To refocus the discussion on the topic of this thread:
Joe Boardman says Amtrak is a contract between the Congress and the American People. If we agree with him Congress needs to be reminded of the contract they agreed to and the needs and expectations of Americans.
But if we disagree with him we need to totally oppose Amtrak, all of Amtrak, because every every year, every day, every hour that it exists it becomes more deeply embeded in American society and more difficult to extricate.
schlimm Paul Milenkovic schlimm John: I am still out of the country enjoying real passenger rail services, so I was unaware of your being stereotyped. I thought your reference was to others. Sorry for any misunderstanding of the history of that matter. I agree that such practices have no place in a reasoned discussion. It was me. I stereotyped "John WR" as "one of you people" who wants trains, who looks like he has slept in his clothes in an awkward position on a Superliner coach seat, makes life unpleasant for first-time train riders by staying up much of the night in the lounge car regaling strangers with his tales of train travel, whose shoes smell from the toilet chemical from an Amcoach bathroom, and his annoying his neighbors in New Jersey by having converted his automobile into a flower planter in his front yard LOL!! Paul M: I don't think it describes anyone on here, including John, so no offense should be taken, nor was it likely intended. However, if academia gets any worse in WI, even in Madison, maybe a sitcom could enlist your talent at humor!
Paul Milenkovic schlimm John: I am still out of the country enjoying real passenger rail services, so I was unaware of your being stereotyped. I thought your reference was to others. Sorry for any misunderstanding of the history of that matter. I agree that such practices have no place in a reasoned discussion. It was me. I stereotyped "John WR" as "one of you people" who wants trains, who looks like he has slept in his clothes in an awkward position on a Superliner coach seat, makes life unpleasant for first-time train riders by staying up much of the night in the lounge car regaling strangers with his tales of train travel, whose shoes smell from the toilet chemical from an Amcoach bathroom, and his annoying his neighbors in New Jersey by having converted his automobile into a flower planter in his front yard
schlimm John: I am still out of the country enjoying real passenger rail services, so I was unaware of your being stereotyped. I thought your reference was to others. Sorry for any misunderstanding of the history of that matter. I agree that such practices have no place in a reasoned discussion.
John: I am still out of the country enjoying real passenger rail services, so I was unaware of your being stereotyped. I thought your reference was to others. Sorry for any misunderstanding of the history of that matter. I agree that such practices have no place in a reasoned discussion.
It was me. I stereotyped "John WR" as "one of you people" who wants trains, who looks like he has slept in his clothes in an awkward position on a Superliner coach seat, makes life unpleasant for first-time train riders by staying up much of the night in the lounge car regaling strangers with his tales of train travel, whose shoes smell from the toilet chemical from an Amcoach bathroom, and his annoying his neighbors in New Jersey by having converted his automobile into a flower planter in his front yard
Yes!
I especially like the shoes smelling of toilet chemical bit.
I thought automobile bit was going to be that he painted his car in Amtrak Phase III paint scheme...
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
I do not agree that riding in a bus for three or four hours is the same as riding in a bus for eight or nine or ten hours.
But I have not ridden in a bus longer than five hours, except from Tel Aviv to Elat and back. And there was a 40 miniute rest and mel stop. And the buses were very deluxe. I consdered the discomfort worth it because of novelty of the scenerfy, etc.
I have of course ridden 10 hours or so on international air flights. But I cannot do that at age 81. I can sit in a bus or plane for two or three hours most. With a train and the ability to move around or get to a john when necessary there is no real limitation. I have traveled west coast to Chicago by train many times, and once on the El Cap and still found it enjoyable. I could usually afford a sleeper, client paying, but felt I ahd to try coach at least once.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
It was me. I stereotyped "John WR" as "one of those people" who wants trains, who looks like he has slept in his clothes in an awkward position on a Superliner coach seat, makes life unpleasant for first-time train riders by staying up much of the night in the lounge car regaling strangers with his tales of train travel, whose shoes smell from the toilet chemical from an Amcoach bathroom, and his annoying his neighbors by having converted his automobile into a flower planter in his front yard has merited a personal scolding from the editorial board of the Star-Ledger
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Thank you, Schlimm. I hope you are enjoying your trip. John
Schlimm,
I am aware you disagree with at least some long distance routes, notably "The Cardinal." I have no problem at all with that.
I have never ever said anyone who posts on this site is "anti passenger rail." And, while we have different perspectives of what passenger rail should be, I don't know that anyone is "anti passenger rail."
I am the one who has been stereotypled on this site. I was belittled. And, frankly, despite our own disagreements I am surprised that you would condone such actions. To be clear, I oppose stereotyping and I do not retreat from opposing stereotyping and I do not, absolutely not, apologize for opposing stereotyping. Not now. Not ever. We are all human beings and ideally we should treat each other as human beings.
I do not call for preserving long distance routes. I do call for a national system of passenger transportation that does include rail transportation. There is a difference.
Finally, I agree that I do not put forward a positive agenda. I do not have an agenda beyond having a conversation about rail and other forms of transportation. I try to keep my personal beliefs in the background because they are not important here. The conversation is important.
John
oltmannd John WR oltmanndPick me! Pick me! I don't want to make too fine a point of it, Don. But you are an individual who sometimes opposes passenger rail service as it exists because you want it to become what it should be and can be. I don't know that embracing someone else's stereotype is a particularly good way to accomplish this. John
John WR oltmanndPick me! Pick me! I don't want to make too fine a point of it, Don. But you are an individual who sometimes opposes passenger rail service as it exists because you want it to become what it should be and can be. I don't know that embracing someone else's stereotype is a particularly good way to accomplish this. John
oltmanndPick me! Pick me!
I don't want to make too fine a point of it, Don. But you are an individual who sometimes opposes passenger rail service as it exists because you want it to become what it should be and can be. I don't know that embracing someone else's stereotype is a particularly good way to accomplish this. John
Some of would say that many of Amtrak's legacy routes are not "passenger rail service" by any stretch of the imagination. To advocate for passenger rail service means advocating for real, competitive services that a great many folks can use as basic, efficient transportation. If you think that is being "anti-passenger rail" then that is your opinion, but hardly a fact. Suggesting opinions that differ from yours are "embracing someone else's stereotype" as thus "not a particularly good way to accomplish" progress is a belittling comment. You do not put forward a positive agenda, only call for preserving the LD routes of the past.
oltmannd Paul Milenkovic...advocate of passenger trains (am I allowed to call anyone that around here?)... Pick me! Pick me!
Paul Milenkovic...advocate of passenger trains (am I allowed to call anyone that around here?)...
Pick me! Pick me!
Sam1Agreed! I wonder whether the men and women who led the railroad business out of the dark ages, i.e. helped bring about deregulation and then reshaped the industry to make what it is today, would have shrunk from telling the Congress that the malaise that afflicted the railroads was ugly and had to change?
I think Joe Boardman is doing exactly that in a very slick, politically savvy sort of way. The best case he can lay out for LD trains that they are a tool for social justice because they serve lots of rural point pairs. His other arguments were somewhat thin and easy to see through. He said the LD trains feed pass-miles onto the corridors. (But, he doesn't talk about where those passengers boarded and if paring back of the routes would preserve most of that ridership.) He also showed how many of the Cal Zephyr passengers took other trains after arriving (But cleverly bunched them by station type. Even so, one can see that most took other LD trains out of Chicago, not short haul trains. And, a huge chunk were "Day train" riders east of Omaha.)
I just wish he were better at making Amtrak go internally.
oltmannd Sam1I have never heard Boardman or any advocate of the long distance trains speak to the opportunity costs associated with maintaining them. In its publications Amtrak has from time to time claimed that the savings would not be great, although it offers no substantiation for its view. Talking about the opportunity costs of LD trains would be fanning the flames I think he wants to extinguish. To paraphrase, he has said, "Here they are. Here's what they do. Here's what they cost. Now pay or don't pay, but lets stop talking about them and start talking about how we are going to fix and grow the NEC and other corridors."
Sam1I have never heard Boardman or any advocate of the long distance trains speak to the opportunity costs associated with maintaining them. In its publications Amtrak has from time to time claimed that the savings would not be great, although it offers no substantiation for its view.
Talking about the opportunity costs of LD trains would be fanning the flames I think he wants to extinguish. To paraphrase, he has said, "Here they are. Here's what they do. Here's what they cost. Now pay or don't pay, but lets stop talking about them and start talking about how we are going to fix and grow the NEC and other corridors."
Agreed! I wonder whether the men and women who led the railroad business out of the dark ages, i.e. helped bring about deregulation and then reshaped the industry to make what it is today, would have shrunk from telling the Congress that the malaise that afflicted the railroads was ugly and had to change?
daveklepper The present skelatal long distance service does serve most rural communities, in that a three hour auto journey can bring 90% of the rural population to a train station.
The present skelatal long distance service does serve most rural communities, in that a three hour auto journey can bring 90% of the rural population to a train station.
Whether the long distance trains serve 90 per cent of the rural population within a three hour auto journey is debatable. I have never seen any hard data to support this assertion. I suspect that if one backs out the corridors that are served by numerous trains, with one long distance train thrown in for good measure, i.e. St. Louis to Chicago, the numbers would be different.
The Rio Grande Valley in Texas (Brownsville, Harlingen, McAllen, Pharr, etc.) is a major population center. From Brownsville to San Antonio, which is the closest Amtrak station, the driving time, according to Google Maps, is 4 hours, 11 minutes. Its slightly less or more depending on the Valley starting point. To Houston it is 5 hours 25 minutes, and it is 6 hours, 10 minutes to Del Rio. SA is where one would get the Texas Eagle northbound. The best place for the west bound Sunset Limited is probably Del Rio whilst the best place for the eastbound limited is Houston.
Number 22 leaves San Antonio at 7:00 a.m. Thus, if someone from Harlingen wanted to take it, they would have to leave Harlingen around 2:00 a.m. to get to San Antonio in time to park and get on the train. Or if they arrive in SA on Number 21, it would be nearly 3:00 a.m. before they got home. Of course, they could plan on an overnight stay in SA before getting on the train or after getting off of it. That could add another $160 to $300 to their travel tab.
People in Lubbock or Amarillo would need approximately 5 hours to get to Albuquerque or Lamy, NM to catch the Southwest Limited. They would need approximately 4 hours to get to Fort Worth to catch the Eagle or Heartland Flyer.
These are not isolated examples, especially in the western part of the United States. Also, if a person can ride in a car or connecting bus for three hours, why can they not stay in the car or on the bus for the remainder of their journey. Most trips in Texas, irrespective of the mode, are under 250 to 300 miles.
John WR Certainly, Sam, Joe Boardman is aware of the points you raise. Today he testified before the Congress. He pointed out Amtrak's appropriation is at an all time low. He has also got more states to contribute to Amtrak than have ever done so. However, there is no question but what long distance trains will continue to loose money.
Certainly, Sam, Joe Boardman is aware of the points you raise. Today he testified before the Congress. He pointed out Amtrak's appropriation is at an all time low. He has also got more states to contribute to Amtrak than have ever done so. However, there is no question but what long distance trains will continue to loose money.
I have never heard Boardman or any advocate of the long distance trains speak to the opportunity costs associated with maintaining them. In its publications Amtrak has from time to time claimed that the savings would not be great, although it offers no substantiation for its view.
A recent article in the NY Times spoke to the shifting of funding from the federal government to the state governments for the short corridor trains. The Pennsylvanian was the featured train in the story. Apparently it will cost the taxpayers of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania between $5 and $6 million a year to keep the train running.
State legislators along the Juanita Valley and in western Pennsylvania apparently are the ones urging their fellow legislators to support the train. I don't recall anyone mentioning Boardman's name.
Local streets, county roads, state highways, and federal highways take land off the tax rolls. In some places the land taken off the tax rolls is valuable; in many places, like west Texas, not so much.
The roadways make development possible. And the development generates enhanced land appraisal values that probably more than make up for the appraised value of the land taken off the tax rolls for roadways.
When I moved to Texas, Georgetown, where I live, was a community of less than 5,000 people. Today the population is more than 50,000, and the town is growing by leaps and bounds. All sorts of businesses and houses have been built on what was low grade farm land. In fact some of it was just scrub land populated with large numbers of mesquite trees. These properties generate far more in property taxes - my guess - than was the case before the development occurred.
Most of the local delivery companies have offices, warehouses, lay down yards, etc. in or near Georgetown. They pay property taxes on those facilities. Also, if they carry inventory, they pay inventory taxes.
One of the drivers for the development of the Georgetown was and remains I-35 and Texas 29. Without these roadways, as well as the excellent city and country roads, this would still be a country town with little future and heaps of mesquite trees. And the property taxes would be a pittance of what they are today.
squiggleslashEven my Tea Party friends agree with that premise, they just don't like the subsidies, and they tend to go quiet when I tell them that, actually, Amtrak does run full trains, and when they discover the roads are packed with direct and hidden subsidies, that rail is subject to bizarre anti-passenger taxation which may even be enough to cover the subsidies, and that local and state government policy, until now, has been to force people to use them.
Now, we are getting somewhere. Trains are a "non issue" to most people. The best thing a "advocate" can do is make people aware.
But, beware of what you advocate! Telling people that Amtrak trains "run full" when, in fact the avg load factor is <60% - and it's easy to look up - won't help the cause.
Also, most people are perfectly okay with property taxes paying for local roads - they understand they are subsidizing the bread truck delivery to the supermarket...etc. What they don't think about is the land that is taken out of play for taxation by building freeways. They also don't think about the trade off between operating subsidies for transit and capital cost for road construction (although this doesn't work well for intercity service most places outside the NEC)
squiggleslashAnd it's now over forty years later now. Amtrak's ridership is several times what it was when Amtrak started.
Nope. Hasn't kept pace with population growth. You could look it up, as Casey Stengel used to say. Although, Amtrak has done almost nothing to go traffic in areas where the population has grown or moved to. Piedmont and FL in the east are best examples I can think of.
squiggleslashThe FEC is entering the game themselves having realized, thanks to Amtrak's success with the Acela Express, that there are certain routes they could take on that would be profitable.
Yes, they are. I'm not sure about profitable, though. They say the capital cost will be about $1.5B and the GROSS revenue from tix will be about $145M per year.
I can't make those numbers work and show a profit.
But, the FEC gang is not stupid. There is something they are not telling us.
squiggleslashIf it was "what people wanted", why mandate that lifestyle? Why ban high density development? And is it really true that nobody was complaining about these policies?
It's because people in the suburbs don't want it. It's still happening. Everyt ime a developer proposes apartments or townhouses in where I live, the masses rise up and protest, and the zoning variance gets shot down. Not occasionally. Every time. There are two things in play. One is schools are funded by property taxes and apts pay less per student on avg than single family homes. So, there is fear of decreased school quality and/or increased school taxes. The second is fear of a drop in property values. There are all sorts of underlying fears and prejudices at work, too, but those are generally not the deal breakers. It's about $$$.
squiggleslash And it's now over forty years later now. Amtrak's ridership is several times what it was when Amtrak started.
And it's now over forty years later now. Amtrak's ridership is several times what it was when Amtrak started.
http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_04_26.html
The increase from 3.9 billion passenger miles in 1975 to 6.5 billion passenger miles in 2011 is hardly doubling, let along "several times." In fact, it took until 2010 for the Amtrak usage to reach the peak of 6.2 billion passenger miles set nearly 20 years prior in 1991.
We have been at this "business" of advocating for passenger trains for nearly 40 years, and the time is now to craft more accurate arguments in support of passenger trains.
As to the TEA Party friends you have silenced with arguments about road subsidies, that speaks to the unschooled nature of many in those new political groups. If they had bothered to do their own research from the fruits of many fine Libertarian think tanks that create so much consternation around here, they would have been able to turn the tables on you on that one.
As to Amtrak "running full trains", sure the trains are full when you want to ride them, at times when everyone else has the same idea, but the average load factor runs somewhere around 50 percent. But not that there is anything wrong with that because to get higher loader factor, you have to be turning more people away at the times they want to travel.
As to the Honorable Governor Scott of the great state of Florida, we are not supposed to get dragged down into politics around here, but from my relatives in Florida who are teachers and classroom instructors, I get the sense that his opposition to trains is the only popular thing he has done. There is a whole lot else going on in Florida politics apart from trains affecting Mr. Scott's reelection chances.
What I am saying is that if you as an advocate of passenger trains (am I allowed to call anyone that around here?) are saying there is a direct and causal link between Governor Scott opposing trains and Governor Scott dropping in the political opinion polls, you are 1) giving way too much importance to trains and way overestimating to popularity of trains with voters, and 2) quite thoroughly naive to what Mr. Scott might be doing that has sunk his popularity.
squiggleslashIndeed, the very reason for Amtrak's existence is because of that. No party wanted to be the party that killed passenger rail in the 1960s, but the Democrats didn't want to give money to private railroads, and the Republicans didn't want to nationalize the system, and in the end we ended up with Nixon, the Penn Central, and a handful of other railroad bosses starting a conspiracy, branded Amtrak, to try to shut down passenger service in a way that would leave everyone blameless. And it would have worked too if it wasn't for Fortune Magazine exposing the whole thing and Louis W. Menk blurting out the confirmation.
It was really about trying to save Penn Central. They were running 1/2 the passenger trains in the country at the time - and losing a bundle.
Menk had a big mouth. That may have been his, and a few of his crony's opinion of Amtrak, but Amtrak wasn't his legislation. From the White House side, it was all Volpe - and he pretty much slid it past Nixon's guard dogs - much to their chagrin - if you believe Volpe's memoirs.
squiggleslash oltmannd So what? Does the funding source have to be directly linked? Loosely linked? Linked at all? Do people who don't drive benefit from roads? Sure. How do their groceries get to their market? Please don't ignore context, it's not a good way to start a dialog.
oltmannd So what? Does the funding source have to be directly linked? Loosely linked? Linked at all? Do people who don't drive benefit from roads? Sure. How do their groceries get to their market?
Please don't ignore context, it's not a good way to start a dialog.
John WR oltmanndYeah, but nobody was complaining about it. [Moving to the suburbs in the 50's and 60's]. In fact, migration to the suburbs and highway construction was wildly popular in the 50s and 60s! It's what the people wanted! I don't know if that is precisely accurate, Don. My experience is that at that time there were people who lived in the cities or inner suburbs and liked it. However, they married and had children and were concerned about schools. They found that suburban schools were better and that drove there decision. It was a trade off, the amenities of the city for the suburban life style. Yes, they did accept a car oriented life style but they would have preferred to have public transit available. But you can't always have what you want. Yet in 1952 Buck Dumaine, then President of the New Haven Railroad, built a parking lot with a shack and two platforms where the tracks crossed Route 128. It was extremely successful and has been repeated in many places since. John
oltmanndYeah, but nobody was complaining about it. [Moving to the suburbs in the 50's and 60's]. In fact, migration to the suburbs and highway construction was wildly popular in the 50s and 60s! It's what the people wanted!
I don't know if that is precisely accurate, Don. My experience is that at that time there were people who lived in the cities or inner suburbs and liked it. However, they married and had children and were concerned about schools. They found that suburban schools were better and that drove there decision. It was a trade off, the amenities of the city for the suburban life style. Yes, they did accept a car oriented life style but they would have preferred to have public transit available. But you can't always have what you want. Yet in 1952 Buck Dumaine, then President of the New Haven Railroad, built a parking lot with a shack and two platforms where the tracks crossed Route 128. It was extremely successful and has been repeated in many places since.
You may have a few years on me and remember the era from a different perspective, but the suburban lifestyle was the ideal as presented by popular culture while I was growing up. It was the centerpiece of American culture in the era. Tract housing. Homes with backyards, patios and barbecues. It was driven by the baby boom, and fueled by the GI bill. Only the depression and the war slowed it down from happening sooner.
It wasn't just parents hunting for good schools. The good schools got there because parents moved into new subdivisions and demanded them.
Both sets of my grandparents left good housing in Queens for new houses in Westchester Co. in the 1950s. No school aged kids involved....
oltmanndYeah, but nobody was complaining about it. In fact, migration to the suburbs and highway construction was wildly popular in the 50s and 60s! It's what the people wanted!
If it was "what people wanted", why mandate that lifestyle? Why ban high density development? And is it really true that nobody was complaining about these policies?
oltmannd Meh. So, if I think we can do it all with cars, buses and air, I am "insane" by definition? Not a good way to start a dialog.[
I didn't call anyone specific insane, but I'm having difficulty believing that you genuinely believe that cars, buses, and air covers everything. Why are you under that impression? It may be what people are putting up with, but it's hardly optimal.
oltmanndThey act based on what their constituents want. They want roads? Roads get built.
And their constituents want trains. That's been proven time and time again. And the market, as I mentioned, also heavily suggests that the ability to travel by train (even if un-exercised) is considerably more in demand than those who claim rail shouldn't receive government support pretend. We have the constant demands to congress and, on the market side, we have demand for housing and businesses near transit to prove that. Despite your comment that "they have arranged their life around {car travel}" the reality is property values in transit supported developments shows that people aren't willingly doing so. The people want transit. They want trains.
Indeed, the very reason for Amtrak's existence is because of that. No party wanted to be the party that killed passenger rail in the 1960s, but the Democrats didn't want to give money to private railroads, and the Republicans didn't want to nationalize the system, and in the end we ended up with Nixon, the Penn Central, and a handful of other railroad bosses starting a conspiracy, branded Amtrak, to try to shut down passenger service in a way that would leave everyone blameless. And it would have worked too if it wasn't for Fortune Magazine exposing the whole thing and Louis W. Menk blurting out the confirmation.
That was the nadir of passenger rail, the period during which all the Very Serious People(tm) "knew" that passenger rail was "obsolete", that everyone wanted to live in their McMansions in gated communities that they were being forced into, by a combination of new building planning policy and engineered urban decay, the leaders of both political parties wanted passenger rail to end, the leaders of the railroads wanted passenger rail to end, and even then, even then, they couldn't do it. They knew that it would be political suicide to shut down passenger rail. Because "the people" wanted passenger rail.
Meanwhile the governor of Florida is Rick Scott, an avowed unashamed opponent of rail, in a state where nobody wants to take a bus because it means sitting in a bus shelter for five minutes. He's vetoed a HSR system that was about to start. And...
...and he lost his popularity as soon as he did. Shortest political honeymoon period ever. Didn't dare to do the same to Sunrail. Since then, the Florida legislature has approved work on developing a new rail based transit system for North East Florida, which hasn't seen anything in decades. The Tri-rail is being extended to the FEC. New transit systems are in development in Miami. SunRail hasn't even been finished yet and they're looking at expanding it. The FEC is entering the game themselves having realized, thanks to Amtrak's success with the Acela Express, that there are certain routes they could take on that would be profitable.
This isn't happening outside of a popular mandate. It's happening because actually people do believe that rail is important and should be made available.
Even my Tea Party friends agree with that premise, they just don't like the subsidies, and they tend to go quiet when I tell them that, actually, Amtrak does run full trains, and when they discover the roads are packed with direct and hidden subsidies, that rail is subject to bizarre anti-passenger taxation which may even be enough to cover the subsidies, and that local and state government policy, until now, has been to force people to use them.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.