PS. According to the Associated Press in the fiscal year ending September, 2010 Amtrak carried 31.2 million riders, up substantially from 2001 and 2002.
The Bureau of Transportation Statistics also reports it collected this data in 2001 and 2002. There were a total of 2.6 billion long distance trips throughout the country. This is based on a sample survey so there is a percentage of error in their calculations but they believe it is well within acceptable limits. A long distance trip is one that is 50 miles or more.
As you point out, 0.8 per cent of all trips are by train. That is 20.8 million trips.
John WR oltmanndonly 0.1% of all trips are made on Amtrak) Could you share with us the source of your data?
oltmanndonly 0.1% of all trips are made on Amtrak)
Could you share with us the source of your data?
It's actually 0.8%, sorry...
http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/publications/america_on_the_go/long_distance_transportation_patterns/html/table_05.html
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Dakguy201 Murphy, I agree that you described the logical way for a north/south route to serve Sioux Falls. I believe the Milwaukee had a Sioux Falls/Chicago train on that route until the 1960's. It would have the added advantage of going past your office window. However the route drawn by the NARP takes the BNSF north out of Sioux City through Sioux Center to Garrelson MN. It turns southwest there for the run down to Sioux Falls but must return on that same stretch of track to continue to the Twin Cities.
Murphy, I agree that you described the logical way for a north/south route to serve Sioux Falls. I believe the Milwaukee had a Sioux Falls/Chicago train on that route until the 1960's. It would have the added advantage of going past your office window.
However the route drawn by the NARP takes the BNSF north out of Sioux City through Sioux Center to Garrelson MN. It turns southwest there for the run down to Sioux Falls but must return on that same stretch of track to continue to the Twin Cities.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Murphy Siding In essence, I was repeating what someone else in another thread suggested was needed. I took it to mean a continued version, perhaps expanded, of what Amtrak is now, and not losing long distance, inter-city trains. I looked up NARP's Grid and Gateway. I'm curious what you dislike about it. It seems to include a route through my city.
In essence, I was repeating what someone else in another thread suggested was needed. I took it to mean a continued version, perhaps expanded, of what Amtrak is now, and not losing long distance, inter-city trains. I looked up NARP's Grid and Gateway. I'm curious what you dislike about it. It seems to include a route through my city.
Grid and Gateway starts with the premise that you need to be able to get from everywhere to everywhere in the US by train. They got their crayons out and played "connect the dots". The result, "Grid and Gateway".
I think the premise is false. There is a need to get from most places to most other places without having a driver's licence, but the mode should fit the marketplace. There's nothing wrong with taking a a plane to a train to a bus to make a trip.
We don't "need" a national rail network. I'd say its "nice to have" if it doesn't cost too much to run. If the LD trains would dry up tomorrow, most people could make their trip by bus or air and 99.9% of Americans wouldn't even notice. (because only 0.1% of all trips are made on Amtrak)
As Jim McClellan, perhaps the most rabid and knowledgeable rail guru of our time, said, "LD trains are irrelevant and will remain so."
Dakguy201 Murphy Siding I looked up NARP's Grid and Gateway. I'm curious what you dislike about it. It seems to include a route through my city. I believe that stop was added so that they could say they have service in every contiguous state. To accomplish it they would have to wye the train in Sioux Falls as it both arrives and departs on the BNSF line to the northeast.
Murphy Siding I looked up NARP's Grid and Gateway. I'm curious what you dislike about it. It seems to include a route through my city.
I looked up NARP's Grid and Gateway. I'm curious what you dislike about it. It seems to include a route through my city.
I believe that stop was added so that they could say they have service in every contiguous state. To accomplish it they would have to wye the train in Sioux Falls as it both arrives and departs on the BNSF line to the northeast.
Murphy Siding The United States need a national passenger rail system?
The United States need a national passenger rail system?
Depends how you define "system".
If you mean a network something like NARP's "Grid and Gateway", then NO!
If you mean targeted corridors that might have a link or two between the hubs, then yes.
If you mean a single entity dictating "what and where", then NO!
If you mean "whatever works", then yes.
I apologize for my error, Bucyrus. I went back to my original post and added a correction.
Convicted OneWell, no offense intended.
And no offense is taken, Convicted One. Actually I thought what you said was pretty funny. I started imagining all sorts of things.
I do apologize for incorrectly attributing your statement to Bucyrus. I went back and added a correction.
Beyond that, perhaps we can take a train ride together some day and continue our conversation.
John WR BucyrusYou know, it's funny because, rail enthusiasts have no qualms at all proposing taxpayer funded passenger rail at EVERYONE's expense. Actually, that statement is incorrect. A number of states... But highway enthusiasts have no qualms at all not only proposing but also enforcing a Federal highway system at EVERYONE's expense.
BucyrusYou know, it's funny because, rail enthusiasts have no qualms at all proposing taxpayer funded passenger rail at EVERYONE's expense.
Actually, that statement is incorrect. A number of states...
But highway enthusiasts have no qualms at all not only proposing but also enforcing a Federal highway system at EVERYONE's expense.
Actually, for the record, that statement you attibute to me was made by Convicted One on page 3.
I never said, "You know, its funny because, rail enthusiasts have no qualms at all proposing taxpayer funded passenger rail at EVERYONE's expense."
Well, no offense intended. I've just witnessed, over the years, a substantial amount of opportune reasoning here, generally following the form of "since the government subsidizes passenger airlines, then the taxpayer OWES the same opportunity to passenger rail"
And that is just not the case. two wrongs don't make a right,
Convicted OneJust because we've had our virginity stolen by the highwaymen, does not mean that we MUST allow the trainmen to have their way with us, as well.
You sure have an amusing way of expressing yourself. But excuse me if I'm reluctant to go down that road.
John WR But highway enthusiasts have no qualms at all not only proposing but also enforcing a Federal highway system at EVERYONE's expense.
Ahhhhh, but don't you see?
Just because we've had our virginity stolen by the highwaymen, does not mean that we MUST allow the trainmen to have their way with us, as well.
Interesting point. The same could be said for the airlines.
Actually, that statement is incorrect. A number of states have extensive passenger rail systems both intra state and inter state at their own expense. For example, my own state, New Jersey, not only provides rail transportation to New Jersey riders but also overlaps into New York and Pennsylvania.
Is there anyone who suggests that New Jersey Transit or New York's Metropolitan Transit Authority or South East Pennsylvania Transit Authority or any state authority that operates passenger service should be taken over by the Federal government? I know of none.
Correction: The original statement was made by Convicted One, not Bucyrus.
Tax law did not directly force the Georgia RR to keep its mixed trains. The state courts had previously ruled that the tax break did not mandate the operation of passenger service. However, the railroad's management felt that any attempt to discontinue passenger service would precipitate another attempt to remove the tax break.
As I recall, under the Amtrak Act, railroads that didn't join Amtrak had to keep operating their existing passenger trains for 5 years. I believe your statement of the reasons that CRIP, SOU and DRGW didn't initially join Amtrak is essentially correct. I would add, however, that these three roads were very minor players in intercity passenger rail at the time of Amtrak's formation, so the intercity passenger services they offered were not nearly as big a burden to these roads as they were to railroads with more substantial passenger operations. Because of this, they probably concluded that the disadvantages of joining Amtrak at its inception outweighed the advantages. That's most clearly the case with CRIP which didn't have the equipment or cash required to join Amtrak.
All three roads ultimately got rid of their intercity passenger services. CRIP completely discontinued its services, while DRGW and SOU joined Amtrak at a later date.
jclass Do you remember? Southern, the Rio Grande, and the Rock Island remained independent of Amtrak at the outset. As a result, they were forced to continue operating their passenger trains. As I recall, Southern didn't want the government messing with its operations. I think Rio Grande was of the same view. Rock Island didn't have enough of the required assets (equipment) to ante-in to the NPRC. Also IIRC, Central of Georgia(?) didn't have to pay state real estate tax as long as it continued a modicum of passenger service (mixed train service). Regarding the necessity/inevitability of freight trains, I don't believe that for a minute. There is always an alternative just waiting for an opportunity. And wise railroad people are only going to seek traffic that's profitable. The rest will be left to those who can work to their own advantage or don't know their costs.
Do you remember? Southern, the Rio Grande, and the Rock Island remained independent of Amtrak at the outset. As a result, they were forced to continue operating their passenger trains. As I recall, Southern didn't want the government messing with its operations. I think Rio Grande was of the same view. Rock Island didn't have enough of the required assets (equipment) to ante-in to the NPRC.
Also IIRC, Central of Georgia(?) didn't have to pay state real estate tax as long as it continued a modicum of passenger service (mixed train service).
Regarding the necessity/inevitability of freight trains, I don't believe that for a minute. There is always an alternative just waiting for an opportunity. And wise railroad people are only going to seek traffic that's profitable. The rest will be left to those who can work to their own advantage or don't know their costs.
Central of Georgia and the Georgia Railroad are two separate companies.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
It was the Georgia Railroad which had a special dispensation concerning taxes as long as it operated the mixed trains, so it continued operating them until some point in the consolidation of the roads that the L&N had an interest in. I do not remember the details, just which road it was.
I regret that I ws unable to ride the Georgia except between Decatur and Atlanta, making several trips over this section. Once, when I boarded in Decatur in the time period 1960-62, I shocked the conductor because it had been many years since he had picked a passenger up there. Even though I had to walk a little over a mile to reach the station in Decautr, it was quite convenient to ride in to Union Station when I wanted to spend an evening watching trains there and at the Terminal Station.
Johnny
Does or does not? Well the question caught my eye and you suckered me into this discussion.
I'ma not sure how my own ideas would be best implemented. But here's my two cents, anyways.
I would like to see the National Passenger service namely Amtrak, move from using those difficult to deal with freight lines, to operating on their own tracks. This could be accomplished by a network of high speed rails, on elevated track, if necessary. Complete privatization would be my goal.
That should tell you what I think politically but I'd rather not go there in this discussion.
RickH
BarstowRick.com Model Railroading How To's
Convicted One Murphy Siding The United States need a national passenger rail system? Only if somebody else besides me has to pay for it. You know, it's funny because, rail enthusiasts have no qualms at all proposing taxpayer funded passenger rail at EVERYONE's expense. Many of these same people see the deployment of the O'bamaphone as symbolic of everything wrong with this country. I guess it's a "what's in it for ME"? mindset.
You know, it's funny because, rail enthusiasts have no qualms at all proposing taxpayer funded passenger rail at EVERYONE's expense.
Many of these same people see the deployment of the O'bamaphone as symbolic of everything wrong with this country.
I guess it's a "what's in it for ME"? mindset.
If somebody else has to pay for it, we don't need it.
John WR Falcon48What brought matters to a head was the Penn Central bankruptcy. Penn Central, at the time, was probably the the single largest provider of intercity and commuter rail passenger services in the U.S. An end to PC's passenger service would have destroyed any semblence of a national intercity rail passenger system, as well as destroyed some very important commuter servies in the northeast. The bankruptcy meant that federal and state governments no longer had the option of simply forcing PC to continue these services by government fiat as they had in the past. That's because government could not consitutionally require a bankrupt PC to continue providing money losing services. The government had to either take over or pay for these services or they would have been lost. That's the choice the government faced , and it's what led to the current system of Amtrak providing intercity services and state or local agencies providing (or paying for) commuter services. It was never a choice between Amtrak and the old system of compelling railroads to provide passenger services. It was a choice between Amtrak and the end of these services. All I would add is that we also came close to losing much of our freight service too.
Falcon48What brought matters to a head was the Penn Central bankruptcy. Penn Central, at the time, was probably the the single largest provider of intercity and commuter rail passenger services in the U.S. An end to PC's passenger service would have destroyed any semblence of a national intercity rail passenger system, as well as destroyed some very important commuter servies in the northeast. The bankruptcy meant that federal and state governments no longer had the option of simply forcing PC to continue these services by government fiat as they had in the past. That's because government could not consitutionally require a bankrupt PC to continue providing money losing services. The government had to either take over or pay for these services or they would have been lost. That's the choice the government faced , and it's what led to the current system of Amtrak providing intercity services and state or local agencies providing (or paying for) commuter services. It was never a choice between Amtrak and the old system of compelling railroads to provide passenger services. It was a choice between Amtrak and the end of these services.
All I would add is that we also came close to losing much of our freight service too.
Only if somebody else besides me has to pay for it.
You know, it's funny because, rail enthusiasts have no qualms at all proposing taxpayer funded passenger rail at EVERYONE's expense. Regardless if you plan to ride it or not. Many of these same people see the deployment of the O'bamaphone as symbolic of everything wrong with this country.
The only thing I'm sure of, is even if I did end up paying a sizable share into some rail mass transportation program, somebody else would decide that it's THEIR position to control the farebox and charge me for the privilege of riding the very train I paid to create in the first place, and ever after I'd have to listen to them bawl about how THEY are being driven to the poor house over my "benefit".
So, why don't we try something different? Let me keep my own transportation money, forget the sure fire money loser, save the person controlling the fare box the grief, and let them instead find a job they'll be happy with...and it's a win/win scenario.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.