Future of the American Passenger Train

[VerMontanan]

"Valorstorm" writes:

"And then, "If Amtrak should run on the MRL route because of the higher population, then using that logic, the Empire Builder should be the least-patronized route of any Amtrak train, rather than the most patronized." VerMontanan, who is obviously educated, utilizes here the "historical/critical" method (in reverse), and to questionable advantage. Here, VerMontanan's conclusions amount to measuring the present-day according as conditions were generations ago. It's true that the Empire Builder was and is a "most patronized" train. But until the advent of the heavily trafficked US-2, it was THE most patronized MODE. Fast-forward to now, all of the old parameters are useless. One thing has NOT changed however: Montana passengers had little to do with the EB's popularity. It was all about Chicago, Seattle, and just three major population centers in-between."

***
Actually, the assertion that Montana passengers have little to do with the Empire Builder's popularity is completely false. Here is the ridership for the Empire Builder and other western trains in 2003:

Empire Builder:

Chicago, 2,179,155 (also served by numerous other trains)
Glenview, 24,456 (also served by Hiawatha Service trains)
Milwaukee, 405,151 (also served by Hiawatha Service trains)
Columbus, 11,951
Portage, 4,901
Wisconsin Dells, 10,321
Tomah, 6,536
La Crosse, 20,124
Winona, 15,591
Red Wing, 8,490
St. Paul, 116,967
St. Cloud, 10,676
Staples, 4,690
Detroit Lakes, 2,795
Fargo, 13,869
Grand Forks, 13,024
Devils Lake, 4,726
Rugby, 4,940
Minot, 27,493
Stanley, 2,678
Williston, 16,196
Wolf Point, 6,817
Glasgow, 4,994
Malta, 2,666
Havre, 13,453
Shelby, 13,749
Cut Bank, 2,865
Browning (seasonal), 1,809
East Glacier (seasonal), 9,990
Essex, 3,126
West Glacier, 4,350
Whitefish, 53,311
Libby, 4,923
Sandpoint, 4,403
Spokane, 34,867
Pasco, 14,766
Wishram, 799
Bingen, 1,086
Vancouver, WA, 67,958 (also served by Cascades trains and Coast Starlight)
Portland, 472,500 (also served by Cascades trains and Coast Starlight)
Ephrata, 2,106
Wenatchee, 12,113
Everett, 34,444 (also served by Cascades trains)
Edmonds, 25,853 (also served by Cascades trains)
Seattle, 591,657 (also served by Cascades trains and Coast Starlight)
(Ridership at Everett, Edmonds, Seattle, Vancouver, and Portland also includes that of special trains, notably the Seahawks specials and Leavenworth Snow Train).

California Zephyr:

Chicago, 2,179,255 (also served by numerous other trains)
Naperville, 28,872 (also served by Southwest Chief and Illinois Zephyr)
Princeton, 14,539 (also served by Southwest Chief and Illinois Zephyr)
Galesburg, 58,129 (also served by Southwest Chief and Illinois Zephyr)
Burlington, 5,576
Mount Pleasant, 10,075
Ottumwa, 9,179
Osceola, 11,490
Creston, 3,592
Omaha, 22,092
Lincoln, 8,128
Hastings, 2,960
Holdrege, 1,461
McCook, 2,443
Fort Morgan, 2,358
Denver, 117,495
Winter Park, 10,459
Granby, 3,452
Glenwood Springs, 29,454
Grand Junction, 19,514
Green River, 1,310
Helper, 1,507
Provo, 2,911
Salt Lake City, 25,886
Elko, 2,890
Winnemucca, 1,722
Sparks, 27,687
Reno, 55,323
Truckee, 6,072
Colfax, 3,125
Roseville, 51,613 (also served by Capitol Corridor trains)
Sacramento, 850,390 (also served by Capitol Corridor trains and Coast Starlight)
Davis, 23,831 (also served by Capitol Corridor trains and Coast Starlight)
Martinez, 291,413 (also served by Coast Starlight, Capitol Corridor, and San Joaquin)
Emeryville, 486,700 (also served by Coast Starlight, Capitol Corridor, San Joauqin)
(Ridership at stations between Sparks and Emeryville also include that of special trains, notably the Reno Fun Train).

Southwest Chief:

Chicago, 2,179,255 (also served by numerous other trains)
Naperville, 28,872 (also served by California Zephyr and Illinois Zephyr)
Mendota, mysteriously omitted from Amtrak website
Princeton, 14,539 (also served by California Zephyr and Illinois Zephyr)
Galesburg, 58,129 (also served by California Zephyr and Illinois Zephyr)
Fort Madison, 7,530
La Plata, 6,247
Kansas City, 111,143 (also served by Mules)
Lawrence, 2,253
Topeka, 5,043
Newton, 9,149
Hutchinson, 2,722
Dodge City, 2,576
Garden City, 4,803
Lamar, 1,531
La Junta, 6,945
Trinidad, 3,536
Raton, 19,255
Las Vegas, 2,726
Lamy, 12,050
Albuquerque, 50,534
Gallup, 6,454
Winslow, 2,108
Flagstaff, 35,340
Williams Jct., 7,558
Kingman, 2,442
Needles, 12,180
Barstow, 2,621
Victorville, 2,881
San Bernardino, 11,455
Riverside, 4,432
Fullerton, 330,314 (also served by Pacific Surfliners)
Los Angeles, 1,245,160 (also served by Pacific Surfliners, Sunset Limited, Coast Starlight)
(Los Angeles ridership also includes special trains)

Texas Eagle:

Chicago, 2,179,255 (also served by numerous other trains)
Joliet, 21,268 (also served by Ann Rutledge and State House)
Pontiac, 8,092 (also served by Ann Rutledge and State House)
Normal-Bloomington, 74,399 (also served by Ann Rutledge and State House)
Lincoln, 12,655 (also served by Ann Rutledge and State House)
Springfield, 92,379 (also served by Ann Rutledge and State House)
Alton, 26,995 (also served by Ann Rutledge and State House)
St. Louis, 147,545 (also served by Ann Rutledge, State House, and Mules)
Poplar Bluff, 2,246
Walnut Ridge, 2,188
Little Rock, 11,700
Malvern, 1,269
Arkadelphia, 911
Texarkana, 4,721
Marshall 3,696
Longview, 20,720
Mineola, 2,308
Dallas, 31,981
Fort Worth, 64,247 (also served by Heartland Flyer)
Cleburne, 1,531
McGregor, 1,776
Temple, 8,006
Taylor, 2,590
Austin, 18,646
San Marcos, 2,646
San Antonio, 44,682 (also served by Sunset Limited)

Ridership on Sunset Limited west of San Antonio:

Del Rio, 1,135
Sanderson, 194
Alpine, 1,796
El Paso, 10,165
Deming, 862
Lordsburg, 426
Tucson, 15,960
Maricopa, 8,288
Yuma, 2,033
Palm Springs, 1,948
Ontario, 3,226
Pomona, 856
Los Angeles, 1,245,160 (also served by Pacific Surfliners, Southwest Chief, Coast Starlight)
(Los Angeles ridership also includes special trains)

Other than the origin and termination cities (Chicago, Seattle, Portland), only St. Paul boards more passengers than does Whitefish, which is in Montana. (Milwaukee, WI and Vancouver, WA board more passengers than do Whitefish, but they are also served by more frequent short-distance trains which make up the vast majority of their boardings). Not only does Whitefish board more passengers than cities like Albuquerque, Dallas, and Salt Lake City, but Shelby (population 3,000) boards more passengers than do the capital cities of Lincoln, Nebraska and Topeka, Kansas combined. Lincoln and Topeka have a combined population that is greater than Billings, Bozeman, Helena, and Missoula combined. So I just need proof that these cities in Montana, that like Topeka and Lincoln have access to Interstate highways and bus transportation, but unlike Topeka and Lincoln do have relatively good air service, would therefore provide significantly greater ridership than along the Empire Builder route.

With regard to "all the parameters being useless" as to why the Empire Builder is a success, this is not true. However, it is partially true in the case of rail passenger service through Southern Montana. Since 1947, when the Empire Builder became the first post-World War II western streamliner, its route has always the best-patronized route for travel between the Upper Midwest and Pacific Northwest. Even the in the mid-1960s, when US highway 2 was in about as good of shape as it is now, Great Northern fielded two bona fide streamliners, the Empire Builder and Western Star, whereas the Northern Pacific(through Southern Montana), while running a fine service in the North Coast Limited, never measured up to GN with its secondary train, the Mainstreeter. The Mainstreeter ran without food service over the western part of its route from time to time, and even without a sleeping accommodation for a time in 1967 and 1968. In 1967 until the BN merger in 1970, NP petitioned to discontinue the Mainstreeter on numerous occasions. While GN did cutback its service over time (but never to the extent of NP) on other routes, neither the Empire Builder or Western Star were posted for discontinuance as GN trains. Because of this, GN was generally considered the more pro-passenger railroad of the two. In 1971, when Amtrak was created and there was to be only one Chicago-to-Seattle passenger train, the Empire Builder route was chosen not only because of lack of transportation alternatives along the route, but because of higher existing ridership. The route through Southern Montana, however, has changed. Unlike the current Empire Builder route, placing a passenger train into service in Southern Montana would cost a lot of money. There are numerous places where stations would have to be created, and the track upgraded. A rerouted train through Southern Montana would easily take 4 to 6 hours longer between Fargo and Sandpoint than the current route mostly because of reduced track speeds and coal traffic along the mostly non-CTC equipped route across North Dakota. The Empire Builder as it is scheduled today, is delicately scheduled to (westbound) make many connections with eastern trains in Chicago and arrive in Portland in time to connect with the Coast Starlight for California. Turnaround time for equipment in Portland and Seattle is only about 6.5 hours (the shortest of any long distance Amtrak train). Eastbound, the schedule allows a connection from the northbound Coast Starlight in Portland and arrival in Chicago in time for eastern and southern connections. Any rerouted train that would take 8 hours longer (4 hours westbound and 4 eastbound) would either have to eliminate vital connections at one end of the run or the other, or an entire sixth set of equipment would have to be put into service to allow this. As anyone knows who might follow Amtrak and the myriad problems it always faces knows, that lack of any extra equipment is a reality. The lack of any extra money for station and track improvements is also a reality. The fact is that even if rerouting the Empire Builder through Southern Montana was an idea with merit (which it isn't), it simply wouldn't be possible given the current financial situation at Amtrak today.

"Valorstorm" continues:
"It was patently irresponsible to assert "that the reason...the Empire Builder exists and is used is because of the lack of alternative transportation across Northern Montana." If public service across the highline were the reason for the Empire Builder, it wouldn't be there. And if Amtrak moved south, it would be replaced in the north right now by the more affordable Rimrock Stage Lines. The reason other transportation alternatives aren't there is because Amtrak IS there. And did VerMontanan REALLY mean to say that Amtrak is providing "these communities (their) ONLY form of transportation?"
**
This proves that not only is "Valorstorm" ignorant about the utility of the Empire Builder, he is likewise so about transportation in Montana and the U.S. in general. To think that a bus company (or airline, for that matter), would step in and provide service if the Empire Builder was discontinued ignores the reality of the demise of intercity bus travel everywhere. Comparing a Russell's Guide (the bus equivalent to the Official Guide of the Railways) between the years 1970 and the present tells the story. The book is about one-fourth the thickness. Routes are mostly confined to Interstate highways, and many stops are eliminated. There is currently only one bus per day traversing the states of North Dakota and South Dakota on an east-west route. In Wisconsin, except on highway 2, there is no bus service north of Eau Claire and west of Rhinelander. In Nebraska, with one exception, there is no bus service at all except along I-80. That Rimrock or any bus company would start service along US 2 in Montana, a two-lane road known for bad weather in the wake of the Empire Builder being discontinued, is laughable at best.

"Valorstorm" continues:
"Amtrak IS well-patronized in Montana, COMPARATIVELY. I'm one of the patrons. Get it? HOW MANY PASSENGERS ARE BOARDING IN WHITEFISH AND SHELBY AND HAVRE WHO ARE DRIVING FROM MISSOULA AND HELENA AND BILLINGS? When I'm at the Whitefish depot it's mostly people from Missoula, St. Ignacious, and out-of-state tourists visiting Big Mountain. So it might BE "provable that Amtrak service through Southern Montana would have higher ridership!" The REAL "slap in the face" is that only 13,000+ "people a year...board and detrain" in Montana. Do THAT math. And how many are Montanans?"

**
13,000+ people boarding a year in Montana? Where did you get those figures? Actually, according to Amtrak, ridership in Montana in 2003 was 122,053, and rose to 129,034 in FY2004 (out of 451,000 total, over one-fourth of all ridership, hence again disproving your earlier assertion that, "one thing has NOT changed however: Montana passengers had little to do with the EB's popularity. It was all about Chicago, Seattle, and just three major population centers in-between"). The real "slap in the face" comes from people like you that are so misinformed that you have to make up figures to support your stance. Too bad. And, I don't see the logic in berating people taking Amtrak to Big Mountain or Glacier Park for that matter. After all, doesn't this benefit Montana? I think access to Yellowstone Park or the Big Sky ski resort is a good reason to support Amtrak service through Southern Montana, but using your logic, it's not relevant because....well for whatever reason the Big Mountain people don't count, evidently. And you ask how many people boarding the Empire Builder are from Missoula, Helena, and Billings? Well, I don't know, how many, and this time, don't just make up a number, please! All I can tell you it's not significant, relative to the total number of people using the train. How do I know? Well, I've actually sold tickets along the Empire Builder route in the past, but I also know many of the Amtrak employees and have discussed this. Probably the greatest number (though still small) of patrons from Southern Montana board at Whitefish. But Shelby gets a great deal of business from Alberta (drawing from Lethbridge and Calgary, major cities which have bus service to Shelby) and Great Falls (Montana's third-largest city). Havre receives a lot of Great Falls traffic, too. Wolf Point and Williston, ND might benefit from Glendive patrons, but Glendive, and Miles City for that matter, are hardly major cities, even by Montana standards. As for the contention that people from Billings (Montana's largest city) are greatly augmenting ridership: it just doesn't add up because the closest stop, Malta, some 200 miles distant, is one of the least-patronized stops in the state. By the way, you need a new keyboard. The one you have doesn't know how to spell St. Ignatius, and it seems to use a lot of capitalization. If this was not a problem with your keyboard, I would suggest using more facts to bolster your argument rather than thinking this can be accomplished though the "caps lock" feature.

"Valorstorm" continues:
This particular Montanan has been vilified before, always deservedly; never in a TRAINs forum! WOW! The use of "dramatically misinformed statements" to accuse others of same? That usually elicits a "Nyaaa-nyaaa-nya-nyaaa-nyaaa." But VerMontanan is so obviously erudite, that his/her behavior, at this time of year? I find it "troubling."

**
One can only be truly vilified when another has proven incorrect. Given your numerous misstatements in this post, the many in the previous post, and the accusatory tone of this last paragraph, I let others that may be reading this to decide for themselves.

[VerMontanan]

"Valorstorm" writes:

"And then, "If Amtrak should run on the MRL route because of the higher population, then using that logic, the Empire Builder should be the least-patronized route of any Amtrak train, rather than the most patronized." VerMontanan, who is obviously educated, utilizes here the "historical/critical" method (in reverse), and to questionable advantage. Here, VerMontanan's conclusions amount to measuring the present-day according as conditions were generations ago. It's true that the Empire Builder was and is a "most patronized" train. But until the advent of the heavily trafficked US-2, it was THE most patronized MODE. Fast-forward to now, all of the old parameters are useless. One thing has NOT changed however: Montana passengers had little to do with the EB's popularity. It was all about Chicago, Seattle, and just three major population centers in-between."

***
Actually, the assertion that Montana passengers have little to do with the Empire Builder's popularity is completely false. Here is the ridership for the Empire Builder and other western trains in 2003:

Empire Builder:

Chicago, 2,179,155 (also served by numerous other trains)
Glenview, 24,456 (also served by Hiawatha Service trains)
Milwaukee, 405,151 (also served by Hiawatha Service trains)
Columbus, 11,951
Portage, 4,901
Wisconsin Dells, 10,321
Tomah, 6,536
La Crosse, 20,124
Winona, 15,591
Red Wing, 8,490
St. Paul, 116,967
St. Cloud, 10,676
Staples, 4,690
Detroit Lakes, 2,795
Fargo, 13,869
Grand Forks, 13,024
Devils Lake, 4,726
Rugby, 4,940
Minot, 27,493
Stanley, 2,678
Williston, 16,196
Wolf Point, 6,817
Glasgow, 4,994
Malta, 2,666
Havre, 13,453
Shelby, 13,749
Cut Bank, 2,865
Browning (seasonal), 1,809
East Glacier (seasonal), 9,990
Essex, 3,126
West Glacier, 4,350
Whitefish, 53,311
Libby, 4,923
Sandpoint, 4,403
Spokane, 34,867
Pasco, 14,766
Wishram, 799
Bingen, 1,086
Vancouver, WA, 67,958 (also served by Cascades trains and Coast Starlight)
Portland, 472,500 (also served by Cascades trains and Coast Starlight)
Ephrata, 2,106
Wenatchee, 12,113
Everett, 34,444 (also served by Cascades trains)
Edmonds, 25,853 (also served by Cascades trains)
Seattle, 591,657 (also served by Cascades trains and Coast Starlight)
(Ridership at Everett, Edmonds, Seattle, Vancouver, and Portland also includes that of special trains, notably the Seahawks specials and Leavenworth Snow Train).

California Zephyr:

Chicago, 2,179,255 (also served by numerous other trains)
Naperville, 28,872 (also served by Southwest Chief and Illinois Zephyr)
Princeton, 14,539 (also served by Southwest Chief and Illinois Zephyr)
Galesburg, 58,129 (also served by Southwest Chief and Illinois Zephyr)
Burlington, 5,576
Mount Pleasant, 10,075
Ottumwa, 9,179
Osceola, 11,490
Creston, 3,592
Omaha, 22,092
Lincoln, 8,128
Hastings, 2,960
Holdrege, 1,461
McCook, 2,443
Fort Morgan, 2,358
Denver, 117,495
Winter Park, 10,459
Granby, 3,452
Glenwood Springs, 29,454
Grand Junction, 19,514
Green River, 1,310
Helper, 1,507
Provo, 2,911
Salt Lake City, 25,886
Elko, 2,890
Winnemucca, 1,722
Sparks, 27,687
Reno, 55,323
Truckee, 6,072
Colfax, 3,125
Roseville, 51,613 (also served by Capitol Corridor trains)
Sacramento, 850,390 (also served by Capitol Corridor trains and Coast Starlight)
Davis, 23,831 (also served by Capitol Corridor trains and Coast Starlight)
Martinez, 291,413 (also served by Coast Starlight, Capitol Corridor, and San Joaquin)
Emeryville, 486,700 (also served by Coast Starlight, Capitol Corridor, San Joauqin)
(Ridership at stations between Sparks and Emeryville also include that of special trains, notably the Reno Fun Train).

Southwest Chief:

Chicago, 2,179,255 (also served by numerous other trains)
Naperville, 28,872 (also served by California Zephyr and Illinois Zephyr)
Mendota, mysteriously omitted from Amtrak website
Princeton, 14,539 (also served by California Zephyr and Illinois Zephyr)
Galesburg, 58,129 (also served by California Zephyr and Illinois Zephyr)
Fort Madison, 7,530
La Plata, 6,247
Kansas City, 111,143 (also served by Mules)
Lawrence, 2,253
Topeka, 5,043
Newton, 9,149
Hutchinson, 2,722
Dodge City, 2,576
Garden City, 4,803
Lamar, 1,531
La Junta, 6,945
Trinidad, 3,536
Raton, 19,255
Las Vegas, 2,726
Lamy, 12,050
Albuquerque, 50,534
Gallup, 6,454
Winslow, 2,108
Flagstaff, 35,340
Williams Jct., 7,558
Kingman, 2,442
Needles, 12,180
Barstow, 2,621
Victorville, 2,881
San Bernardino, 11,455
Riverside, 4,432
Fullerton, 330,314 (also served by Pacific Surfliners)
Los Angeles, 1,245,160 (also served by Pacific Surfliners, Sunset Limited, Coast Starlight)
(Los Angeles ridership also includes special trains)

Texas Eagle:

Chicago, 2,179,255 (also served by numerous other trains)
Joliet, 21,268 (also served by Ann Rutledge and State House)
Pontiac, 8,092 (also served by Ann Rutledge and State House)
Normal-Bloomington, 74,399 (also served by Ann Rutledge and State House)
Lincoln, 12,655 (also served by Ann Rutledge and State House)
Springfield, 92,379 (also served by Ann Rutledge and State House)
Alton, 26,995 (also served by Ann Rutledge and State House)
St. Louis, 147,545 (also served by Ann Rutledge, State House, and Mules)
Poplar Bluff, 2,246
Walnut Ridge, 2,188
Little Rock, 11,700
Malvern, 1,269
Arkadelphia, 911
Texarkana, 4,721
Marshall 3,696
Longview, 20,720
Mineola, 2,308
Dallas, 31,981
Fort Worth, 64,247 (also served by Heartland Flyer)
Cleburne, 1,531
McGregor, 1,776
Temple, 8,006
Taylor, 2,590
Austin, 18,646
San Marcos, 2,646
San Antonio, 44,682 (also served by Sunset Limited)

Ridership on Sunset Limited west of San Antonio:

Del Rio, 1,135
Sanderson, 194
Alpine, 1,796
El Paso, 10,165
Deming, 862
Lordsburg, 426
Tucson, 15,960
Maricopa, 8,288
Yuma, 2,033
Palm Springs, 1,948
Ontario, 3,226
Pomona, 856
Los Angeles, 1,245,160 (also served by Pacific Surfliners, Southwest Chief, Coast Starlight)
(Los Angeles ridership also includes special trains)

Other than the origin and termination cities (Chicago, Seattle, Portland), only St. Paul boards more passengers than does Whitefish, which is in Montana. (Milwaukee, WI and Vancouver, WA board more passengers than do Whitefish, but they are also served by more frequent short-distance trains which make up the vast majority of their boardings). Not only does Whitefish board more passengers than cities like Albuquerque, Dallas, and Salt Lake City, but Shelby (population 3,000) boards more passengers than do the capital cities of Lincoln, Nebraska and Topeka, Kansas combined. Lincoln and Topeka have a combined population that is greater than Billings, Bozeman, Helena, and Missoula combined. So I just need proof that these cities in Montana, that like Topeka and Lincoln have access to Interstate highways and bus transportation, but unlike Topeka and Lincoln do have relatively good air service, would therefore provide significantly greater ridership than along the Empire Builder route.

With regard to "all the parameters being useless" as to why the Empire Builder is a success, this is not true. However, it is partially true in the case of rail passenger service through Southern Montana. Since 1947, when the Empire Builder became the first post-World War II western streamliner, its route has always the best-patronized route for travel between the Upper Midwest and Pacific Northwest. Even the in the mid-1960s, when US highway 2 was in about as good of shape as it is now, Great Northern fielded two bona fide streamliners, the Empire Builder and Western Star, whereas the Northern Pacific(through Southern Montana), while running a fine service in the North Coast Limited, never measured up to GN with its secondary train, the Mainstreeter. The Mainstreeter ran without food service over the western part of its route from time to time, and even without a sleeping accommodation for a time in 1967 and 1968. In 1967 until the BN merger in 1970, NP petitioned to discontinue the Mainstreeter on numerous occasions. While GN did cutback its service over time (but never to the extent of NP) on other routes, neither the Empire Builder or Western Star were posted for discontinuance as GN trains. Because of this, GN was generally considered the more pro-passenger railroad of the two. In 1971, when Amtrak was created and there was to be only one Chicago-to-Seattle passenger train, the Empire Builder route was chosen not only because of lack of transportation alternatives along the route, but because of higher existing ridership. The route through Southern Montana, however, has changed. Unlike the current Empire Builder route, placing a passenger train into service in Southern Montana would cost a lot of money. There are numerous places where stations would have to be created, and the track upgraded. A rerouted train through Southern Montana would easily take 4 to 6 hours longer between Fargo and Sandpoint than the current route mostly because of reduced track speeds and coal traffic along the mostly non-CTC equipped route across North Dakota. The Empire Builder as it is scheduled today, is delicately scheduled to (westbound) make many connections with eastern trains in Chicago and arrive in Portland in time to connect with the Coast Starlight for California. Turnaround time for equipment in Portland and Seattle is only about 6.5 hours (the shortest of any long distance Amtrak train). Eastbound, the schedule allows a connection from the northbound Coast Starlight in Portland and arrival in Chicago in time for eastern and southern connections. Any rerouted train that would take 8 hours longer (4 hours westbound and 4 eastbound) would either have to eliminate vital connections at one end of the run or the other, or an entire sixth set of equipment would have to be put into service to allow this. As anyone knows who might follow Amtrak and the myriad problems it always faces knows, that lack of any extra equipment is a reality. The lack of any extra money for station and track improvements is also a reality. The fact is that even if rerouting the Empire Builder through Southern Montana was an idea with merit (which it isn't), it simply wouldn't be possible given the current financial situation at Amtrak today.

"Valorstorm" continues:
"It was patently irresponsible to assert "that the reason...the Empire Builder exists and is used is because of the lack of alternative transportation across Northern Montana." If public service across the highline were the reason for the Empire Builder, it wouldn't be there. And if Amtrak moved south, it would be replaced in the north right now by the more affordable Rimrock Stage Lines. The reason other transportation alternatives aren't there is because Amtrak IS there. And did VerMontanan REALLY mean to say that Amtrak is providing "these communities (their) ONLY form of transportation?"
**
This proves that not only is "Valorstorm" ignorant about the utility of the Empire Builder, he is likewise so about transportation in Montana and the U.S. in general. To think that a bus company (or airline, for that matter), would step in and provide service if the Empire Builder was discontinued ignores the reality of the demise of intercity bus travel everywhere. Comparing a Russell's Guide (the bus equivalent to the Official Guide of the Railways) between the years 1970 and the present tells the story. The book is about one-fourth the thickness. Routes are mostly confined to Interstate highways, and many stops are eliminated. There is currently only one bus per day traversing the states of North Dakota and South Dakota on an east-west route. In Wisconsin, except on highway 2, there is no bus service north of Eau Claire and west of Rhinelander. In Nebraska, with one exception, there is no bus service at all except along I-80. That Rimrock or any bus company would start service along US 2 in Montana, a two-lane road known for bad weather in the wake of the Empire Builder being discontinued, is laughable at best.

"Valorstorm" continues:
"Amtrak IS well-patronized in Montana, COMPARATIVELY. I'm one of the patrons. Get it? HOW MANY PASSENGERS ARE BOARDING IN WHITEFISH AND SHELBY AND HAVRE WHO ARE DRIVING FROM MISSOULA AND HELENA AND BILLINGS? When I'm at the Whitefish depot it's mostly people from Missoula, St. Ignacious, and out-of-state tourists visiting Big Mountain. So it might BE "provable that Amtrak service through Southern Montana would have higher ridership!" The REAL "slap in the face" is that only 13,000+ "people a year...board and detrain" in Montana. Do THAT math. And how many are Montanans?"

**
13,000+ people boarding a year in Montana? Where did you get those figures? Actually, according to Amtrak, ridership in Montana in 2003 was 122,053, and rose to 129,034 in FY2004 (out of 451,000 total, over one-fourth of all ridership, hence again disproving your earlier assertion that, "one thing has NOT changed however: Montana passengers had little to do with the EB's popularity. It was all about Chicago, Seattle, and just three major population centers in-between"). The real "slap in the face" comes from people like you that are so misinformed that you have to make up figures to support your stance. Too bad. And, I don't see the logic in berating people taking Amtrak to Big Mountain or Glacier Park for that matter. After all, doesn't this benefit Montana? I think access to Yellowstone Park or the Big Sky ski resort is a good reason to support Amtrak service through Southern Montana, but using your logic, it's not relevant because....well for whatever reason the Big Mountain people don't count, evidently. And you ask how many people boarding the Empire Builder are from Missoula, Helena, and Billings? Well, I don't know, how many, and this time, don't just make up a number, please! All I can tell you it's not significant, relative to the total number of people using the train. How do I know? Well, I've actually sold tickets along the Empire Builder route in the past, but I also know many of the Amtrak employees and have discussed this. Probably the greatest number (though still small) of patrons from Southern Montana board at Whitefish. But Shelby gets a great deal of business from Alberta (drawing from Lethbridge and Calgary, major cities which have bus service to Shelby) and Great Falls (Montana's third-largest city). Havre receives a lot of Great Falls traffic, too. Wolf Point and Williston, ND might benefit from Glendive patrons, but Glendive, and Miles City for that matter, are hardly major cities, even by Montana standards. As for the contention that people from Billings (Montana's largest city) are greatly augmenting ridership: it just doesn't add up because the closest stop, Malta, some 200 miles distant, is one of the least-patronized stops in the state. By the way, you need a new keyboard. The one you have doesn't know how to spell St. Ignatius, and it seems to use a lot of capitalization. If this was not a problem with your keyboard, I would suggest using more facts to bolster your argument rather than thinking this can be accomplished though the "caps lock" feature.

"Valorstorm" continues:
This particular Montanan has been vilified before, always deservedly; never in a TRAINs forum! WOW! The use of "dramatically misinformed statements" to accuse others of same? That usually elicits a "Nyaaa-nyaaa-nya-nyaaa-nyaaa." But VerMontanan is so obviously erudite, that his/her behavior, at this time of year? I find it "troubling."

**
One can only be truly vilified when another has proven incorrect. Given your numerous misstatements in this post, the many in the previous post, and the accusatory tone of this last paragraph, I let others that may be reading this to decide for themselves.

[VerMontanan]

In spite of "Valorstorm" claiming that (in his post in this thread on November 13, which he has since deleted from the forum) that Amtrak doesn't provide a necessary service in Montana, the exact opposite is show in a study done in 2003 by the Montana Department of Transportation, still available on line at:

http://www.mdt.state.mt.us/tranplan/docs/empire_builder.pdf

Some 70+ pages in length, the report analyzes the many contributions the operation of the Empire Builder makes to Montana, and includes input (just about all of it positive) from Montanans as to why this train provides a valued and needed service.

Another good source of information about the success that is the Empire Builder is available from the Midwest High Speed Rail Report from August 2004, available (at least at this time) on line at:

http://www.midwesthsr.org/pdfs/MRR12n3.pdf

The article on the Empire Builder begins on page 3, and is titled: "Amtrak's Empire Builder: A Multi-tasking Mobility Machine that Baffles the Experts."

The article begins: Physicists argue that the bumblebee cannot fly because its body is too heavy and its wings too small. But the bumblebee does not know this, so it flies anyway. Beware of the "experts." Wherever they look, they find another bumblebee. Take the so-called "passenger train experts." They claim Amtrak's Chicago-Seattle Empire Builder shouldn't work: its route is too long, its speed too slow and its territory too thinly settled to attract today's travelers. The Empire Builder doesn't know this, and so it's the best performing train west of the Alleganys.

This article highlights many characteristics of the Empire Builder, including ridership. Some of the interesting facts here are contrary to the erroneous claim of Valorstorm who said, "Montana passengers had little to do with the EB's popularity. It was all about Chicago, Seattle, and just three major population centers in-between," when it shows that only 9 percent of passengers ride between end points, with the average trip length on the train being 845 miles, only about a third of the total route. Beyond that, and keeping with the original title of this thread (Future of the American Passenger Train), both of these links are valuable in showing why the long distance passenger train can be and is a vital transportation resource in the United States. What is important is not to dwell on the specific success of this one train, but to show how the benefits it provides can be applied in similar situations on new routes across the country.

[VerMontanan]

In spite of "Valorstorm" claiming that (in his post in this thread on November 13, which he has since deleted from the forum) that Amtrak doesn't provide a necessary service in Montana, the exact opposite is show in a study done in 2003 by the Montana Department of Transportation, still available on line at:

http://www.mdt.state.mt.us/tranplan/docs/empire_builder.pdf

Some 70+ pages in length, the report analyzes the many contributions the operation of the Empire Builder makes to Montana, and includes input (just about all of it positive) from Montanans as to why this train provides a valued and needed service.

Another good source of information about the success that is the Empire Builder is available from the Midwest High Speed Rail Report from August 2004, available (at least at this time) on line at:

http://www.midwesthsr.org/pdfs/MRR12n3.pdf

The article on the Empire Builder begins on page 3, and is titled: "Amtrak's Empire Builder: A Multi-tasking Mobility Machine that Baffles the Experts."

The article begins: Physicists argue that the bumblebee cannot fly because its body is too heavy and its wings too small. But the bumblebee does not know this, so it flies anyway. Beware of the "experts." Wherever they look, they find another bumblebee. Take the so-called "passenger train experts." They claim Amtrak's Chicago-Seattle Empire Builder shouldn't work: its route is too long, its speed too slow and its territory too thinly settled to attract today's travelers. The Empire Builder doesn't know this, and so it's the best performing train west of the Alleganys.

This article highlights many characteristics of the Empire Builder, including ridership. Some of the interesting facts here are contrary to the erroneous claim of Valorstorm who said, "Montana passengers had little to do with the EB's popularity. It was all about Chicago, Seattle, and just three major population centers in-between," when it shows that only 9 percent of passengers ride between end points, with the average trip length on the train being 845 miles, only about a third of the total route. Beyond that, and keeping with the original title of this thread (Future of the American Passenger Train), both of these links are valuable in showing why the long distance passenger train can be and is a vital transportation resource in the United States. What is important is not to dwell on the specific success of this one train, but to show how the benefits it provides can be applied in similar situations on new routes across the country.

[ValorStorm]

"13,000+ people boarding a year in Montana? Where did you get those figures?"

I got them from YOU, In your first posting. Be more clear next time. In fact, I'm tired. You win.

[ValorStorm]

"13,000+ people boarding a year in Montana? Where did you get those figures?"

I got them from YOU, In your first posting. Be more clear next time. In fact, I'm tired. You win.

[siberianmo]

Hello all,

Well, here it is February 2005, and I thought I'd keep this conversation going .... an interesting one indeed.

Several years ago I terminated my affiliation with a group of people who meet in our state capital (Jefferson City, Missouri) for quarterly meetings with government - Amtrak - chambers of commerce - tourism organizations and passenger rail enthusiasts (represented by a group, rather than individual). This organization was put together as a semi-governmental body with the purpose of putting together reasonable solutions to the operating, administrative and budgetary problems encountered by Amtrak and therefore, the traveling public.

For now, I would rather not get into the particulars insofar as the major players were - for many of them probably are still at it. So please let me continue with this caveat: What I have to say represents my thoughts based on my involvements and observations at four years of meetings - that's about 16 in total.

In Missouri, Amtrak has two intra-state trains totally subsidized by our taxpayers. These trains cross the state daily from St. Louis to Kansas City/Kansas City to St. Louis. There are two others that operate on subsidies from an adjacent state and of coure, the federal government, providing daily service between Kansas City - St. Louis and Chicago/Chicago - St. Louis - Kansas City. Additionally, four Amtrak trains traverse our landscape as long distance trains - the Texas Eagle (north & south) and the Southwest Chief (east & west). No state subsidies are provided for these long distance trains.

About 12 years ago, Amtak threatened to do one of two things impacting our intra-state trains: (1) Cut back service by one-half or (2) eliminate service entirely. These threats were made as a result of insufficient funds to meet the operating costs projected for the ensuing fiscal year. I became very invoved with an effort to let Amtrak know that many of us simply would not put up with the cessation of passenger train service without a fight. As a result, many of us were able to put together effective petition lists demanding help from our state and federal governments. At the time, I was with our local police department and wound up getting over 1,000 signatures to help with our cause. (Hmmm, I always wondered about that connection!) To make a long story short - we won - more or less. The trains are still operating within our state.

Many of the people who sat at that large rectangular table during our quarterly meetings had not ridden a passenger train in decades - if ever. Others simply were there representing their particular communities along the intra-state route in question - the Chamber of Commerce people along with the Tourism folks and either the Mayors from the towns/cities or their representatives. The decisions we came up with ran the spectrum from more bicycles on the train to cleaner station restrooms to better on time performance to more advertising to ...... I'm sure you get my point.

At no time during my four years of attendance and interaction do I recall any serious discussion of getting on board with a high speed rail corridor and of course, a demand for a state and national transportation plan that would take us into the future. Nah, we were more concerned with the comparative minutia and mundane than the actual future of passenger rail service. So, I simply stopped going.

Now, a little about me: I love passenger trains and I ride 'em whenever possible, even if it is only a day trip to and from Jeffereson City or Kansas City. My wife and I have ridden Via Rail trains for nearly 15 years and will continue to do so. To compare what is offered north of our border to what we have with Amtrak is to say that the old Marx electric trains are an equivalent to the Lionel trains of the day. Just no comparison. But is that to say that there are no problems in Canuckistan? (Sorry, that just slipped out! We are a Canadian-American family, so perhaps I can get by with it this time!) Of course there are. Whenever government gets involved, you wind up having to pander to those who have no clue regarding the difference between a truck (railroad) and a truck (highway)! When legislators take to the floor and pontificate for hours on end about this or that, you can be sure they are buying time for their interns to come up with something profound that they can use to wrap up the discussion on which they really have very little or any knowledge of! Sorry for those of you who may be more politically inclined than I, but again, I refer to MY thoughts and observations.

So, what's the future for the American Passenger train? Grim is the word that comes to mind. The reasons are all well documented in the four pages I have read on this discussion forum. Much of what has been said I fully agree with and others somewhat, with yet a slim few falling outside of my ability to reason. I do think that Amtrak will wind up as a regional entity and I believe that long distance travel will be dramatically changed from the way it is today. It appears to me that more of a point to point day trip system will be put into place. For example, take a trip from Chicago to Seattle. With a morning departure in Chicago the train would stop at whatever point is reasonable for a day trip - perhaps 12 hours. Passengers would have to stay in hotels for the night, then board either the same or a different one for the continuation along the way. Now, before you jump all over me about what a stupid and ridiculous idea this is - please think about it first. I am not saying that this idea is a good one or the best one or one that every one will accept, but I do see it as an alternative to where we are headed a present time.

I have heard this notion discussion before - it is not entirely from my aging gray matter. In fact, there are some north of our border who have openly kicked around the idea as well. Why? Because long distance trains just cost too much money in equipment and personnel compared to what is recouped at the cash box. It is that simple. These trains have to be staffed with sleeping cars and attendants - full service diners - along with all the supplies and provisions required. Dropping those cars and employees spells savings in dollars - real and projected; operational and maintenance.

What I want to happen is not what I think will happen. My love for the passenger train will stay with me for the remainder of my life. There is one thing that no one, including government, can take from me. When those passenger trains become a distant memory, at least I will have the memories!

Happy railroading!

Siberianmo

[siberianmo]

Hello all,

Well, here it is February 2005, and I thought I'd keep this conversation going .... an interesting one indeed.

Several years ago I terminated my affiliation with a group of people who meet in our state capital (Jefferson City, Missouri) for quarterly meetings with government - Amtrak - chambers of commerce - tourism organizations and passenger rail enthusiasts (represented by a group, rather than individual). This organization was put together as a semi-governmental body with the purpose of putting together reasonable solutions to the operating, administrative and budgetary problems encountered by Amtrak and therefore, the traveling public.

For now, I would rather not get into the particulars insofar as the major players were - for many of them probably are still at it. So please let me continue with this caveat: What I have to say represents my thoughts based on my involvements and observations at four years of meetings - that's about 16 in total.

In Missouri, Amtrak has two intra-state trains totally subsidized by our taxpayers. These trains cross the state daily from St. Louis to Kansas City/Kansas City to St. Louis. There are two others that operate on subsidies from an adjacent state and of coure, the federal government, providing daily service between Kansas City - St. Louis and Chicago/Chicago - St. Louis - Kansas City. Additionally, four Amtrak trains traverse our landscape as long distance trains - the Texas Eagle (north & south) and the Southwest Chief (east & west). No state subsidies are provided for these long distance trains.

About 12 years ago, Amtak threatened to do one of two things impacting our intra-state trains: (1) Cut back service by one-half or (2) eliminate service entirely. These threats were made as a result of insufficient funds to meet the operating costs projected for the ensuing fiscal year. I became very invoved with an effort to let Amtrak know that many of us simply would not put up with the cessation of passenger train service without a fight. As a result, many of us were able to put together effective petition lists demanding help from our state and federal governments. At the time, I was with our local police department and wound up getting over 1,000 signatures to help with our cause. (Hmmm, I always wondered about that connection!) To make a long story short - we won - more or less. The trains are still operating within our state.

Many of the people who sat at that large rectangular table during our quarterly meetings had not ridden a passenger train in decades - if ever. Others simply were there representing their particular communities along the intra-state route in question - the Chamber of Commerce people along with the Tourism folks and either the Mayors from the towns/cities or their representatives. The decisions we came up with ran the spectrum from more bicycles on the train to cleaner station restrooms to better on time performance to more advertising to ...... I'm sure you get my point.

At no time during my four years of attendance and interaction do I recall any serious discussion of getting on board with a high speed rail corridor and of course, a demand for a state and national transportation plan that would take us into the future. Nah, we were more concerned with the comparative minutia and mundane than the actual future of passenger rail service. So, I simply stopped going.

Now, a little about me: I love passenger trains and I ride 'em whenever possible, even if it is only a day trip to and from Jeffereson City or Kansas City. My wife and I have ridden Via Rail trains for nearly 15 years and will continue to do so. To compare what is offered north of our border to what we have with Amtrak is to say that the old Marx electric trains are an equivalent to the Lionel trains of the day. Just no comparison. But is that to say that there are no problems in Canuckistan? (Sorry, that just slipped out! We are a Canadian-American family, so perhaps I can get by with it this time!) Of course there are. Whenever government gets involved, you wind up having to pander to those who have no clue regarding the difference between a truck (railroad) and a truck (highway)! When legislators take to the floor and pontificate for hours on end about this or that, you can be sure they are buying time for their interns to come up with something profound that they can use to wrap up the discussion on which they really have very little or any knowledge of! Sorry for those of you who may be more politically inclined than I, but again, I refer to MY thoughts and observations.

So, what's the future for the American Passenger train? Grim is the word that comes to mind. The reasons are all well documented in the four pages I have read on this discussion forum. Much of what has been said I fully agree with and others somewhat, with yet a slim few falling outside of my ability to reason. I do think that Amtrak will wind up as a regional entity and I believe that long distance travel will be dramatically changed from the way it is today. It appears to me that more of a point to point day trip system will be put into place. For example, take a trip from Chicago to Seattle. With a morning departure in Chicago the train would stop at whatever point is reasonable for a day trip - perhaps 12 hours. Passengers would have to stay in hotels for the night, then board either the same or a different one for the continuation along the way. Now, before you jump all over me about what a stupid and ridiculous idea this is - please think about it first. I am not saying that this idea is a good one or the best one or one that every one will accept, but I do see it as an alternative to where we are headed a present time.

I have heard this notion discussion before - it is not entirely from my aging gray matter. In fact, there are some north of our border who have openly kicked around the idea as well. Why? Because long distance trains just cost too much money in equipment and personnel compared to what is recouped at the cash box. It is that simple. These trains have to be staffed with sleeping cars and attendants - full service diners - along with all the supplies and provisions required. Dropping those cars and employees spells savings in dollars - real and projected; operational and maintenance.

What I want to happen is not what I think will happen. My love for the passenger train will stay with me for the remainder of my life. There is one thing that no one, including government, can take from me. When those passenger trains become a distant memory, at least I will have the memories!

Happy railroading!

Siberianmo

[Anonymous]

Sad to say that looking back over 30 years, there is precious little new equipment (except for the cascades and acela trains) developed. The "future" seems to be stuck in 1974. Much as I like Amtrak and do ride at least once or twice a year. The only future we will see is a few commuter lines in the northeast, northwest, califirnia, and the chicago area. I have been contacting my congressmen for twenty years and I am tired of the whole thing. I can still drive for the next thirty five years (I'm 43) and there is air service. The tax policies of this government (the US not the current administration) are too far skewed for passenger rail as we knew it to exist.

[Anonymous]

Sad to say that looking back over 30 years, there is precious little new equipment (except for the cascades and acela trains) developed. The "future" seems to be stuck in 1974. Much as I like Amtrak and do ride at least once or twice a year. The only future we will see is a few commuter lines in the northeast, northwest, califirnia, and the chicago area. I have been contacting my congressmen for twenty years and I am tired of the whole thing. I can still drive for the next thirty five years (I'm 43) and there is air service. The tax policies of this government (the US not the current administration) are too far skewed for passenger rail as we knew it to exist.

[VerMontanan]

One Montana State Senator, Glenn Roush of Cut Bank, is being pro-active in countering the Bush Adminstration's proposal to eliminate all intercity rail passenger service in the United States by introducing this resoluation before the Montana Legislature:

2005 Montana Legislature

UNAPPROVED DRAFT BILL -- Subject to Change Without Notice!

About Bill -- Links

JOINT RESOLUTION NO.

INTRODUCED BY

(Primary Sponsor)

A JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE SENATE AND THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE STATE OF MONTANA URGING SUPPORT FOR AND CONTINUED FUNDING OF AMTRAK PASSENGER RAIL SERVICE THROUGH MONTANA.



WHEREAS, Amtrak is energy-efficient and environmentally beneficial, consuming about half as much energy per passenger-mile as airlines and causing less air pollution; and

WHEREAS, Amtrak provides mobility to citizens of many smaller communities that are poorly served by air and bus service, as well as to senior citizens, persons with disabilities, students, and persons with medical conditions that prevent them from flying; and

WHEREAS, communities served by Amtrak in Montana are not provided with any other mode of public transportation, and residents of these communities are required to travel up to 200 miles to the nearest airport; and

WHEREAS, 129,044 passengers rode Amtrak across Montana in fiscal year 2004, up from 122,053 in fiscal year 2003; and

WHEREAS, Montana's tourism industry benefits from rail passenger service through the state; and

WHEREAS, Amtrak spent $57,495 for goods and services in Montana in fiscal year 2004, up from $19,800 in fiscal year 2003; and

WHEREAS, during fiscal year 2004, Amtrak employed 57 Montanans, who earned a total of $3,293,052 in wages; and

WHEREAS, according to a February 6, 2005, editorial in the Great Falls Tribune, a recent national survey found that 71% of Americans believe federal subsidies of Amtrak are about right or not enough; and

WHEREAS, Amtrak is vital to the economy of Montana's northern tier, as indicated by a recent study by R.L. Banks & Associates that concluded that Amtrak's Empire Builder contributes nearly $14 million annually in economic benefits to the State of Montana.



NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE SENATE AND THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE STATE OF MONTANA:

That the 59th Montana Legislature urge Montana's Congressional Delegation to support continued Amtrak passenger rail service through Montana.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the 59th Montana Legislature urge the President and the United States Congress to include funding for Amtrak in any spending plan that is adopted.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Secretary of State send copies of this resolution to Montana's Congressional Delegation.

- END -

[VerMontanan]

One Montana State Senator, Glenn Roush of Cut Bank, is being pro-active in countering the Bush Adminstration's proposal to eliminate all intercity rail passenger service in the United States by introducing this resoluation before the Montana Legislature:

2005 Montana Legislature

UNAPPROVED DRAFT BILL -- Subject to Change Without Notice!

About Bill -- Links

JOINT RESOLUTION NO.

INTRODUCED BY

(Primary Sponsor)

A JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE SENATE AND THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE STATE OF MONTANA URGING SUPPORT FOR AND CONTINUED FUNDING OF AMTRAK PASSENGER RAIL SERVICE THROUGH MONTANA.



WHEREAS, Amtrak is energy-efficient and environmentally beneficial, consuming about half as much energy per passenger-mile as airlines and causing less air pollution; and

WHEREAS, Amtrak provides mobility to citizens of many smaller communities that are poorly served by air and bus service, as well as to senior citizens, persons with disabilities, students, and persons with medical conditions that prevent them from flying; and

WHEREAS, communities served by Amtrak in Montana are not provided with any other mode of public transportation, and residents of these communities are required to travel up to 200 miles to the nearest airport; and

WHEREAS, 129,044 passengers rode Amtrak across Montana in fiscal year 2004, up from 122,053 in fiscal year 2003; and

WHEREAS, Montana's tourism industry benefits from rail passenger service through the state; and

WHEREAS, Amtrak spent $57,495 for goods and services in Montana in fiscal year 2004, up from $19,800 in fiscal year 2003; and

WHEREAS, during fiscal year 2004, Amtrak employed 57 Montanans, who earned a total of $3,293,052 in wages; and

WHEREAS, according to a February 6, 2005, editorial in the Great Falls Tribune, a recent national survey found that 71% of Americans believe federal subsidies of Amtrak are about right or not enough; and

WHEREAS, Amtrak is vital to the economy of Montana's northern tier, as indicated by a recent study by R.L. Banks & Associates that concluded that Amtrak's Empire Builder contributes nearly $14 million annually in economic benefits to the State of Montana.



NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE SENATE AND THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE STATE OF MONTANA:

That the 59th Montana Legislature urge Montana's Congressional Delegation to support continued Amtrak passenger rail service through Montana.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the 59th Montana Legislature urge the President and the United States Congress to include funding for Amtrak in any spending plan that is adopted.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Secretary of State send copies of this resolution to Montana's Congressional Delegation.

- END -

[VerMontanan]

I do not believe there's been a newspaper that's been more pro-Amtrak than Montana's own Great Falls Tribune over the years. And true to form, here's an editorial from today's (February 6) edition explaining the fallacy of the current administration's recent announcement that the FY2006 budget would contain no funding for Amtrak.

--Mark Meyer

Plan to end Amtrak subsidy must be blocked

Coming off the high of George W. Bush's visit to northcentral Montana this past week, we return to the reality that while the president is popular here, he also advocates some things that would be harmful to this region.

On the very day of the visit, for example, came the news that his spending plan, which he'll submit to Congress Monday, contains nothing for Amtrak, the interstate passenger rail service. Not a penny.

Without a federal subsidy ($1.2 billion in the current year), the national passenger rail monopoly would fail, and quickly. That would open highly profitable intercity routes on the coasts to new operators, and almost certainly leave the rest of us without passenger rail service.

It's a lot of money, to be sure, but before you're dazzled by all those zeroes, note that it's just one-twentieth of what the United States has spent this year alone so Iraqis could vote.

Voting in Iraq isn't a bad thing, but neither is making sure public transportation exists to carry the 130,993 passengers who used Amtrak across Montana last year.

With a bankrupt Amtrak, it is widely believed the busy commuter routes would re-emerge under new ownership, and that the less concentrated cross-country routes — including the Empire Builder in Montana — would be abandoned.

The president's antipathy to Amtrak is not new. He typically budgets less than the operation needs, and then Congress increases it.

Last budget cycle, President Bush proposed shunting the costs off to the states on the theory that if they want it so much, they can pay for it. That didn't fly either.

In this year's budget, he's whacked Amtrak subsidies entirely.

What Amtrak has going for it politically is that it serves 46 states. That means 92 of the 100 senators and a similar proportion of representatives have lots of constituents who love Amtrak.

How much? A national survey a couple of years ago found that 71 percent of Americans believed federal subsidies of Amtrak were about right or not enough — compared with just 17 percent who opposed the subsidies. The rest in those surveyed didn't know or were undecided.

In terms of overall transportation funding, the $30 billion spent on Amtrak over the past 30 years barely merits a decimal point in the almost $2 trillion spent on highways and airports in the same period.

For that, a lower-cost alternative to air travel — seen as desirable in the aftermath of 9/11 — has been maintained within reasonable reach of most Americans.

In Montana, the Empire Builder spans 739 miles, from North Dakota to Idaho across the state's Hi-Line.

"We just plain need the doggoned thing," said Jerry Smith, a Galata farmer/rancher who heads the "Save Amtrak" group.

"We have people in all communities that do use it for medical purposes, besides just visiting," he said. "There really is no substitute for the Builder on the Highway 2 corridor. It's either travel by train or get someone to take you by car."

That alone is reason to keep the trains running. It's worth pointing out further that the passenger train is an important component of the transportation mix in most other nations, and every one of those nations subsidizes the service.

Removing the subsidy entirely, as the president proposes, would be sacrificing an essential service — and one that is potentially important to national security — on the altar of free enterprise.

Passenger rail service in America should be strengthened, not weakened. We trust that Montana's congressional delegates will continue to be resolute in their support of Amtrak. It wouldn't hurt to let them know what you think (see above).


Originally published February 6, 2005

[VerMontanan]

I do not believe there's been a newspaper that's been more pro-Amtrak than Montana's own Great Falls Tribune over the years. And true to form, here's an editorial from today's (February 6) edition explaining the fallacy of the current administration's recent announcement that the FY2006 budget would contain no funding for Amtrak.

--Mark Meyer

Plan to end Amtrak subsidy must be blocked

Coming off the high of George W. Bush's visit to northcentral Montana this past week, we return to the reality that while the president is popular here, he also advocates some things that would be harmful to this region.

On the very day of the visit, for example, came the news that his spending plan, which he'll submit to Congress Monday, contains nothing for Amtrak, the interstate passenger rail service. Not a penny.

Without a federal subsidy ($1.2 billion in the current year), the national passenger rail monopoly would fail, and quickly. That would open highly profitable intercity routes on the coasts to new operators, and almost certainly leave the rest of us without passenger rail service.

It's a lot of money, to be sure, but before you're dazzled by all those zeroes, note that it's just one-twentieth of what the United States has spent this year alone so Iraqis could vote.

Voting in Iraq isn't a bad thing, but neither is making sure public transportation exists to carry the 130,993 passengers who used Amtrak across Montana last year.

With a bankrupt Amtrak, it is widely believed the busy commuter routes would re-emerge under new ownership, and that the less concentrated cross-country routes — including the Empire Builder in Montana — would be abandoned.

The president's antipathy to Amtrak is not new. He typically budgets less than the operation needs, and then Congress increases it.

Last budget cycle, President Bush proposed shunting the costs off to the states on the theory that if they want it so much, they can pay for it. That didn't fly either.

In this year's budget, he's whacked Amtrak subsidies entirely.

What Amtrak has going for it politically is that it serves 46 states. That means 92 of the 100 senators and a similar proportion of representatives have lots of constituents who love Amtrak.

How much? A national survey a couple of years ago found that 71 percent of Americans believed federal subsidies of Amtrak were about right or not enough — compared with just 17 percent who opposed the subsidies. The rest in those surveyed didn't know or were undecided.

In terms of overall transportation funding, the $30 billion spent on Amtrak over the past 30 years barely merits a decimal point in the almost $2 trillion spent on highways and airports in the same period.

For that, a lower-cost alternative to air travel — seen as desirable in the aftermath of 9/11 — has been maintained within reasonable reach of most Americans.

In Montana, the Empire Builder spans 739 miles, from North Dakota to Idaho across the state's Hi-Line.

"We just plain need the doggoned thing," said Jerry Smith, a Galata farmer/rancher who heads the "Save Amtrak" group.

"We have people in all communities that do use it for medical purposes, besides just visiting," he said. "There really is no substitute for the Builder on the Highway 2 corridor. It's either travel by train or get someone to take you by car."

That alone is reason to keep the trains running. It's worth pointing out further that the passenger train is an important component of the transportation mix in most other nations, and every one of those nations subsidizes the service.

Removing the subsidy entirely, as the president proposes, would be sacrificing an essential service — and one that is potentially important to national security — on the altar of free enterprise.

Passenger rail service in America should be strengthened, not weakened. We trust that Montana's congressional delegates will continue to be resolute in their support of Amtrak. It wouldn't hurt to let them know what you think (see above).


Originally published February 6, 2005

[VerMontanan]

Amtrak has recently posted the ridership statistics for FY2004 at its website. What follows is a station-by-station breakdown of each station on the four long distance trains operating west from Chicago. Ridership is not broken down by train, so in the case where more than one train serves a station, the figures are all inclusive. Still, since most of the stops on these routes are served by only the one long distance train per day, the figures are a good representation of what's used where.

Amtrak carried a record number of riders in 2004, with most trains showing ridership increases. The single most-ridden train in FY 2004 was the Empire Builder, with just over 451,000 patrons.

**


Empire Builder:

Chicago 2,346,748 (served by numerous other Amtrak trains)
Glenview 32,708 (also served by Hiawatha Service trains)
Milwaukee 438,891 (also served by Hiawatha Service trains)
Columbus 12,638
Portage 5,176
Wisconsin Dells 10,480
Tomah 7,794
La Crosse 24,638
Winona 17,808
Red Wing 9,584
St. Paul 172,177
St. Cloud 9,775
Staples 4,776
Detroit Lakes 2,901
Fargo 15,456
Grand Forks 14,638
Devils Lake 4,834
Rugby 5,533
Minot 29,511
Stanley 2,688
Williston 16,659
Wolf Point 7,663
Glasgow 6,126
Malta 3,004
Havre 14,251
Shelby 14,493
Cut Bank 2,573
Browning (seasonal) 1,961
East Glacier (seasonal) 10,081
Essex 3,531
West Glacier 4,011
Whitefish 56,279
Libby 5,071
Sandpoint 4,932
Spokane 37,082
Ephrata 2,483
Wenatchee 12,838
Everett 35,760 (also served by Cascades trains)
Edmonds 25,710 (also served by Cascades trains)
Seattle 590,041 (also served by Cascades trains and Coast Starlight)
Pasco 17,875
Wishram 1,056
Bingen-White Salmon 1,381
Vancouver, WA 71,474 (also served by Cascades trains and Coast Starlight)
Portland, OR 468,016 (also served by Cascades trains and Coast Starlight)
******************************************************************************

California Zephyr:

Chicago 2,346,748 (served by numerous other Amtrak trains)
Naperville 30,845 (also served by Southwest Chief and Illinois Zephyr)
Princeton 16,648 (also served by Southwest Chief and Illinois Zephyr)
Galesburg 63,826 (also served by Southwest Chief and Illinois Zephyr)
Burlington 6,532
Mount Pleasant 12,010
Ottumwa 9,208
Osceola 14,044
Creston 3,894
Omaha 23,007
Lincoln 9,228
Hastings 3,190
Holdege 1,457
McCook 3,423
Fort Morgan 2,767
Denver 123,750
Fraser-Winter Park 9,367
Granby 2,580
Glenwood Springs 30,068
Grand Junction 20,088
Green River 1,174
Helper 1,390
Provo 2,861
Salt Lake City 29,489
Elko 3,041
Winnemucca 2,062
Sparks 24,664 (also served by Reno Fun Train)
Reno 57,079 (also served by Reno Fun Train)
Truckee 6,958
Colfax 2,992
Roseville 55,076 (also served by Capitol Corridor trains)
Sacramento 871,398 (also served by Capitol Corridor, Coast Starlight and special trains)
Davis 305,205 (also served by Capitol Corridor and Coast Starlight trains)
Martinez 288,076 (also served by Capitol Corridor, San Joaquin and Coast Starlight trains)
Emeryville 471,311 (also served by Capitol Corridor, San Joaquin, Coast Starlight and special trains)
******************************************************************************

Southwest Chief:

Chicago 2,346,748 (served by numerous other Amtrak trains)
Naperville 30,845 (also served by California Zephyr and Illinois Zephyr)
Mendota 11,997 (also served by Illinois Zephyr)
Princeton 16,648 (also served by California Zephyr and Illinois Zephyr)
Galesburg 63,826 (also served by California Zephyr and Illinois Zephyr)
Fort Madison 8,667
La Plata 7,336
Kansas City 109,597 (also served by Mules and Ann Rutledge)
Lawrence 2,999
Topeka 5,964
Newton 11,005
Hutchinson 3,149
Dodge City 3,282
Garden City 5,150
Lamar 1,834
La Junta 6,782
Trinidad 3,687
Raton 18,996
Las Vegas 2,717
Lamy 13,264
Albuquerque 58,614
Gallup 8,443
Winslow 2,889
Flagstaff 35,826
Williams Junction 7,454
Kingman 2,950
Needles 12,247
Barstow 2,900
Victorville 3,560
San Bernardino 11,660
Riverside 4,997
Fullerton 375,888 (also served by Pacific Surfliners)
Los Angeles 1,285,922 (served by numerous other Amtrak trains)
******************************************************************************

Texas Eagle (Chicago-San Antonio) and Sunset Limied (San Antonio-Los Angeles):

Chicago 2,346,748 (served by numerous other Amtrak trains)
Joliet 22.466 (also served by Ann Rutledge and State House)
Pontiac 7,462 (also served by Ann Rutledge and State House)
Normal-Bloomington 82,905 (also served by Ann Rutledge and State House)
Lincoln 13,871 (also served by Ann Rutledge and State House)
Springfield 98,623 (also served by Ann Rutledge and State House)
Alton 30,221 (also served by Ann Rutledge and State House)
St. Louis 160,093 (also served by Ann Rutledge, State House, and Mules)
Poplar Bluff 2,687
Walnut Ridge 2,429
Little Rock 13,438
Malvern 1,573
Arkadelphia 843
Texarkana 5,531
Marshall 5,076
Longview 23,692
Mineola 3,923
Dallas 33,409
Fort Worth 73,080 (also served by Heartland Flyer)
Cleburne 1,614
McGregor 2,444
Temple 10,431
Taylor 3,248
Austin 20,934
San Marcos 2,847
San Antonio 46,759
Del Rio 1,140
Sanderson 148
Alpine 1,665
El Paso 9,222
Deming 704
Lordsburg 304
Benson 1,492
Tucson 15,989
Maricopa 7,828
Yuma 1,996
Palm Springs 1,649
Ontario 3,277
Pomona 786
Los Angeles 1,285,922 (served by numerous other Amtrak trains)

[VerMontanan]

Amtrak has recently posted the ridership statistics for FY2004 at its website. What follows is a station-by-station breakdown of each station on the four long distance trains operating west from Chicago. Ridership is not broken down by train, so in the case where more than one train serves a station, the figures are all inclusive. Still, since most of the stops on these routes are served by only the one long distance train per day, the figures are a good representation of what's used where.

Amtrak carried a record number of riders in 2004, with most trains showing ridership increases. The single most-ridden train in FY 2004 was the Empire Builder, with just over 451,000 patrons.

**


Empire Builder:

Chicago 2,346,748 (served by numerous other Amtrak trains)
Glenview 32,708 (also served by Hiawatha Service trains)
Milwaukee 438,891 (also served by Hiawatha Service trains)
Columbus 12,638
Portage 5,176
Wisconsin Dells 10,480
Tomah 7,794
La Crosse 24,638
Winona 17,808
Red Wing 9,584
St. Paul 172,177
St. Cloud 9,775
Staples 4,776
Detroit Lakes 2,901
Fargo 15,456
Grand Forks 14,638
Devils Lake 4,834
Rugby 5,533
Minot 29,511
Stanley 2,688
Williston 16,659
Wolf Point 7,663
Glasgow 6,126
Malta 3,004
Havre 14,251
Shelby 14,493
Cut Bank 2,573
Browning (seasonal) 1,961
East Glacier (seasonal) 10,081
Essex 3,531
West Glacier 4,011
Whitefish 56,279
Libby 5,071
Sandpoint 4,932
Spokane 37,082
Ephrata 2,483
Wenatchee 12,838
Everett 35,760 (also served by Cascades trains)
Edmonds 25,710 (also served by Cascades trains)
Seattle 590,041 (also served by Cascades trains and Coast Starlight)
Pasco 17,875
Wishram 1,056
Bingen-White Salmon 1,381
Vancouver, WA 71,474 (also served by Cascades trains and Coast Starlight)
Portland, OR 468,016 (also served by Cascades trains and Coast Starlight)
******************************************************************************

California Zephyr:

Chicago 2,346,748 (served by numerous other Amtrak trains)
Naperville 30,845 (also served by Southwest Chief and Illinois Zephyr)
Princeton 16,648 (also served by Southwest Chief and Illinois Zephyr)
Galesburg 63,826 (also served by Southwest Chief and Illinois Zephyr)
Burlington 6,532
Mount Pleasant 12,010
Ottumwa 9,208
Osceola 14,044
Creston 3,894
Omaha 23,007
Lincoln 9,228
Hastings 3,190
Holdege 1,457
McCook 3,423
Fort Morgan 2,767
Denver 123,750
Fraser-Winter Park 9,367
Granby 2,580
Glenwood Springs 30,068
Grand Junction 20,088
Green River 1,174
Helper 1,390
Provo 2,861
Salt Lake City 29,489
Elko 3,041
Winnemucca 2,062
Sparks 24,664 (also served by Reno Fun Train)
Reno 57,079 (also served by Reno Fun Train)
Truckee 6,958
Colfax 2,992
Roseville 55,076 (also served by Capitol Corridor trains)
Sacramento 871,398 (also served by Capitol Corridor, Coast Starlight and special trains)
Davis 305,205 (also served by Capitol Corridor and Coast Starlight trains)
Martinez 288,076 (also served by Capitol Corridor, San Joaquin and Coast Starlight trains)
Emeryville 471,311 (also served by Capitol Corridor, San Joaquin, Coast Starlight and special trains)
******************************************************************************

Southwest Chief:

Chicago 2,346,748 (served by numerous other Amtrak trains)
Naperville 30,845 (also served by California Zephyr and Illinois Zephyr)
Mendota 11,997 (also served by Illinois Zephyr)
Princeton 16,648 (also served by California Zephyr and Illinois Zephyr)
Galesburg 63,826 (also served by California Zephyr and Illinois Zephyr)
Fort Madison 8,667
La Plata 7,336
Kansas City 109,597 (also served by Mules and Ann Rutledge)
Lawrence 2,999
Topeka 5,964
Newton 11,005
Hutchinson 3,149
Dodge City 3,282
Garden City 5,150
Lamar 1,834
La Junta 6,782
Trinidad 3,687
Raton 18,996
Las Vegas 2,717
Lamy 13,264
Albuquerque 58,614
Gallup 8,443
Winslow 2,889
Flagstaff 35,826
Williams Junction 7,454
Kingman 2,950
Needles 12,247
Barstow 2,900
Victorville 3,560
San Bernardino 11,660
Riverside 4,997
Fullerton 375,888 (also served by Pacific Surfliners)
Los Angeles 1,285,922 (served by numerous other Amtrak trains)
******************************************************************************

Texas Eagle (Chicago-San Antonio) and Sunset Limied (San Antonio-Los Angeles):

Chicago 2,346,748 (served by numerous other Amtrak trains)
Joliet 22.466 (also served by Ann Rutledge and State House)
Pontiac 7,462 (also served by Ann Rutledge and State House)
Normal-Bloomington 82,905 (also served by Ann Rutledge and State House)
Lincoln 13,871 (also served by Ann Rutledge and State House)
Springfield 98,623 (also served by Ann Rutledge and State House)
Alton 30,221 (also served by Ann Rutledge and State House)
St. Louis 160,093 (also served by Ann Rutledge, State House, and Mules)
Poplar Bluff 2,687
Walnut Ridge 2,429
Little Rock 13,438
Malvern 1,573
Arkadelphia 843
Texarkana 5,531
Marshall 5,076
Longview 23,692
Mineola 3,923
Dallas 33,409
Fort Worth 73,080 (also served by Heartland Flyer)
Cleburne 1,614
McGregor 2,444
Temple 10,431
Taylor 3,248
Austin 20,934
San Marcos 2,847
San Antonio 46,759
Del Rio 1,140
Sanderson 148
Alpine 1,665
El Paso 9,222
Deming 704
Lordsburg 304
Benson 1,492
Tucson 15,989
Maricopa 7,828
Yuma 1,996
Palm Springs 1,649
Ontario 3,277
Pomona 786
Los Angeles 1,285,922 (served by numerous other Amtrak trains)

[passengerfan]

Amtraks major problem is a lack of equipment not a lack of passengers. Time and time again i have tried to make reservations weeks in advance of a trip and been told their is no space available. Sleeping car space seems to sell out first especially in the Superliner equipped trains. Coach space for long distance is not all that enjoyable, I can take a plane and have two, three or four hours in a cramped seat and be their. Thanks for nothing Amtrak I have tried the last four times I wanted to travel to Seattle and back from Sacramento to reserve sleeping car space for the wife and I and even three months in advance is not enough time to get guarnteed sleeping car reservations. The major problem I see with Amtrak is the lack of equipment and or reservation agents that are deliberately telling people trains are sold out months in advance. It certainly is not cheap to travel by amtrak first class so why are the trains sold out months in advance? Is it B S or are the agents just to lazy to book reservations.
If the trains are sold out that far in advance then the problem is Amtrak should be running twenty car Superliner trains twelve hours apart to meet the demand for space. This is one longtime rail passenger who has reached a point where the next time I attempt to reserve space three months in advance for space and am told the space is sold out will be my last time on Amtrak. I will fly first class and pay less and have more time at my destination rather than make the trip part of the vacation. I spent two hours online with Amtrak last night trying for resrvations for July and was repeatedly told their was no space available. Is it a plot by the government to discourage Amtrak passengers or amtrak itself. Yes I am Handicapped and am booking the most expensive Superliner space available so whats the problem. Isn't this a violation of the American's with Diasbility Act? Airlines are not comfortable for any trip longer than three hours without a break for thoise restricted to wheel chairs. So what is amtraks problem. I am seriously considering bringing suit against Amtrak for violation of the ADA act.

[passengerfan]

Amtraks major problem is a lack of equipment not a lack of passengers. Time and time again i have tried to make reservations weeks in advance of a trip and been told their is no space available. Sleeping car space seems to sell out first especially in the Superliner equipped trains. Coach space for long distance is not all that enjoyable, I can take a plane and have two, three or four hours in a cramped seat and be their. Thanks for nothing Amtrak I have tried the last four times I wanted to travel to Seattle and back from Sacramento to reserve sleeping car space for the wife and I and even three months in advance is not enough time to get guarnteed sleeping car reservations. The major problem I see with Amtrak is the lack of equipment and or reservation agents that are deliberately telling people trains are sold out months in advance. It certainly is not cheap to travel by amtrak first class so why are the trains sold out months in advance? Is it B S or are the agents just to lazy to book reservations.
If the trains are sold out that far in advance then the problem is Amtrak should be running twenty car Superliner trains twelve hours apart to meet the demand for space. This is one longtime rail passenger who has reached a point where the next time I attempt to reserve space three months in advance for space and am told the space is sold out will be my last time on Amtrak. I will fly first class and pay less and have more time at my destination rather than make the trip part of the vacation. I spent two hours online with Amtrak last night trying for resrvations for July and was repeatedly told their was no space available. Is it a plot by the government to discourage Amtrak passengers or amtrak itself. Yes I am Handicapped and am booking the most expensive Superliner space available so whats the problem. Isn't this a violation of the American's with Diasbility Act? Airlines are not comfortable for any trip longer than three hours without a break for thoise restricted to wheel chairs. So what is amtraks problem. I am seriously considering bringing suit against Amtrak for violation of the ADA act.

[Anonymous]

I am a real free market "Libertarian", as apposed to a corporate welfare conservative. Yes Amtrack was and is railroad welfare, as the interstate highway system is road welfare for auto transportation, trucks and busses, and the massive airline and avaition subsidies are welfare for air travel. All should priviate and pay for the construction, maintenance and operating costs for their respective modes. All interstate highways should be sold as turnpikes, the air traffic control system and airports sold and the airlines billed for the services. Then we would have a truly competitive market system. I am sure rail passenger service would make a come back to a point haven't seen since the 1930s and 40s. Rail is the most efficient anc cost effective means of both goods and people. Let the market decide with a level playing field.

[Anonymous]

I am a real free market "Libertarian", as apposed to a corporate welfare conservative. Yes Amtrack was and is railroad welfare, as the interstate highway system is road welfare for auto transportation, trucks and busses, and the massive airline and avaition subsidies are welfare for air travel. All should priviate and pay for the construction, maintenance and operating costs for their respective modes. All interstate highways should be sold as turnpikes, the air traffic control system and airports sold and the airlines billed for the services. Then we would have a truly competitive market system. I am sure rail passenger service would make a come back to a point haven't seen since the 1930s and 40s. Rail is the most efficient anc cost effective means of both goods and people. Let the market decide with a level playing field.

[Anonymous]

I think that the Northeast Corridor such be by itself and not apart of Amtrak.

[Anonymous]

I think that the Northeast Corridor such be by itself and not apart of Amtrak.

[Anonymous]

Personally, I would love to see passenger train service expanded in this country.
Realisticly, I doubt it will ever happen.
Amrtak sorely needs more equipment to cover it's existing schedules.
Every car damaged in a mishap already robs another train of equipment.
A major car order is needed, and paid for to keep service credible.
Congress and the freight railroads would love to see these pests go away, rather than try to keep them on schedule and weave through traffic on mains they have to share outside the NEC.
With air travel becoming nitemarish, Amtrak needs an ally with some real clout to get what they need.

Jimmy

[Anonymous]

Personally, I would love to see passenger train service expanded in this country.
Realisticly, I doubt it will ever happen.
Amrtak sorely needs more equipment to cover it's existing schedules.
Every car damaged in a mishap already robs another train of equipment.
A major car order is needed, and paid for to keep service credible.
Congress and the freight railroads would love to see these pests go away, rather than try to keep them on schedule and weave through traffic on mains they have to share outside the NEC.
With air travel becoming nitemarish, Amtrak needs an ally with some real clout to get what they need.

Jimmy

[jlampke]

I too, would really like to see more people take the train. For short trips, say less than 200 miles or so, there isn't really any time advantage between flying and taking the train anymore. I say that because nowaydays, thanks largely to Muslim Terrorists, you are usually required to be at the airport at least an hour prior to your flight due to all the security requirements. Then there is the time in the air (usually not particularly comfortable unless you can afford 1st class), then you stand around waiting for your bags another 15 or more minutes. In my experience, you can show up at the train station 10 minutes before the train leaves and you're gold. Compared to highway travel, especially over Holidays, expensive fuel and traffic congestion aren't any problem when you take the train. Rail travel does have it's advantages. When you drive, you can't really enjoy the scenery. Trains travel through areas of the country that most people never see. A friend of mine took a trip recently from WA to OR. Due to the long lines, security (take off your shoes, unbuckle your belt, etc.) he hates flying anymore. It's a constant reminder of how 9-11 has changed life in America. He was planning on having his wife drive up, about a 5 hour drive, pick him up and take him back to OR. I asked him why he didn't just take the train. He said he just didn't think about it. I believe that is a small part of the problem. A lot of people just don't even consider rail travel anymore. (On my suggestion, he took the train.)

Back in the '50's & '60's, people were saying that international travel by ship was a thing of the past. Too slow. Too expensive. The great ships were laid up. None were being built for a time. Then something changed. A show called the "Love Boat" came out, in which people travelled for the fun of the trip. Ocean cruises saw a resurgence in popularity, passenger ships started being built again. Today it's a huge industry.

I don't know all the facts. I do believe Americans would return to the rails if it were attractively packaged. The highways and skyways can not compete with the rails when it comes to comfort, relaxation and scenery. You can't see a darn thing from 35,000 feet through that little 10" X 12" window, and the seats are cramped. I myself hate to fly anymore. Everytime I go into an airport and have to deal with all the security measures, it reminds me of 9-11 and the religious nut-cases that brought that upon us. Flying will never be as it was before.
When you drive, you have to watch the road. Traffic on the highways continues to get worse. Fuel prices continue to rise.

So what's the answer? A new TV show called the "Love Train" to romanticize rail travel?
(Just joking boys!) True, even with all the frustration, hassle, and discomfort, when all you want is to get from point A to point B, air travel will never be beat for long distance.
The railroads can't and shouldn't waste their time and resources trying to compete with the airlines. Emphasis needs to be on the advantages of rail travel. Comfort, leisure, leg room, scenery. Especially short distance. I think that if trains got the right exposure, such as celebs airing shows on trains, and if rail travel were made fun for the whole family, headphones at all the seats, video games for the kids, etc., rail travel could find it's niche in 21st century America. Right or wrong, I belive it's all in the packaging.

[jlampke]

I too, would really like to see more people take the train. For short trips, say less than 200 miles or so, there isn't really any time advantage between flying and taking the train anymore. I say that because nowaydays, thanks largely to Muslim Terrorists, you are usually required to be at the airport at least an hour prior to your flight due to all the security requirements. Then there is the time in the air (usually not particularly comfortable unless you can afford 1st class), then you stand around waiting for your bags another 15 or more minutes. In my experience, you can show up at the train station 10 minutes before the train leaves and you're gold. Compared to highway travel, especially over Holidays, expensive fuel and traffic congestion aren't any problem when you take the train. Rail travel does have it's advantages. When you drive, you can't really enjoy the scenery. Trains travel through areas of the country that most people never see. A friend of mine took a trip recently from WA to OR. Due to the long lines, security (take off your shoes, unbuckle your belt, etc.) he hates flying anymore. It's a constant reminder of how 9-11 has changed life in America. He was planning on having his wife drive up, about a 5 hour drive, pick him up and take him back to OR. I asked him why he didn't just take the train. He said he just didn't think about it. I believe that is a small part of the problem. A lot of people just don't even consider rail travel anymore. (On my suggestion, he took the train.)

Back in the '50's & '60's, people were saying that international travel by ship was a thing of the past. Too slow. Too expensive. The great ships were laid up. None were being built for a time. Then something changed. A show called the "Love Boat" came out, in which people travelled for the fun of the trip. Ocean cruises saw a resurgence in popularity, passenger ships started being built again. Today it's a huge industry.

I don't know all the facts. I do believe Americans would return to the rails if it were attractively packaged. The highways and skyways can not compete with the rails when it comes to comfort, relaxation and scenery. You can't see a darn thing from 35,000 feet through that little 10" X 12" window, and the seats are cramped. I myself hate to fly anymore. Everytime I go into an airport and have to deal with all the security measures, it reminds me of 9-11 and the religious nut-cases that brought that upon us. Flying will never be as it was before.
When you drive, you have to watch the road. Traffic on the highways continues to get worse. Fuel prices continue to rise.

So what's the answer? A new TV show called the "Love Train" to romanticize rail travel?
(Just joking boys!) True, even with all the frustration, hassle, and discomfort, when all you want is to get from point A to point B, air travel will never be beat for long distance.
The railroads can't and shouldn't waste their time and resources trying to compete with the airlines. Emphasis needs to be on the advantages of rail travel. Comfort, leisure, leg room, scenery. Especially short distance. I think that if trains got the right exposure, such as celebs airing shows on trains, and if rail travel were made fun for the whole family, headphones at all the seats, video games for the kids, etc., rail travel could find it's niche in 21st century America. Right or wrong, I belive it's all in the packaging.

[Anonymous]

I dont want to know[:(!]

[Anonymous]

I dont want to know[:(!]

[Train 284]

We need Amtrak!

[Train 284]

We need Amtrak!