher per passenger mile than the corridor routes. The only point for any transportation service is to serve a large number of people. If it doesn't/can't, it ceases to have a good reason to continue to exist. There are limited funds. That is a reality. If Amtrak is to continue, it needs to focus where it currently serves or could serve a useful function. If it continues the status quo as it has for 40 years, we risk losing everything beyond the NEC.
I believe in AMtrak, yes. But I believe our entire transportation system and philosophy has to be scrapped and started anew with all costs, benefits, needs, etc. be taken into consideration. Set what we have at a given value of say, zero, and build anew from here. Amtrak needs what? Compare that with what the highway needs and the waterways and the airlines...not on what has been but that all are worth zero at this point. Then take into consideration what it would cost each person to foot the bill. Include that person's car and all his expenses for that car; include the trucker and all his expenses for his truck; included the airplane and all the expenses for that airplane; include the cost of a train and all expenses for that train.. Then add up the cost of a highway and its expenses; then add up he cost of airport and airlanes; then add up the cost of track and operation. Then add up the value expected from each mode at that price and figure out which is best. You get what I mean. Let's stop throwing figures around which are not inclusive of all costs nor reflective of total costs necessarily. Lets zero everything out and start over. IF a long distance train is in balanced of the total number, so be it; if not, apply what is. You're talking about a long distance train, but what is your definition? Where does it serve, who does it served, how does it serve? Are you talking points A to Z only or are you talking instead of point C-W, G to Y, F-M, or vice versa; are talking about moving mass numbers of people or just a handfull here and there enroute; are you talking quick transit or liesurly tourist transit? Would a bus fill the bill better? Or an airplane? Or a boat for that matter? We have to stop the fighting among the various forms and advocates of modes and figure out a way to make all the modes work together in service and cost.
henry6: I don't understand why you can't see how important it is for Amtrak to scrap long distance rail if it is "worth continuing and improving?" Forget about accounting for true costs, etc. of other modes. LD rail will never come close to covering its OE It will not represent a viable transportation alternative to air even if it were HSR. And to the individual, unless gas prices triple, it will not be cheaper out of pocket.
For its 40th anniversary, Amtrak needs to refocus on the under 500 mile (better under 300 mile) corridors where it is competitive with only a slight top speed and shorter station dwell times. Otherwise, the LD portion will continue to weigh down the corridors that are providing a real transportation service.
RDC Railfan It is very difficult to compare subsidies: what to count, what to leave out, how to make comparisons in levels of service and point to point totals.
It is very difficult to compare subsidies: what to count, what to leave out, how to make comparisons in levels of service and point to point totals.
Exactly! Lets scrap all that has been calculated and said, set up guidlines or whatever, for all costs of all transportation modes, and apply equally.
It is very difficult to compare subsidies: what to count, what to leave out, how to make comparisons in levels of service and point to point totals. Air travel should include airport development, the FAA, subsidies and tax breaks to manufactureres, huge security costs, construction of roads and transit to airports, etc. Arguably it should include the 8 pounds of climate changing CO2 emitted per pound of fuel burnt and the protection cost and risks of importing all that foreign oil.
My original point was that the world is running out of cheap oil and the dependability of supply lines is decreasing. Air travel bloomed in an age of $10 a barrel oil, at $100 a barrel it starts to have real problems and at $150 may be non viable. So arguing over the exact subsidy split may be besides the point - either we have an alternative way to travel at reasonable speed using domestic energy or we don't. Given that there is no time advantage under 500 miles (and a considerable nuisance cost) we would be well advised to invest in our corridor trains and discourage short flights. It should be a national security priority.
The discussion of downtown depots should include the fact that trains can stop at suburban stations on both sides, planes can't. Parking at these locations is far cheaper than downtown or airport. The important thing is to have that integrated transportation system that is sustainable well into the high cost energy future.
Your statments, mogul264, state some of the reasons I say we will never really get a grasp on the cost of any one form or all forms of transportation because everyone puts in or leaves out sometihing either on purpose or inadvertently: there is no forumulas or requisite set. Airline fares are from airport to airport not taking into account cost of getting to and from airports, parking, etc. Downtown railroad stations don't necessarily mean convenience, either; because of population shifts access to downtowns can be just as inconvenient as airports. But how many inlcude gas, insurance, purchase price and sales tax, and maintenence of a car towards any trip either totally by car or in conjunction with train, bus, or airplane? That's one of the reasons I think we should forget the past and start a new system of accounting for transportation costs.
mogul264One thing most doing cost comparisons do not seem to consider is most rail depots are (or were, at one time!) right downtown of the communities they serve. Getting to the depot from your home is done quickly and easily by cheaper public transportation, in most cases. To get to the airport requires much longer commutes; additional time consumed in traveling there is time lost, with added transport cost. Indeed, sometimes commute time is longer than flight time! Not, you say, if traveling by auto? How about the additional cost of auto purchasing/finance, fuel, other fluids, and labor and parts for mechanical repair/upkeep, as well as tolls, garaging, parking fees, etc, at home and/or at destinations. Parking cost can be considerable downtown in larger cities, as well.
A few points:
The cost of individual automobile ownership is high. But, how much of it is avoidable when intercity rail service is introduced? Some, but some of the biggies - time based depreciation and insurance are unaffected. If you introduce suburban/urban transit, you can start hitting these costs pretty hard. You might not need multiple cars in the household, or one can be a "station car" beater, or the car will last 20 years instead of 7. Your insurance is less because your miles driven to work, which is a big driver of insurance cost, is much lower.
Air vs. Rail and connection to transit. This was very true 20 years ago, but not so much now. Cities with rail transit connection to the airport. NYC, Newark, Phila, Baltimore, DC, Atlanta, Miami, Chicago, San Francisco, Portland, Seattle and probably some I missed.... Some are coming - Harrisburg, Atlantic City, Denver. And, some of those that don't have decent public shuttle bus routes - Boston and Denver come to mind.
Air vs. Rail travel. As you point out, if you stay within 500 miles or so, rail has a chance to compete on trip times - and it can be more convenient that flying because a train can make suburban stops (a good example is the Wolverines that start in Pontiac on one side of Detroit and also stop at Dearborn on the other.) But, the cost to develop corridor service seems rather high. $800M for Milwaukee to Madison? $1B+ for Chicago to St. Louis? $2B for Tampa to Orlando? YIkes! If we are going to do this, we have to pick our spots pretty precisely - where the costs of building out alternatives are high and the total net benefits (of all kinds) for rail are high. The LAST thing you want to have happen is to spend a fortune on and produce small results - the "antis" will just go nuts. Wendell Cox would salivate.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
The only thing I would add to Paul's post is that looking at passenger miles for Amtrak as it is currently configured is a bit misleading for looking at how heavily rail travel would be in the future. Amtrak currently consists of one corridor that approximately covers OE, at least for its Acela service. The new service in Carolina has come close. A couple of other corridors may also come close. Unfortunately those cases (which are good examples of what henry6 likes to call real service) are dragged down by the high cost, low revenue, old-time long distance trains (hardly services) so that in the aggregate, Amtrak doesn't come close to operating without a large subsidy. However, with a sensible route structure in which many less labor-intensive (thus lower variable OE) trains provide a service for many passengers, the fixed overhead costs on any route can be spread out over a much larger base, instead of two trains daily. Of course this would require the will to seek the sort of reform that Paul M, Phoebe Vet, doltmann and others are talking about., which many advocates regard as heresy.
Don't put words in my mouth! I did not say I was comfortable with any spending of any kind. What I said is that subsidies are so open to interpretation and accounting "skills" that we don't....and probably can't...determine real and total amounts of monies that could be considered "subsidies". Throw figures around all you want but we can't figure them all out and each will be challenged by so many you won't know which dime is up! Your final statement above, Paul, saying that Amtrak gets a high rate of subsidy cannot be determined to be high when rhetoric gets going about who gets what, how much, where, and when, and by whose interpretation. We've got to stop using these ghostly figures from the past and start the accounting and doleing from scratch.
henry6 First, I don't think we really know the amount of subsidy given to any form of transportation.
First, I don't think we really know the amount of subsidy given to any form of transportation.
I take it you are OK spending about half a trillion dollars over a 40-50 year horizon increasing the passenger-mile share of Amtrak from .1 percent up to a full 1 percent? That is essentially the Vision Report proposal that is so popular in advocacy circles.
You know, you are right, we don't rightly know how much subsidy, especially indirect subsidy goes to airlines and highways. But one of the tools of scientific and mathematical inference is to make educated guesses and ask if they make sense.
Airline travel is to Amtrak as 100:1. If Amtrak is getting 1.5 billion/year, are you able to tally up 150 billion/year going to airlines? That is a whole lot of money, and I don't see how when you add up all of the indirect subsidy that airlines get that much.
Auto travel is to Amtrak as 1000:1. Is 1.5 trillion in government money somehow supporting highways and the auto industry -- 1.5 trillion/year? That is roughly half the Federal budget, and even when you tally up all of the indirect subsidy, I am skeptical that it amounts to that much. Who knows, maybe half the Federal budget is somehow directly or indirectly contributing to auto travel, but a figure that big does not make any sense.
So yes, I don't "really" know how much subsidy cars and planes get, but I am certain that it is multiples less the subsidy rate that Amtrak gets, because to stipulate otherwise leads to an implausible scenario.
I believe that the high rate of subsidy of Amtrak is what keeps Amtrak stuck on small.
VerMontanan RDC Railfan: I would further submit that comparing a cramped seat in a plane or even an average car is nothing like the quality of the rail experience. Being able to walk about freely, dine on board and sleep lying down is such a different world that its not really comparable. Too bad so many have forgotten this or have never had the opportunity to experience it. With luck the time will come again. Excellent point. Why must we only be dedicated to providing the infrastructure (airports and highways) to the most uncomfortable ways to travel? The only reason that buses can be more fuel efficient than passenger trains and that some airplanes can approach the fuel efficency of passenger trains is that people are jammed into a very small area. And it will only get worse. In Europe, low-cost air carrier Ryan Air is toying witn the possibility of flying people on shorter trips in a semi-standing position to save space. In Japan, airlines are advising passengers to use the restrooms before they board to avoid having to carry the extra "weight" on the plane. And even using the restroom has been suggested as something that might warrant an extra charge. Passenger train opponents know the cost of everything and the value of nothing. There is value in NOT considering each trip an ordeal, and there is real value in a passenger train's ability to serve small and medium-sized cities that air carriers and bus lines often ignore. I guess it all depends on what kind of public transportation the public wants.
RDC Railfan: I would further submit that comparing a cramped seat in a plane or even an average car is nothing like the quality of the rail experience. Being able to walk about freely, dine on board and sleep lying down is such a different world that its not really comparable. Too bad so many have forgotten this or have never had the opportunity to experience it. With luck the time will come again.
I would further submit that comparing a cramped seat in a plane or even an average car is nothing like the quality of the rail experience. Being able to walk about freely, dine on board and sleep lying down is such a different world that its not really comparable. Too bad so many have forgotten this or have never had the opportunity to experience it. With luck the time will come again.
Excellent point. Why must we only be dedicated to providing the infrastructure (airports and highways) to the most uncomfortable ways to travel? The only reason that buses can be more fuel efficient than passenger trains and that some airplanes can approach the fuel efficency of passenger trains is that people are jammed into a very small area. And it will only get worse. In Europe, low-cost air carrier Ryan Air is toying witn the possibility of flying people on shorter trips in a semi-standing position to save space. In Japan, airlines are advising passengers to use the restrooms before they board to avoid having to carry the extra "weight" on the plane. And even using the restroom has been suggested as something that might warrant an extra charge.
Passenger train opponents know the cost of everything and the value of nothing. There is value in NOT considering each trip an ordeal, and there is real value in a passenger train's ability to serve small and medium-sized cities that air carriers and bus lines often ignore. I guess it all depends on what kind of public transportation the public wants.
If you want to get a good sense of the value of extra space in air travel, look at the portion of the plane that's devoted to business/first class.
American Airlines, a few years back, made a big deal of their having an extra couple inches of leg room. Shortly after, they nearly went broke. I'm not suggesting cause and effect, just that having a more space to stretch out really isn't worth much when you are only in the seat a few hours.
First, I don't think we really know the amount of subsidy given to any form of transportation. Private enterprise airlines, trucking, and bus companies don't tell all nor do we really know what is considererd in coming up with a subsidy figure for any of these modes. Oh, we have figures, but too often they are just a stand alone figure with no talley of what goes into to the sum.
Second, I don't understand the term intrinsic as applied to dinning and sleeping cars. Once the railroad was a 24 hour, seven day a week operation always moving forward, not stopping its' progress overnight; US mail depended upon it, people rode on it, coast to coast by changing cars at Chicago! So to dismiss out of hand what rail passenger service could be because of amenities I don't is right.
My mantra is we should not consider rail passenger service running a train or trains but providing a service, then provide, market, and maintain the integrety of the service. Integrate that service with a service via air and bus. In otherwords, work to having a safe, efficient, effective, intergrated transportation service that can be used.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.