How these improvements are paid for is not my concern. I know it will require a commitment of major federal financing for the infrastructure. My point is that the improvements in rail travel have nothing to do with roads and the airways. Rather it is what kind of a future one envisions for passenger rail service: one with a fast, frequent, state-of-the-art modern service that is rational within the context of intermodal transportation or some nostalgia trip back 50 years- wait, more like 100 years with every little town having its depot). Ignorantly labeling people ("shills" "libertarians") because you are incapable of making a cogent argument is pretty lame.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Again, very well said John WR, highways are NOT paid for on a user-fee arrangement as the libertarians here would have you believe.
Not to get on my high horse or even my high level coach seat, Schlimm, but I have been pushing for better train service since the late 1950's. However, I have only come to Trains recently.
Does the "US highway network" serve rural areas better than Amtrak? I suspect most rural areas are served by state and country roads rather than US highways.
Was there a goal when Amtrak was created? I am skeptical that 535 people (the number of Senators and Representatives in the Congress) could create anything with a goal.
I don't know where your figures on the per cent of intercity traffic carried carried by automobiles comes from. I do know that in many places people are forced to drive whether they want to or not because there is no public transit, neither trains nor buses. But I do agree that here in the US we have pursued a policy of widely disbursed suburbs that relies on private automobiles and makes public transit difficult or impossible. Certainly, automobiles are a big part of our transportation system but slowly we are coming to realize their limitations and that we need other transportation alternatives.
If there is any "1950 business model" in our society it is the way the construction industry builds our sprawling suburbs. The model is rooted in the philosophy of Robert Moses whose influence has resulted in the destruction of large parts of our cities and their replacement with bigger and bigger houses and highways. I mean do you really think a 5 acre lot and a 4 lane road with so much traffic that children cannot play with their friends across the street and they need to ride a bus 8 blocks to school because the traffic is so dangerous? But that is what we do.
When I speak about subsidy to roads I do not mean the excise taxes on motor fuels. Actually there are so many subsidized road expenses I don't know how to figure them out. To begin, local and country roads are paid for with property tax but property tax is not related to road usage. And things like street lamps, police protection including pensions and medical benefits and local court systems are not counted in road subsidy but most of their costs exist because of our roads. In my state, New Jersey, we also have a state excise tax on motor fuels but all of the money collected goes to pay interest on bonds so state highway repairs and the costs of a state police force come out of sales taxes which again are unrelated to roads. Interstate highway direct costs are paid with Federal motor fuel excise tax but the cost of policing also comes from state sales taxes. State taxes even pay for snow removal on interstate highways. Then there the the environmental costs from adding the hard surfaces which adds to the problem of rivers flooding and the costs of pollution. I could go on.
My real point here is that all transportation that moves people and much of the transportation that moves freight is subsidized. None of the subsidized are based on a business model.
schlimm All I can say is I, like Don and Phoebe and Paul M. and henry6 and sam1 and blue streak and others have been pushing for a real and better passenger rail service in the US for much longer than Branch or John. I don't agree with all of them, but I truly believe we all want to see an improved service and are not "shills" trying to sabotage passenger rail in the US.
All I can say is I, like Don and Phoebe and Paul M. and henry6 and sam1 and blue streak and others have been pushing for a real and better passenger rail service in the US for much longer than Branch or John. I don't agree with all of them, but I truly believe we all want to see an improved service and are not "shills" trying to sabotage passenger rail in the US.
I'll second that! We all have our "druthers" but we generally seem to be rowing in the same direction.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
DwightBranch schlimm My reference was obviously for primarily within-state services. You should realize those services are limited to within states or going on to adjoining states. from Amtrak: "In FY 2011, 20 of the 27 state-supported corridor services set annual ridership records." Fifteen states provide some level of operating support for 21 different routes, with payments totaling over $191 million in FY 2011. Many states (including California, Illinois, Oregon, New York, Pennsylvania and Washington) recognize the benefits of investing in corridor development and have spent substantial state funds to improve services with positive ridership results. Amtrak currently operates 21 state-supported routes in 15 states across the country. The states that contract with Amtrak are California, Illinois, Maine, Michigan, Missouri, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin. Section 209 of the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (PRIIA) required Amtrak to work with its state partners to establish a consistent cost-sharing methodology across all corridor routes of less than 750 miles, in order to ensure fair and equitable treatment of all states. " That Illinois resident, whether a citizen or not, can easily take a flight from many regional airports in the state besides St. Louis or Chicago (Champaign, Bloomington, Springfield). Long distance trains make little sense as practical transportation. And for whatever reason, you continue to display your total lack of civility. I have said all I intend to say to you , except that I still think you and the other shills should hang out on busride.com and stay off the long distance passenger train board.
schlimm My reference was obviously for primarily within-state services. You should realize those services are limited to within states or going on to adjoining states. from Amtrak: "In FY 2011, 20 of the 27 state-supported corridor services set annual ridership records." Fifteen states provide some level of operating support for 21 different routes, with payments totaling over $191 million in FY 2011. Many states (including California, Illinois, Oregon, New York, Pennsylvania and Washington) recognize the benefits of investing in corridor development and have spent substantial state funds to improve services with positive ridership results. Amtrak currently operates 21 state-supported routes in 15 states across the country. The states that contract with Amtrak are California, Illinois, Maine, Michigan, Missouri, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin. Section 209 of the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (PRIIA) required Amtrak to work with its state partners to establish a consistent cost-sharing methodology across all corridor routes of less than 750 miles, in order to ensure fair and equitable treatment of all states. " That Illinois resident, whether a citizen or not, can easily take a flight from many regional airports in the state besides St. Louis or Chicago (Champaign, Bloomington, Springfield). Long distance trains make little sense as practical transportation. And for whatever reason, you continue to display your total lack of civility.
My reference was obviously for primarily within-state services. You should realize those services are limited to within states or going on to adjoining states.
from Amtrak: "In FY 2011, 20 of the 27 state-supported corridor services set annual ridership records."
Fifteen states provide some level of operating support for 21 different routes, with payments totaling over $191 million in FY 2011. Many states (including California, Illinois, Oregon, New York, Pennsylvania and Washington) recognize the benefits of investing in corridor development and have spent substantial state funds to improve services with positive ridership results.
Amtrak currently operates 21 state-supported routes in 15 states across the country. The states that contract with Amtrak are California, Illinois, Maine, Michigan, Missouri, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin. Section 209 of the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (PRIIA) required Amtrak to work with its state partners to establish a consistent cost-sharing methodology across all corridor routes of less than 750 miles, in order to ensure fair and equitable treatment of all states. "
That Illinois resident, whether a citizen or not, can easily take a flight from many regional airports in the state besides St. Louis or Chicago (Champaign, Bloomington, Springfield). Long distance trains make little sense as practical transportation. And for whatever reason, you continue to display your total lack of civility.
I have said all I intend to say to you , except that I still think you and the other shills should hang out on busride.com and stay off the long distance passenger train board.
First, this is not the "long distance" passenger train board. It is just plain "passenger".
Second, argue the topic, not the motive. I believe you are guilty of "if the argument doesn't fit my conclusion, then there must be something wrong with it or the person presenting it." e.i. Some of us are "evil bus people" (we are not!)
Third, what about Amtrak Thruway buses?? Good or evil?
John WR But the facts of the matter are that each state does get two U. S. Senators and one function of government is to provide certain services because of social needs of all Americans. All institutions have lived with and functioned under a system which provides 2 senators per state since the country began. Shall we close schools in remote rural areas because it costs more to provide education there than in cities? Shall we close hospitals in those areas for the same reason? Should we abandon our interstate highways in those areas? If we should require a population density threshold before providing any government service then we should consistently do the same thing for Amtrak. But until the day when we do make that change in national policy we should treat Amtrak the same way we treat other services in rural areas. In 1862 a Republican Administration provided subsidies to build our transcontinental railroads. This was in fact a bipartisan decision and it would have been made earlier but for the fact that the north and south disagreed about the route of the railroad. From that day to this the Federal Government has never denied the right of rural areas to rail transportation. In fact, the Government has often required it when private companies wanted to abandon it. Just as we maintain other services in rural areas we should maintain Amtrak on the same bases as one of the essential building blocks of a strong national economy in a nation where equal rights of all Americans are important.
But the facts of the matter are that each state does get two U. S. Senators and one function of government is to provide certain services because of social needs of all Americans. All institutions have lived with and functioned under a system which provides 2 senators per state since the country began. Shall we close schools in remote rural areas because it costs more to provide education there than in cities? Shall we close hospitals in those areas for the same reason? Should we abandon our interstate highways in those areas? If we should require a population density threshold before providing any government service then we should consistently do the same thing for Amtrak. But until the day when we do make that change in national policy we should treat Amtrak the same way we treat other services in rural areas.
In 1862 a Republican Administration provided subsidies to build our transcontinental railroads. This was in fact a bipartisan decision and it would have been made earlier but for the fact that the north and south disagreed about the route of the railroad. From that day to this the Federal Government has never denied the right of rural areas to rail transportation. In fact, the Government has often required it when private companies wanted to abandon it. Just as we maintain other services in rural areas we should maintain Amtrak on the same bases as one of the essential building blocks of a strong national economy in a nation where equal rights of all Americans are important.
As a former school board member I can assure you that our public schools operated within a framework of state and Federal laws. Amtrak trains are run by on board employees and are also subject to state and Federal laws.
Many states do provide funds for particular trains to run and I certainly do not rule that out. And many states operate their own railroad trains. My own state, New Jersey, operates several rail lines.
States also operate National Guard units but we also need a national military and we have them. The National Government exists to do what states themselves cannot do. Having a a National military service is one of them. Having a National passenger rail system is another.
Indeed one reason for a National passenger rail system is that it can be needed for defense in time of war. It has been used for that purpose during other wars and we could need it again.
schlimm Those lightly-populated states whose residents desire to have passenger train services have the option of doing what several other states have done, namely provide state-subsidized services with Amtrak as the operator, instead of insisting on Amtrak providing it to them without any state contribution.
Those lightly-populated states whose residents desire to have passenger train services have the option of doing what several other states have done, namely provide state-subsidized services with Amtrak as the operator, instead of insisting on Amtrak providing it to them without any state contribution.
Completely impractical. So, a taxpaying Illinois citizen wants to travel to Denver, but Colorado doesn't want to pay, does the passenger need to jump off the moving train Butch Cassidy style? You display a complete ignorance about and hostility toward how people outside of cities live and travel.
The USA is a nation, not a collection of individual fiefdoms.
Schools are run locally, so whether or not they continue is up to the local area. In point of fact, many rural school districts have consolidated because of depopulation. Again, that is a local decision, not federal. Those lightly-populated states whose residents desire to have passenger train services have the option of doing what several other states have done, namely provide state-subsidized services with Amtrak as the operator, instead of insisting on Amtrak providing it to them without any state contribution. Or, they could provide bus services.
Hear, Hear!
DwightBranchAnd as I have said before, so long as each state gets two US Senators regardless of population, so that North Dakota, Montana, Nebraska etc. gets as many as California, New York or Illinois, I am confident that Amtrak...
And as you know, our apportionment of senators is not democratic at all. As long as Amtrak has to continue to "buy votes" by providing trains to get the support of key senators, (Byrd and the Cardinal come to mind) it will continue to struggle to be relevant.
schlimm Those corridors are where most Americans live these days. 170 million Americans live in just the largest 50 metro areas (MSA). If you look at the Primary Statistical Areas, counting only the top 50, you account for 184 million. If you go on through the next 50, you account for another 58 million. That's ~242 million people. Those are the areas that should receive service. And many PSA's in the next 100 are getting service. Why should many millions of Americans be without any train service so a few can ride land cruise sleeper trains in those "wide open spaces"? You think services should go to places ranked #700 and #710 with a combined 36,500 total population, while leaving out #14 (Phoenix) with 4,263,236? Not very democratic nor very sensible.
Those corridors are where most Americans live these days. 170 million Americans live in just the largest 50 metro areas (MSA). If you look at the Primary Statistical Areas, counting only the top 50, you account for 184 million. If you go on through the next 50, you account for another 58 million. That's ~242 million people. Those are the areas that should receive service. And many PSA's in the next 100 are getting service. Why should many millions of Americans be without any train service so a few can ride land cruise sleeper trains in those "wide open spaces"? You think services should go to places ranked #700 and #710 with a combined 36,500 total population, while leaving out #14 (Phoenix) with 4,263,236? Not very democratic nor very sensible.
It doesn't need to be an either/or, and the pittance provided for rail passenger service for most US territory (i.e. long distance trains) won't stretch far even if you are able to raid it for corridors. And as I have said before, so long as each state gets two US Senators regardless of population, so that North Dakota, Montana, Nebraska etc. gets as many as California, New York or Illinois, I am confident that Amtrak long distance trains will continue. Regarding Phoenix, the reason it lost passenger service is that SP shut the line down west of Phoenix and forced the Sunset Limited to use the line to the south, and UP hasn't yet reopened it (though it has been discussed), not Amtrak's fault.
schlimm I (and others on here) support a modern, very much expanded and qualitatively improved passenger rail service that a large number of people can rely upon for transportation.
I (and others on here) support a modern, very much expanded and qualitatively improved passenger rail service that a large number of people can rely upon for transportation.
The part you leave out is that this "qualitatively improved passenger service" will only be available for those traveling within urban corridors, while anyone traveling in the other 90% of US geography will be left out, or at the very least go without prepared meals for hours at a time.
You are really seem to be unable to discern different positions. You seem to conclude if someone does not support your notion of a revival of long distance passenger train service as it last was back in the 1950's, you label them as anti-passenger rail, or pro-bus or rightists or whatever. If you want to continue with your dichotomous thinking, fine, but the result is (as it almost always is with people who try to "reason" that way) that your judgment of others' positions is distorted and wrong. I (and others on here) support a modern, very much expanded and qualitatively improved passenger rail service that a large number of people can rely upon for transportation.
schlimm I can only say your analogy was loaded with apparently unintended irony.
I can only say your analogy was loaded with apparently unintended irony.
Why are you here? Are you sure you wouldn't be happier on this board?
schlimm And apparently your talents include a rather rude attempt at condescension, which belongs neither here nor in academia..
And apparently your talents include a rather rude attempt at condescension, which belongs neither here nor in academia..
Sophistry is considered dishonest in academics, and interpreting an analogy literally and then falsely claiming to be outraged is considered sophistry. I am not at all hesitant to point out sophistry when I see it.
Paul Milenkovic DwightBranch Not a good analogy, as Henry has pointed out, over and over again, the food service on any mode of transportation in which the passengers are essentially prisoners, cannot be operated as a money-providing service, nor can it be fairly compared to an entity that provides such a service while not holding its customers hostage. Amtrak passengers are prisoners? Hostages?
DwightBranch Not a good analogy, as Henry has pointed out, over and over again, the food service on any mode of transportation in which the passengers are essentially prisoners, cannot be operated as a money-providing service, nor can it be fairly compared to an entity that provides such a service while not holding its customers hostage.
Not a good analogy, as Henry has pointed out, over and over again, the food service on any mode of transportation in which the passengers are essentially prisoners, cannot be operated as a money-providing service, nor can it be fairly compared to an entity that provides such a service while not holding its customers hostage.
Amtrak passengers are prisoners? Hostages?
You can't be that dense, to not understand an analogy. Or at least I hope not.
When I fly to Europe (more than 10 hours the last time, plus a stop at an airport gate in Gatwick, altogether around 12 hours without access to commercial food vendors) it isn't possible for me to step off the plane in the middle of the Atlantic to buy lunch and dinner, nor is it practical for various food vendors, McDonalds, Subway, etc.. to set up shops on the airplane. Nor is it fair to charge the passengers a price for food that reflects the constrained supply. The "free market" system for keeping food costs low will not work in the context of rail or air transportation, it is, as I have said, an attempt to put a square peg in a round hole.
Perhaps the prisoners or hostage analogy is pretty accurate for Amtrak LD trains like the EB, which often is several hours late on arrival on a run that is scheduled for ~45 hours or the CZ which takes over 50.
It almost seems to me that the people railing against the food on the trains don't fall into the situations that require it, versus people like me that do.
I take the Capitol Limited from DC to Pittsburgh a lot. If "eat before you get on the train and take something with you" was a thing, here's how my trips would work:
Get up in the morning and eat breakfast. Lunch comes as normal around noon. Then I'd have to find something around 3 PM to take on the train with me. This precludes anything that needs to be refrigerated or warmed. Which, in turn, rules out anything more substantial than a sandwich and some chips. Or I could hold off on lunch until 2:30-3:00 and then wait until after midnight for dinner. Lovely.
On the way back to DC, I'd have to have breakfast some time around 3:30 in the morning. At 4 AM, I'd have to find somewhere to get a lunch to take with me. Which may prove difficult. It IS 4 AM. I'd be able to get lunch at around 2 PM at Union Station. Somehow this seems even less appealing than the trip to Pittsburgh.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.