I've come to the conclusion that passenger rail will not get better in this country. The government clearly has no intention of supporting it and the funding for it has been small at best. Current government proposals have tons of road blocks and large cost fluctuations. The ones that have managed to get built have so far been busts. Private proposals are all unrealistic and the current ones keep running into problems. The private proposals are also more expensive than the public is willing to pay. I would be surprised if any of the private proposals make it past the drawing board or end up succeeding at all. Be happy with what exists because it will never get better. I want passenger trains to be successful again and I want things to improve but I just don't see it happening. Freight Railroads are still here while they last, there are museums, pictures and model trains help me capture some of the lost magic. There is no reason why passenger trains can't make a comeback it is just there is no desire to.
Railroad to Freedom
Clairvoyancy is not among my skill sets. I don't pretend to know what the future will bring. But I do believe we should never say never.
Recalling the days of the New Haven Railroad when doors would be boarded up rather than repaired, of going to the men's room at Providence station to find almost all of the urinals had been pulled out and sold, Amtrak was and is a great improvement.
Especially, John, pertaining to passenger rail services. It was declared dead then wished dead by the Nixon Administration and freight railroads but clung to the rail despite their efforts. And more recently, there has been an almost "build it and they will come" phenom as mileage and ridership climbs. There are those who still wish it dead and try to kill it in place, but they are being trampled by those rushing to get a seat.
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.
henry6There are those who still wish it dead and try to kill it in place, but they are being trampled by those rushing to get a seat.
All I can say, Henry, is that when you're right you're right. And your whole post is right.
John
Amtraks 'birthers' are ashamed that it is still breathing over 40 years after it's implementing legislation was enacted.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACD Amtraks 'birthers' are ashamed that it is still breathing over 40 years after it's implementing legislation was enacted.
Okay. That's my laugh for the day. Back to work for me....
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
ontheBNSFI've come to the conclusion that passenger rail will not get better in this country. The government clearly has no intention of supporting it and the funding for it has been small at best. Current government proposals have tons of road blocks and large cost fluctuations. The ones that have managed to get built have so far been busts. Private proposals are all unrealistic and the current ones keep running into problems. The private proposals are also more expensive than the public is willing to pay. I would be surprised if any of the private proposals make it past the drawing board or end up succeeding at all. Be happy with what exists because it will never get better. I want passenger trains to be successful again and I want things to improve but I just don't see it happening. Freight Railroads are still here while they last, there are museums, pictures and model trains help me capture some of the lost magic. There is no reason why passenger trains can't make a comeback it is just there is no desire to.
You are a little new to this, I think. Some of what you say has been said for the past several decades. You have to be careful how you define "successful".
oltmannd ontheBNSFI've come to the conclusion that passenger rail will not get better in this country. The government clearly has no intention of supporting it and the funding for it has been small at best. Current government proposals have tons of road blocks and large cost fluctuations. The ones that have managed to get built have so far been busts. Private proposals are all unrealistic and the current ones keep running into problems. The private proposals are also more expensive than the public is willing to pay. I would be surprised if any of the private proposals make it past the drawing board or end up succeeding at all. Be happy with what exists because it will never get better. I want passenger trains to be successful again and I want things to improve but I just don't see it happening. Freight Railroads are still here while they last, there are museums, pictures and model trains help me capture some of the lost magic. There is no reason why passenger trains can't make a comeback it is just there is no desire to. You are a little new to this, I think. Some of what you say has been said for the past several decades. You have to be careful how you define "successful".
And in the past decades nothing much has changed. In fact passenger rail is worse than it was several years ago. Not only is the service less frequent and worse than it was it years ago and in many respects worse. Service is also more expensive accounting for inflation for example the X train proposal would cost 100 dollars each way and the All aboard Florida train service is around the same cost. Why would anyone pay those prices it is faster and cheaper to drive or fly? I would define successful by having significant market share which it only makes up a small amount of passenger travel, being an effective technology which in the US it is not being as service is infrequent and expensive, or hell actually getting built which most proposals fail at from the start.
ontheBNSFAnd in the past decades nothing much has changed. In fact passenger rail is worse than it was several years ago.
What of wires from NH to Boston? What of Acela? What of Amtrak's recent ridership growth?
ontheBNSFNot only is the service less frequent and worse than it was it years ago and in many respects worse.
Where is it less frequent? There are more Amtrak California trains. There are more trains in Maine. There are more trains in NC. There are more trains on three routes out of Chicago. There are more trains between Seattle and BC.
ontheBNSFService is also more expensive accounting for inflation for example the X train proposal would cost 100 dollars each way and the All aboard Florida train service is around the same cost. Why would anyone pay those prices it is faster and cheaper to drive or fly?
That's what the "anti" folk say. Why would you expect a train to be cheaper than flying or driving?
ontheBNSFI would define successful by having significant market share
Amtrak in the NEC is successful by this definition
ontheBNSFbeing an effective technology
Now you have to define "effective". Flanged steel wheels on steel rails are "effective" technology.
ontheBNSFor hell actually getting built which most proposals fail at from the start
..because they can't get funding. Why can't they get funded? There are a whole host of reasons. Some are valid, some are silly. Some are fixable, some are structural. Some require better advocacy than has been the norm for the past several decades.
If you don't use Amtrak it is a useless and expensive travesty foisted on the American public. If you use Amtrak it is a quality of life to be used and enjoyed. If you understand American business, especially railroads and transportation, and politics, then you can understand and even accept Amtrak. If you don't understand business or politics, then you can't understand and will never accept Amtrak.
Successful passenger rail advocacy depends on what one advocates for: a perpetuation of the past inherited LD routes or expansion and extension and improvement of higher speed corridors?
An example is what don oltmann suggested to do with the Crescent. Divide into two corridors with day trains.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
schlimm Successful passenger rail advocacy depends on what one advocates for: a perpetuation of the past inherited LD routes or expansion and extension and improvement of higher speed corridors? An example is what don oltmann suggested to do with the Crescent. Divide into two corridors with day trains.
So, how about it NARP? How about a better Amtrak?
oltmannd ontheBNSFAnd in the past decades nothing much has changed. In fact passenger rail is worse than it was several years ago. What of wires from NH to Boston? What of Acela? What of Amtrak's recent ridership growth? Amtraks ridership has increased because of the TSA and airport delays. Both of those problems are easily solvable. ontheBNSFNot only is the service less frequent and worse than it was it years ago and in many respects worse. Where is it less frequent? There are more Amtrak California trains. There are more trains in Maine. There are more trains in NC. There are more trains on three routes out of Chicago. There are more trains between Seattle and BC. Nope service has actually declined simply look at a map of it. Service has declined in most of the country. Also most trains today are slower than they used to be many train were in excess of 100mph and now they barely hit 80mph. The NEC is mostly 80mph even on the Acela. http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j270/JohnnyGunn/1962_Passenger_Rail_Service.jpg http://greatergreater.com/images/201104/am1971.jpg ontheBNSFService is also more expensive accounting for inflation for example the X train proposal would cost 100 dollars each way and the All aboard Florida train service is around the same cost. Why would anyone pay those prices it is faster and cheaper to drive or fly? That's what the "anti" folk say. Why would you expect a train to be cheaper than flying or driving?
Amtraks ridership has increased because of the TSA and airport delays. Both of those problems are easily solvable.
Nope service has actually declined simply look at a map of it. Service has declined in most of the country.
Also most trains today are slower than they used to be many train were in excess of 100mph and now they barely hit 80mph. The NEC is mostly 80mph even on the Acela.
http://greatergreater.com/images/201104/am1971.jpg
In that regard the anti folk absolutely right passenger train service is slower and more expensive. Those are prices from the services themselves.
oltmannd ontheBNSFI would define successful by having significant market share Amtrak in the NEC is successful by this definition Through most of the country Amtrak still only has 10% marketshare hardly anything to be proud of. The Acela express only has 6% market share with all modes accounted for. ontheBNSFbeing an effective technology Now you have to define "effective". Flanged steel wheels on steel rails are "effective" technology. At this point anything is more effective than Amtrak. It would be cheaper to provide all those Amtrak passengers with Toyota Prius' and you save energy doing it. Current Amtrak equipment is very outdated and inefficient due to government regulations. ontheBNSFor hell actually getting built which most proposals fail at from the start ..because they can't get funding. Why can't they get funded? There are a whole host of reasons. Some are valid, some are silly. Some are fixable, some are structural. Some require better advocacy than has been the norm for the past several decades.
Through most of the country Amtrak still only has 10% marketshare hardly anything to be proud of. The Acela express only has 6% market share with all modes accounted for.
At this point anything is more effective than Amtrak. It would be cheaper to provide all those Amtrak passengers with Toyota Prius' and you save energy doing it. Current Amtrak equipment is very outdated and inefficient due to government regulations.
Many of the proposals were misleading and not necessary. Most of the proposals were not high speed rail either just "higher speed".
NittanyLionThe average person doesn't give a crap about the TSA. Two things dictate to them:cost and travel time. In the corridor, Amtrak wins both, ergo ridership is up. Travel time is less impacted by security than the scale and location of airports. Flying outright costs more and has bonus costs, like getting into Manhattan once you're at JFK versus emerging into the heart of midtown.
People prefer not take there shoes off and not getting groped. The TSA is pretty important. The TSA also through its inefficiency drives up the amount of time it takes ergo more people taking Amtrak. In corridors their is always buses which go at about the same speed as Amtrak.
ontheBNSF Nope service has actually declined simply look at a map of it. Service has declined in most of the country. Also most trains today are slower than they used to be many train were in excess of 100mph and now they barely hit 80mph. The NEC is mostly 80mph even on the Acela. http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j270/JohnnyGunn/1962_Passenger_Rail_Service.jpg
1962 is your baseline? Seriously? You're a funny guy!
Let's try 1980 as a baseline. That's 33 years ago, you know. Or, May 1971, if you like.
ontheBNSFAlso most trains today are slower than they used to be many train were in excess of 100mph and now they barely hit 80mph. The NEC is mostly 80mph even on the Acela.
Nothing like comparing the peak speed of a Hiawatha or Champion to the AVERAGE speed of Acela! The ACL needed 100 mph max to have 24 hour service from NY to Miami. Not even 60 mph avg. So, service is a hair slower now. Big whoop.
So, you still think trains should somehow be cheaper than flying or driving? How so? Bring on some facts!
Let's get down to brass tacks. What, exactly, should the US be doing in the passenger rail arena? What'll it cost? Who's going to pay what?
oltmannd ontheBNSFAlso most trains today are slower than they used to be many train were in excess of 100mph and now they barely hit 80mph. The NEC is mostly 80mph even on the Acela. Nothing like comparing the peak speed of a Hiawatha or Champion to the AVERAGE speed of Acela! The ACL needed 100 mph max to have 24 hour service from NY to Miami. Not even 60 mph avg. So, service is a hair slower now. Big whoop. So, you still think trains should somehow be cheaper than flying or driving? How so? Bring on some facts!
It should be cheaper than flying or driving or atleast comparable if any significant amount people want to be using it. There is no point in putting something out there doesn't atleast have some sort of advantage.
oltmannd Let's get down to brass tacks. What, exactly, should the US be doing in the passenger rail arena? What'll it cost? Who's going to pay what?
I am probably asking for too much but we need a quantum leap forward. Such a project would cost anywhere in the ballpark from 700 billion - 1 Trillion dollars. I have offered different ways of funding it.
ontheBNSF NittanyLionThe average person doesn't give a crap about the TSA. Two things dictate to them:cost and travel time. In the corridor, Amtrak wins both, ergo ridership is up. Travel time is less impacted by security than the scale and location of airports. Flying outright costs more and has bonus costs, like getting into Manhattan once you're at JFK versus emerging into the heart of midtown. People prefer not take there shoes off and not getting groped. The TSA is pretty important. The TSA also through its inefficiency drives up the amount of time it takes ergo more people taking Amtrak. In corridors their is always buses which go at about the same speed as Amtrak.
Prefer yes, but they don't care enough to actually act on this. The few minutes (and yes, its a few minutes. You wait longer at Burger King) isn't enough to cause enough people to choose alternate means of travel. The overwhelming number of people will elect to do whatever is cheapest first and fastest second. Full stop.
If everyone looked only at price everyone would ride long distance buses. But everyone doesn't.
It is true that over all speed is important to a great many people and while they grouse and complain about all of the security they will still look at overall time. But not all people do this; there is a small but significant number who do ride trains.
As time goes on and airline competition increases it does drive down the price to tickets on competitive routes. But it also drives airlines away from our smaller airports. Even the number of cities served by buses is declining. Therefore, when Amtrak serves places with no other transportation that is important.
oltmanndLet's get down to brass tacks. What, exactly, should the US be doing in the passenger rail arena? What'll it cost? Who's going to pay what?
Don,
You certainly ask the right questions. But these questions should be asked of all kinds of transportation, not just passenger rail. And I would suggest another question: With our next million dollars available for transportation how is that best spent to get the greatest benefit for our people?
We must differentiate price, cost, and value. Everyone one will put things in different terms not understanding what the terms mean nor what the individual seeks.
John WR If everyone looked only at price everyone would ride long distance buses.
If everyone looked only at price everyone would ride long distance buses.
Maybe not everyone uses them but they are more popular than Amtrak
John WRTherefore, when Amtrak serves places with no other transportation that is important.
One of you mavens will know this.
Just exactly HOW many places does Amtrak serve that some bus line doesn't? Be specific...
Overmod John WRTherefore, when Amtrak serves places with no other transportation that is important. One of you mavens will know this. Just exactly HOW many places does Amtrak serve that some bus line doesn't? Be specific...
This list might actually be longer than you'd think. There are plenty of boondock Amtrak stations that have a station because of their remoteness than the long distance buses simply bypass and plenty of more urban stations that have an Amtrak station but no long distance bus in that part of town.
For instance, Alexandria VA has a busy Amtrak station but there are no long distance buses. Granted, there are two bus terminals within eight miles but they're in legally separate cities. So the "place [Alexandria] is served by Amtrak but some bus line doesn't" is satisfied.
OvermodJust exactly HOW many places does Amtrak serve that some bus line doesn't? Be specific...
That is kind of daunting. According to Amtrak's National Factsheet Amtrak serves over 500 destinations. You would need to go down the list for each long distance bus company in the country.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.