Get rid or rethink Amtrak

[Anonymous]

Junctionfan...Thanks for your kind words. Conrailman, I agree.
Perhaps my notion of Oconomowoc and Aurora as end points would mean that on those segments speeds could be held at normal track speeds which are respectable. Those segments amount to 38 miles and about 32 miles each.
Remeber. The service has to be upgraded on image as well as on-time performance before you can get the market share. There has to be that investment. My analogy for the evening is, "I won't spend a dime on new clothes,a haircut, a decent car, or bathe and shave until I get 3 women to accept a date with me." With that attitude you're going home with a video, ma boy. Once, when I was art director in the offices of the South Shore Line, and after my first wife passed away, I became dispondant about not being able to find a girlfriend. One of my friends in the office replied, Mitch, we're railroaders. We've learned to thrive on rejection." I think there was a lot of depth in that statement. It went far beyond social circumstances. I think our industry has come to the point in its relationships to the outside world that it expects to fail, and has a degree of comfort in that. Not much is expected other than equipment showing up at some point.
Mitch

[rich747us]

Although the problems related to Amtrak are numerous, I think it would be a great start if the government would stop sending all our money overseas, and invest it here on projects that would benefit Americans (e.g. AMTRAK!)

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton

oltmand

If he is still doing that traveling, ask him if he would now consider a train at least some weekends, if there was a 5pm deprture to 9am arrival. If he was traveling back when there still was a Conrail, you are talking about a time when those home for the weekend trips by air were one hell of a lot easier than they are now.

For about 15 years from 1975, I flew on business at least 20 times a year, and some years up to 40. There was the occasional problem, but never so much I had any great dislike for the experience. My brother is now taking about 20 trips a year, and beside the extra hour spent at the airport for the security thing, about half the time he will tell me about some other crap he had to put up with. I would be very surprised if surveys of business travelers didn't show a huge drop in satisfaction levels. Unless, of course, the flight was on the company jet.

Regrettably, Amtrak is not in a position to be an option for business travelers in many markets. The NEC is an exception where I believe they have over 40% of the for hire carrier market.

No, he's retired now.

To add a bit, I agree that flying is more of a hassle and a Chicago to Phila trip probably takes about an hour longer now than it did pre 9/11.

But, it was the DC-5 that stole the overnight business traveller from a very good Broadway Limited. Jet travel raised the bar quite a bit, so I have a hard time believing that bringing back the Broadway would have the effect of attacting many business travellers (except, of course, us railfans). Don't underestimate the allure of getting home to sleep in your own bed.

[Anonymous]

Aurora

The Metra/BN line already goes there from Union Station and the express trains do 70mph to Naperville, with stops at Route 59, and then Aurora. Reverse commuting and suburb to suburb across spoke commuting are growing faster than traditional suburb to city. Metra has been adding more trains on reverse schedules and redoing the feeder bus routes to serve reverse commuters, but this service may be too onerous for the business traveler coming into the central city. Maybe looping the corridor trains around the city following the Interstate bypass routes could better serve these destinations. They're quite common where the Interstate bypass loop meets the older spoke-type expressways. Make the airport a major stop as well. Taxi service from these stops would probably be more usefull to business travelers than buses or light rail.

IMO a fundamental problem with Milwaukee/Chicago is they're not quite far enough apart. People are used to much longer commutes, and especially if the destination is on the Interstate bypass, don't give driving a second thought. I don't recall if it's been tried, but maybe a corridor with Chicago as the midpoint would work better. How about Milwaukee, Chicago, Indianapolis(maybe even Cincinati)?

[gabe]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton

One last thing for Gabe. There are 19 Amtrak services that are state supported. The Hoosier State is not one of them. If your fellow citizens didn't go for the political canditates with the theme of good highways and tax cuts for everyone, you could probably have a very nice little train service meeting your needs for travel from Indianapolis to Chicago. Since I do the I-65 tango 10-12 times a year, I wouldn't mind.
Oh yes, I usually buy a tank of gas in Indiana each time through.

Jeaton,

(1) Your point is well taken. However, I have to laugh at the thought of Indiana being a "good highway" state. The only thing I can say for certain about the Indiana road system is that it indicates that Indiana needs to revamp its special education system--as the special education system obviously didn't work for the guy who designed the highway system.

Your "tax-cut contention" is more to the point. Though I am hesitant to speak for Hoosiers, as I am not a Hoosier native and have only lived here six years, Hoosiers hate taxing anything and spending government money. It is not as though Hoosiers voted for pro-highway anti-Amtrak politicians. Hoosiers hate to raise taxes for anything, highway, Amtrak, or otherwise.

(2) Your point speaks to my ultimate point. It seems to me that one of the things keeping Amtrak going is that people somehow view Federal money as someone elses' money and are more prone to spend it. When it comes to state money and the voters see a closer corelationg between Amtrak funding--as you say--, only 19 out of 50 states support it.

The commentary on here as to why we should not take Amtrak away has been excellent, and I am not attempting to refute it. But, I doubt Amtrak would be in existence if voters really believed they were paying for it with their own money.

Gabe

P.S. With regard to why Hoosiers and the other 31 states do not more actively fund Amtrak, it brings up an interesting chicken or the egg question. Is Hoosier Amtrak service poor because the State wont add funding, or will Hoosiers not provide funding because they view it as poor service/return on investment?

I don't know the answer to that question, but I do know that it is not just that Amtrak isn't profitable. I don't think those who argue that we should get rid of Amtrak are contending that we should do so because it is not profitable. It is that the service it provides is widely viewed as a poor return on their investment compared to other forms of transportation.

[jeaton]

oltmannd

Your response is fair. I like facts, but in this case I am speculating about the possible favorable consequence of improved "overnight" service. And most certainly, your friend might have questioned my sanity, had an inquiry been made.

Books, articles and comments on this forum have have gone to great lengths to describe the details of the change in travel patterns in the last half of the Twentieth Century. It boils down to the obvious simple fact that the development of air travel and highway systems, including the associated vehicles, provided speed and convenience that for most people can't and probably will never be matched by a passenger conveyance that rides on steel wheels on steel rails. The development of these modes have had a profound positive influence on our economy and our lifestyle, and I for one do not bemoan the fact that a good chunk of my tax payments have gone to airlines and highways. I am also glad that some of my tax money is going to rail passenger service. Even if I am still upright 30 years from now, I expect to have seen only modest incremental improvements in rail passenger service, but I have no doubt that as improvements are made, use of the service will continue to rise.

Jay

And yes, I've put up with a lot of hassle myself to get home as soon as possible.

[jeaton]

Gabe,

Even if you are not a native, you do have a clearer view of Indiana than I.

Here is a thought. Can you imagine where the highway system would be if instead paying the unitemized gas tax when we filled the tank, we got a separate bill at home for our monthly gas usage?

Maybe someday you will be able to use a reasonably convenient train service to go to Chicago. Dreams can come true.

Jay

[oltmannd]

Wow. Very well put. You can even see these values played out in these forums. We seem to LIKE going round and round....

Just one observation.

Americans have tended to value gov't capital investment in transportation, but not direct operating subsidies. One of the first gov't works was the National Highway. The ACE is constitutionally empowered to make waterway improvements. Western RRs were granted land to help progress construction.

Where I live, Atlanta, highway projects find smooth sailing while transit/commuter rail projects cause much wailing and gnashing of teeth because they require an operating subsidy.

You can make a great case that that net present value should govern, not whether the investment is in capital or operations, but that apparently does not fit the values of most Americans.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

Here are some "lies" regarding Amtrak's market share:

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-vranich062802.asp

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/WM118.cfm

http://www.publicpurpose.com/hu-amtrk.htm

2. The definitive 1990 DOT study on Amtrak's true market share has it at 0.4% based on passenger trips and 0.6% based on passenger miles. Lies, lies, all lies, huh? I guess this is all part of a giant government coverup, right?

I'm waiting on the edge of my seat for someone to present the opposition view with such references.......

You're going to be disappointed, then. Those sources are avowadly anti-Amtrak bigots.

1) "Public Purpose" - so called - is the brainchild of Wendall Cox, a noted ANTI-RAIL TRANSIT type.
Any city anywhere that proposes adding light rail, he always shows up, writes op-ed pieces, etc., distroting the facts, claiming how "unsubsidized" cars are so much cheaper (yeah, right).
He's a right-wing ideologue that likely gets his money from the petro industry. Few, except Sen. McCain and other Amtrak enemies, hold any respect for him.

Interesting how his own town, Belleville, Ill., ignored his tripe and went on ahead and built a VERY SUCCESSFUL light rail system in the St. Louis area. Still, Cox will try to smear it and claim rail is all a big waste.

2) The Heritage Foundation? You've got to be kidding.

Ron Utt, the flame thrower who lives and breathes anti-Amtrak, is another biased "source."
All he talks about is how getting rid of Amtrak will help the world.

Utt's also a name-caller. He called David Gunn, Amtrak's reform-minded CEO, "an SOB."
Utt couldn't support his arguments with the facts so he hurls insults. I guess Utt doesn't want Amtrak to reform and improve its performance - just shut down, thank you.

The NATIONAL REVIEW is another case. "cept that WILLIAM F. BUCKLEY - the godfather of conservatives- like Paul Weyrich - has come out of the conservative closet and endorsed passenger rail. He logically rejects the fallacious assertions by the so-called think tanks.

Amtrak's MARKET SHARE in the NEC from DC to NYC is 50+%. The national market share of course is a lot smaller.

U.S. airline travel share is 12% with automobiles hogging 85%. Bus and rail are aournd 2%.
Most trips over 100 miles are personal and are by car. Should we then castigate the airlines because they have such a pathetic market share? Dittos for buses?

And don't forget the cruise industry. Cruise ships only carry about 4 million people a year - a tiny market share compared to rail and bus. Yet the federal government builts and maintains ports and rivers.

Why would you expect a gigantic market share from a rail system that's only been given crumbs for 30 years?

Do you think Delta Airlines would have been as successful as it is if it were given only enough money to fly THREE TIMES A WEEK from very few cities?

Sure, Amtrak should run more than 3 trains a week to Houston, and at better hours. But that's not Amtrak's fault. That's Congress,. which has failed to properly fund it.

Instead of whining about how bad Amtrak is - and I do acknowlege its shortcomings - railfans should work to improve it. David Gunn IS reforming it.

Just don't rely on the blind ideologues that only want to shut it down and use that money to build more roads and highways.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by M.W. Hemphill

I think what grates on many about passenger rail is that it appears to them that the people who are using passenger rail appear to be getting something for nothing: the farebox make-up.

Good point.

Amtrak's farebox recovery used to be as high as 80%. That was until Congress started stiffing Amtrak of funding - even though the money had been approved.

Know what the BIGGEST MONEY-LOSING form of transporation is?

Your personal car. The moment you drive that new car off the dealer's lot, you lose 40% of its value.

Plus the DOT says fuel taxes, etc., so-called "user fees" only pay for about half - or less- of automobile travel costs.

Don't forget court costs, state troopers, prison costs, etc., when drunk drivers are sent to prison and state troopers and police patrol the streets ensuring smooth driving. None of this is paid for by drivers, BTW.

Interesting how the public doesn't express as much ire and finger-pointing when it comes to their own money-losing transportation.

But ask for money for tiny Amtrak and you've committed heresy.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by artmark

I'm afraid folks won't support any greater funding of passenger service because of their fear that it will be a lot more bad service. If there had been some extension of quality long distance service to use as an example perhaps there would be some hope of positive public pursuesion. For instance, using my favorite, Chicago to New York. If the thing ran like it did in 1973 when it left Chicago at 4pm and arrived in NYC at 10 the next morning ithout fail, people would use it. But it doesn't. It leaves late in the evening to insure the 12 or so connecting passengers from the west don't miss it and have to stay in a hotel at Amtrak's expense. So who wants to eat dinner at 9.30pm? It arrives sometime in the middle of the afternoon rush hour in NYC. No chance of a business meeting or anything else. Just a mad attempt to find a taxi to get to your place for your stay. Many times over the years I've heard people on the train say, "Never again!" In 33 years, train by train, the medium has been able to turn off almost everyone in the nation to train travel. To say the least of what foreign visitors must think of the country as a whole. I remember a quote that goes something like this, "You can tell the quality of a modern industrial nation by the way it runs its trains."
Humpty Dumpty had a great fall, and all the king's horses and all the king's men can't put Humpty Dumpty together again. Why? Because they don't know how, they really don't want to and they're at seminars, meetings, focus group sessions, hiring consultants, taking trips to Europe to see how "they" do it, and getting brain storm ideas that goof things up. So the "show" stinks, and the audience is leaving the theater.
Mitch

I still haven't heard how any of this is AMTRAK's fault.

So Amtrak can cut say 2 hours off its CHI-NYC schedule. EVEN IF the hostile freight RR permitted that, how much more late - thanks to freight congestion and stabbing of Amtrak trains - do you think the train would THEN run?

What dispatching does Amtrak control outside of the NEC?

If it's normall 2-3 hours late now, would 6-7 be more likely?

I was on the Calif. Zephyr when it recently detoured through Wyoming. Everyone thought that trip would be a lot shorter since it's around the mountains, not throught them.

Despite the fact that UP had in some places a 3-track main, the train was constantly delayed. 40 MPH running over some parts. The train ran about an hour or two late into Salt Lake that night.
Checking Amtrak's train status online, the train ran late and got latter, thanks to uncle ***, every time it ran on the UP Wyoming line.

Amtrak doesn't have any control over the fregith tracks it runs on. Railfans ought to know this by now and stop whining about how bad Amtrak is.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by artmark

Many times over the years I've heard people on the train say, "Never again!" In 33 years, train by train, the medium has been able to turn off almost everyone in the nation to train travel. To say the least of what foreign visitors must think of the country as a whole. I remember a quote that goes something like this, "You can tell the quality of a modern industrial nation by the way it runs its trains."

I've often wondered the same thing. How backward this country might look, in terms of providing modern transportation.

Why then isn't this nation comitted to providing a modern rail travel system?

You get what you pay for. And in this case, giving Amtrak crumbs for over 30 years is squarely the fault of the people who send their elected representatives to DC.

The Big Dig in Boston costs at least $30 billion - about the same amount of money Amtrak has gotten over 30 years. Yet politicans don't fail to slam Amtrak but never go against highway and air funding.

If you were told you had to run a certain business and only given a fourth of what it requires to run it, then even that funding was cut - and then given to your competitors - how successful do you think your operatoin would be?

It's also very intersting how Amtrak gets all the blame when the trains run late, when it's often - but not all cases - the not the fault of the freight RR.

I've been in terminals such as PGH and seen the disappointment customers have when they hear the train is a couple of hours late.

Amtrak ticket counter people ought to start saying something such as "because of trackwork delays, or CSX delaying the train on a siding for an hour.... the train is late."

Rail travel has so much potential, yet private freight RRs, lawmakers, loud-mouth ill-informed "think tanks" and even some railfans go out of their way to squash it.

[Junctionfan]

I can't figure out why any thinking person in Congress, would want to shut down amtrak for a reason that it could be used as a tourism boost if it was funded better. There are a couple things I find will hurt Amtrak's prosperity other than Congress. Their operations are rather odd to me. There doesn't seem to be any train service into Detroit or Colombus, Ohio which are major cities. The only thing I see in the Amtrak National Timetable for those routes are Greyhound references (competition selling?) I here they are getting rid of the Three Rivers? At least they are removing the station at Fostoria was what I remember. Why would they do something to hamper railfan tourism which is being embrassed by even the town's chamber of commerce. You can't take a train from Toronto to Chicago now unless you take the Maple leaf to Buffalo and than wait for the soon to be eliminated Three Rivers. That means that I would have to take the Maple Leaf into Penn Station and take an even more scenic route to Chicago. I also find it kind of wierd that I can't take a train from Chicago to Houston. The best way I can do this is take the Texas Eagle to Longview, Texas and take the bus the rest of the way. There are probably more unusual passenger operations but I don't want to rant to much on it.

It doesn't seem right to make the long distance customers who would more than likely be tourists, to be givin bad service. This seems to be the reason that long-distance trains isn't profitable. Tourist will take the plane, bus or a rental car if they have to.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan

Their operations are rather odd to me. There doesn't seem to be any train service into Detroit or Colombus, Ohio which are major cities. The only thing I see in the Amtrak National Timetable for those routes are Greyhound references (competition selling?)

This is a good point. Columbus used to have Amtrak service, on the NATIONAL LTD. line.
The train ran NYC-PHL- Pittsburgh - Columbus - Dayotn - Indianapolis - St. Louis - KC and had a through car that connected onto the Southwest Chief (then called the Southwest Ltd. or Super Chief).

Unfortunately, under Jimmy Carter, the DOT ordered a huge Amtrak budget cut. That train, and about 6 other popular ones, were discontinued SOLELY BECAUSE OF POLITICS, not ridership.

It was also interesting how employees of the hostile freight host RR testified before Congress that the route wasn't needed. People would drive or fly, etc.

Passenger Train Journal reported that PC employees - or whatever name the freght was called then - Conrail? - bad mouthed the service. Therefore, freight RRs ARE and have been responsible for the poor passenger rail service Amtrak provides.

Interesting how railroaders say Amtrak service must be improved but when push comes to shove, they go to great links to shut it down.

[gabe]

I am neither challenging the contention that we should fund Amtrak more nor asserting we should necessarily get rid of Amtrak. But, this is a legitimate question:

Forgeting--for a moment--profitability and political questions, if Amtrak were funded perfectly--lets say 10 billion a year insteal of a little over 1 billion--how much do you think it would increase ridership? Ten times, twice as much, hardly at all?

I understand the frustration of saying the government spends more on highways in one week than on Amtrak in a year. But, I think the distinction is, when the government builds a new highway people drive on it. The return on the investment isn't profitability but citizens enjoying the highway's use and the benefits deriving therefrom.

Because of the dearth of intra-city transportation, there are advantages to taking your car no mater how perfect Amtrak's performance is. You can drive right to your destination without having to move your luggage around with each transfer and you get to play the conductor. The advantage of having an extra 8-14 hours on vacation will always give long distance air traffic an advantage over Amtrak.

"If you build it they will come" model has to apply to government spending, and there are many who are not sure that the increase of Amtrak budget will corespondingly increase ridership. Until this is proven, I don't think I can be too hard on those who want to spend the money on a highway rather than Amtrak. As someone who more than understands the advantage to rail travel, I hope one, or all, of you prove me wrong on this one.

That having been said, if you give me a 60mph train that runs on time at a reasonable hour between Indy and Chicago or Indy and Cinciannati, I will gladly take it. I am not sure everyone else will come to that conclusion though.

Gabe

[oltmannd]

It's a term I lifted from engineering economics years ago. Not sure it's entirely appropriate, but it's a way to do apple to apples comparison of alternatives.

Basically, its a measure of how much all the future benefits are in today's dollars less how much you'd have to have in your pocket right now to cover all the costs. That's the net present value.

For example, if you were comparing paying your neighbor to take you to work versus buying your own car, you have to figure out how big a lump of money you'd need now to pay your neighbor each day, figuring you'd invest that lump in some manner. That would be the net present cost for that alternative. For the car purchase, you'd have to figure the price and then all the expense in the out years, brought back to today's dollars. That would be the net present cost of buying a car. In this case, since the net benefit is the same (you get to work each day), you can just compare the net present costs to find the cheapest. If the benefits vary between alternatives, like they do when you compare Amtrak to highway construction, you have to apply the same concepts to the benefits. It's also useful to do a sensitivity analysis, too. That is, if one of the benefits or costs vary - what's the impact on the net present value. That gives an idea of the risk.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by ohlemeier

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

Here are some "lies" regarding Amtrak's market share:

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-vranich062802.asp

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/WM118.cfm

http://www.publicpurpose.com/hu-amtrk.htm

2. The definitive 1990 DOT study on Amtrak's true market share has it at 0.4% based on passenger trips and 0.6% based on passenger miles. Lies, lies, all lies, huh? I guess this is all part of a giant government coverup, right?

I'm waiting on the edge of my seat for someone to present the opposition view with such references.......

You're going to be disappointed, then. Those sources are avowadly anti-Amtrak bigots.

1) "Public Purpose" - so called - is the brainchild of Wendall Cox, a noted ANTI-RAIL TRANSIT type.
Any city anywhere that proposes adding light rail, he always shows up, writes op-ed pieces, etc., distroting the facts, claiming how "unsubsidized" cars are so much cheaper (yeah, right).
He's a right-wing ideologue that likely gets his money from the petro industry. Few, except Sen. McCain and other Amtrak enemies, hold any respect for him.

Interesting how his own town, Belleville, Ill., ignored his tripe and went on ahead and built a VERY SUCCESSFUL light rail system in the St. Louis area. Still, Cox will try to smear it and claim rail is all a big waste.

2) The Heritage Foundation? You've got to be kidding.

Ron Utt, the flame thrower who lives and breathes anti-Amtrak, is another biased "source."
All he talks about is how getting rid of Amtrak will help the world.

Utt's also a name-caller. He called David Gunn, Amtrak's reform-minded CEO, "an SOB."
Utt couldn't support his arguments with the facts so he hurls insults. I guess Utt doesn't want Amtrak to reform and improve its performance - just shut down, thank you.

The NATIONAL REVIEW is another case. "cept that WILLIAM F. BUCKLEY - the godfather of conservatives- like Paul Weyrich - has come out of the conservative closet and endorsed passenger rail. He logically rejects the fallacious assertions by the so-called think tanks.

Amtrak's MARKET SHARE in the NEC from DC to NYC is 50+%. The national market share of course is a lot smaller.

U.S. airline travel share is 12% with automobiles hogging 85%. Bus and rail are aournd 2%.
Most trips over 100 miles are personal and are by car. Should we then castigate the airlines because they have such a pathetic market share? Dittos for buses?

And don't forget the cruise industry. Cruise ships only carry about 4 million people a year - a tiny market share compared to rail and bus. Yet the federal government builts and maintains ports and rivers.

Why would you expect a gigantic market share from a rail system that's only been given crumbs for 30 years?

Do you think Delta Airlines would have been as successful as it is if it were given only enough money to fly THREE TIMES A WEEK from very few cities?

Sure, Amtrak should run more than 3 trains a week to Houston, and at better hours. But that's not Amtrak's fault. That's Congress,. which has failed to properly fund it.

Instead of whining about how bad Amtrak is - and I do acknowlege its shortcomings - railfans should work to improve it. David Gunn IS reforming it.

Just don't rely on the blind ideologues that only want to shut it down and use that money to build more roads and highways.

Ohlemeier, you have failed the test. I gave you references for my points of argument, you did not. Furthermore, even IF the groups and people who come out with these so-called anti-Amtrak talking points are biased against the current Amtrak structure, at least they themselves have referenced DOT studies to back up their arguments. For your information, I also went to NARP's website to find any contrary information regarding market share, and there is none. They just BS around the issue the way you do, telling us how Amtrak's market share has increased such and such percent, but not what the base number is. Who cares if Amtrak has increased market share 36%, when the base market share is 0.4%? A 36% increase of 0.4% comes to a whopping 0.5%, well within the range of variability i.e. statistically insignificant.

Why are people like you so opposed to trying to improve the passenger rail situation in the U.S.? Even you admit the current Amtrak situation is not ideal, but you offer nothing other than increased subsidies as your solution. What Amtrak needs is not so much a complete makeover, but a complete destruction and rebirth with a different government oversight and a willingness to foster passenger rail operations in a private market spectrum.

BTW, if you have any website links which reference a different analysis of Amtrak, I will gladly go to them to search for an opposing point of view that hopefully is backed up with facts, not feelgoodism.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal
Ohlemeier, you have failed the test. I gave you references for my points of argument, you did not. Furthermore, even IF the groups and people who come out with these so-called anti-Amtrak talking points are biased against the current Amtrak structure, at least they themselves have referenced DOT studies to back up their arguments. For your information, I also went to NARP's website to find any contrary information regarding market share, and there is none. They just BS around the issue the way you do, telling us how Amtrak's market share has increased such and such percent, but not what the base number is. Who cares if Amtrak has increased market share 36%, when the base market share is 0.4%? A 36% increase of 0.4% comes to a whopping 0.5%, well within the range of variability i.e. statistically insignificant.

Why are people like you so opposed to trying to improve the passenger rail situation in the U.S.? Even you admit the current Amtrak situation is not ideal, but you offer nothing other than increased subsidies as your solution. What Amtrak needs is not so much a complete makeover, but a complete destruction and rebirth with a different government oversight and a willingness to foster passenger rail operations in a private market spectrum.

BTW, if you have any website links which reference a different analysis of Amtrak, I will gladly go to them to search for an opposing point of view that hopefully is backed up with facts, not feelgoodism.

Trouble is, the sources you referenced weren't legitimate. They're one-sided.

They're not just biased against the current Amtrak structure, THEY'RE BIASED AGAINST RAIL PERIOD.

I haven't conducted lengthy studies of Amtrak. Those sources conducted studies that were designed to ridicule Amtrak - AND commuter rail and SHORT-DISTANCE passenger rail corridors, BTW .

They'll often castigate Amtrak for having only 1% of the market, yet not mention air only has 12% or automobiles hog 85% - both of which are generously paid for by federal funds.

No one respects Wendall Cox. Even when he was on the Amtrak Reform Council, the other members stated how all of them were there to improve Amtrak - except Cox.

He's purely a highway man. Google his name and light rail, short-distance Amtrak and ANY rail. He's there and he's again' it.

Using those sources is like writing a paper on a certain political issue that only sourced one political viewpointt.

--

You said you didn't care about the facts. You said it didn't matter if Amtrak had a 1%, a 5%, a 10% or a 50% market share (paraphrasing), you still were going to hate Amtrak and blame it for its market share. That ended the discssion right there, pal, since you had already made your mind up and nothing anyone could do or say would change it.

I've told you it was impossible for Amtrak to improve its market share when it isn't given enough money.

I've pointed out WHY Amtrak has a low market share.
Those points don't matter to you, apparently.

With Amtrak carrying a record number of passengers - 25 million - I imagine market share is improving, if by little. Still, I imagine there will be those that will take issue with that statement.

Of course Amtrak can't compete against airlines that have 4-12 departures a day from a single airport. Congress - by reducing funding - gave Amtrak only enough money to run ONE TRAIN, not two, which are needed on most LD routes to provide decent service and- BTW- increase ridership.

You apparently aren't interested in improving Amtrak, just bashing it and those that support passenger rail.

I

[Anonymous]

One thing is for sure, Amtrak needs to be overhauled.
But, In over hauling, Amtrak needs to be Vastly expanded in both the Corridor and the long-distance sectors, and as much as the gov't would like to avoid it, AMtrak would need about a 200% increase in funding to do so, but as long as we have a republican controled gov't this won't happen unless they were all Kay Bailey Hutchinsons.


Gore Lieberman '04

[Junctionfan]

I was wondering if the auto train idea should be expanded for amtrak. I was on the modelintermodal yahoo group and read how sucessful that type of service is in Austria between Vienna, Salzburg and Innsbruck. Having said this, since the U.S runs more cars about the country than Austria, instead of having the roadrailers and MHC service, maybe they would do better if they had auto train equipment along with them. I don't know how well the railroads would recieve another amtrak train (unit auto train) so maybe amtrak could just run it with the long-distance trains and see if it works.

I don't know, just wondering and making conversation.

[tree68]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan

I was wondering if the auto train idea should be expanded for amtrak.

On the surface, a great idea - one reason I like to drive places is so I have a (my) vehicle when I get there. I'm sure there are many others who feel the same way.

The AutoTrain concept has been fairly successful VA-FL. It failed miserably out of Louisville. One important consideration regarding those two trains is that EVERYBODY got on at one end, and EVERYBODY got off on the other. The Chunnel trains operate very much the same way. I can't speak on the European operation, but it does sound like it's limited to a few points.

On your average long-distance train, however, people get on and off all along the route. That means that the vehicles need to be able to be loaded/unloaded individually at each stop. Certainly doable, but at what cost in infrastructure? Limiting the carriage of autos to the endpoints severely limits the marketability of the concept.

An expansion of the concept would require interchange between trains. I put my car on at Syracuse, but I'm going to Phoenix. There's gotta be at least one train change there... <"Waddya mean, you lost my car?!?!?"> And where do they store all of the vehicles that are "between trains?"

Certainly a good idea, but it still comes down to cash, and getting the owners to pony some up...

[Overmod]

The problem with auto trains in this country has to do largely with the very substantial size, weight, capital cost, and operating consists of the trains that can provide the service 'correctly' There's also a problem in the potential litigation, both in vehicle damage and personal injury, that comes from even one derailment or accident.

I was not privy to internal operations of the original Auto-Train, but read in Trains about the very, very substantial number of cars carrying automobiles... and the astounding problems with slack action, etc. trying to run these in concert with passenger trains.

I doubt you could run a service here where people could stay in their cars -- or even GET to their cars -- while the train was at speed. Or, for that matter, a service where people drove their own automobiles on and off circus-type enclosed consists, Iron Highway or not. Look who's the target market for going someplace and having your own car 'away' rather than renting something. I think, btw, that the revolution in car rental quality that seemed to start with Budget's mass Lincoln Town Car purchasing programs has done a lot to shift the 'equilibrium' of "bring vs. rent" strongly in the 'rent' direction...

Family travel is NOT a cost-effective niche for Amtrak's avowed priorities -- and isn't particularly cost-effective for the families, either, now that you mention it. You might get away with five in two beds in one of the highway lodging chains -- but on Amtrak everyone needs a ticket ... that adds up almost as fast as for air transportation. And you can't pull over for a bite of 'something different' or to see something interesting. (Or fall asleep in peace, listen to loud music without headphones, play family games that others might find irritating, completely avoid other families' rude brats or sick snifflers, etc. etc. etc)

I'd very much like to see a train ferry service.. to & from a lot more places than Chicago and New Orleans ... but I'd need to have it priced a lot less in the aggregate (e.g., my ticket, my wife's and children's tickets, and the cost for my truck to ride along) than the marginal utility cost of driving (essentially gas, fluids, food, lodging, and parking) And, to put it bluntly, I would need to see extremely carefully crafted real numbers before I'd believe we'd get there within at least two orders of magnitude difference from current levels of subsidy...

[Anonymous]

I've never posted on this forum before, and I've barely had time to skim this monster thread, but all I see here is the same old tired arguments (some better than others) going round and round ad nauseum. Both the pro and anti Amtrak factions on this forum, on other forums, and in Congress are all riding the same merry-go-round, each thinking they're in the lead, and going absolutely nowhere.

It is time to shut down the merry-go-round. I have an idea that I think all factions can agree to.

First, forget all about your preconceived notions about what will or won't work regarding Amtrak. Everything I've seen so far amounts to little more than pet theories, based on incomplete information. Hardly the basis for sound policy.

What is needed is a comprehensive long-term (20 year) plan, based on sound transportation planning principles, comprehensive market studies and demographic research to figure out where the riders are, where they want to go, and what schedules they require. This is being done on the state level in a few areas, but needs to be done nationally. With that information in hand, we can design a truly practical national network. Without it we are just spitting into the wind. This will end once and for all the long-distance vs. corridor arguments. (My suspicion is that both will prove necessary, but without cold hard data, nobody can say for sure.)

Next we need to determine what sort of equipment and infrastructure improvements are needed to provide reliable and cost-effective service to those markets. Will it be high-speed, conventional or some combination thereof? Again, without a comprehensive study, nobody can say for sure.

This information willl enable this country to set realistic goals, establish a plan, and give us something to work towards. Then comes the funding. We complain about how underfunded Amtrak is, but we fail to realize that without a clearly defined plan, with defensible goals, Congress really has nothing substantive to fund. The interstate higway system started with a plan, not with money. The money came after plan was sold to Congress. Plan first, money second. I cannot emphasize that enough.

Also, without a plan, we really are in no position to say what sort of organization is best to operate passenger rail. The goals and plan will help guide us. It may be similar to the current Amtrak model, it may be some sort of public/private partnership, or something else altogether. We really need to keep an open mind, here.

So instead of arguing about this and that theory, let's all urge Congress and the USDOT to conduct some real planning. All interested parties need to be involved, including Amtrak, the host railroads, state transportation agencies, labor, and the traveling public.

The current state of Amtrak is not Amtrak's fault. It is a failure of fedreral policymakers to plan for the future of American railroads. Nothing more. Nothing less.

[Junctionfan]

In Austria, they load the autoracks before hand and when the train arrives, the train backs up into it. As far as interchange goes, ya I can see the challenge in that. In Austria, the author of the comment only mentions 3 cities so the amount of interchange is low but in the U.S, depending on how many cities you want to serve, could be really confusing as well as expensive. It could be done (being hypothetical again) but it would definately be expensive and would need the funding. As you mentioned, Amtrak (government) would likely need to spend a lot of money on liability insurance for such a service.

As for the slack problem, would the redesign of the autorack for Amtrak work? I know that some railroads consider the autorack as "intermodal" and so run them at that kind of speed (I think that is still true) Maybe if the design of the autorack was altered to work like a passenger car instead of a freight car, would that work? (yes another hypothetical question; sorry just interested)

[Anonymous]

JBToy...For being your first pay trip on the forum I think ya dun good.
This has been one helluva problem since May 1st, 1971. Filled with prejudice, and every other manner of strife.
Perhaps we should shut down Amtrak and retire the name, The very next day start a well funded International House of Passenger Trains and re-think the whole deal.
Pan Am is gone, TWA is gone, Braniff and Eastern were abandoned, the Concorde made its last pay trip, a new trolley with old equipment has just started up in Charlotte, NC, and you can still book a room on a train from Chicago to New York. If you asked someone in 1971 to recite this as a prediction for transportation life in the year 2004, they would have been laughed out of town as everyone tuned in on the Brady Bunch. There's interest and a desire for something better in rail travel out there.
Mitch

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by ohlemeier

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal
Ohlemeier, you have failed the test. I gave you references for my points of argument, you did not. Furthermore, even IF the groups and people who come out with these so-called anti-Amtrak talking points are biased against the current Amtrak structure, at least they themselves have referenced DOT studies to back up their arguments. For your information, I also went to NARP's website to find any contrary information regarding market share, and there is none. They just BS around the issue the way you do, telling us how Amtrak's market share has increased such and such percent, but not what the base number is. Who cares if Amtrak has increased market share 36%, when the base market share is 0.4%? A 36% increase of 0.4% comes to a whopping 0.5%, well within the range of variability i.e. statistically insignificant.

Why are people like you so opposed to trying to improve the passenger rail situation in the U.S.? Even you admit the current Amtrak situation is not ideal, but you offer nothing other than increased subsidies as your solution. What Amtrak needs is not so much a complete makeover, but a complete destruction and rebirth with a different government oversight and a willingness to foster passenger rail operations in a private market spectrum.

BTW, if you have any website links which reference a different analysis of Amtrak, I will gladly go to them to search for an opposing point of view that hopefully is backed up with facts, not feelgoodism.

Trouble is, the sources you referenced weren't legitimate. They're one-sided.

They're not just biased against the current Amtrak structure, THEY'RE BIASED AGAINST RAIL PERIOD.

I haven't conducted lengthy studies of Amtrak. Those sources conducted studies that were designed to ridicule Amtrak - AND commuter rail and SHORT-DISTANCE passenger rail corridors, BTW .

They'll often castigate Amtrak for having only 1% of the market, yet not mention air only has 12% or automobiles hog 85% - both of which are generously paid for by federal funds.

No one respects Wendall Cox. Even when he was on the Amtrak Reform Council, the other members stated how all of them were there to improve Amtrak - except Cox.

He's purely a highway man. Google his name and light rail, short-distance Amtrak and ANY rail. He's there and he's again' it.

Using those sources is like writing a paper on a certain political issue that only sourced one political viewpointt.

--

You said you didn't care about the facts. You said it didn't matter if Amtrak had a 1%, a 5%, a 10% or a 50% market share (paraphrasing), you still were going to hate Amtrak and blame it for its market share. That ended the discssion right there, pal, since you had already made your mind up and nothing anyone could do or say would change it.

I've told you it was impossible for Amtrak to improve its market share when it isn't given enough money.

I've pointed out WHY Amtrak has a low market share.
Those points don't matter to you, apparently.

With Amtrak carrying a record number of passengers - 25 million - I imagine market share is improving, if by little. Still, I imagine there will be those that will take issue with that statement.

Of course Amtrak can't compete against airlines that have 4-12 departures a day from a single airport. Congress - by reducing funding - gave Amtrak only enough money to run ONE TRAIN, not two, which are needed on most LD routes to provide decent service and- BTW- increase ridership.

You apparently aren't interested in improving Amtrak, just bashing it and those that support passenger rail.

I

It's real simple: Go to a search engine (Yahoo, Google, etc) and type in "Amtrak market share" and see what comes up. Just because it takes a Wendall Cox to use the DOT studies to support his views doesn't delegitimize the DOT study, does it? Facts are facts, no matter the source, and frankly you are a bit off saying such people hate rails. Reformers are not the enemy, they are your only chance at salvation for retaining a national passenger rail market in some form. By demonizing them, you come accross as hyperbolic and irrational, and if every Amtrak supporter is like you it won't be long until the nation gets so tired of the same old same old that they end up killing the whole thing for everyone, and then passenger rail in any form is a thing of the past.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by ohlemeier

QUOTE: Originally posted by artmark

I'm afraid folks won't support any greater funding of passenger service because of their fear that it will be a lot more bad service. If there had been some extension of quality long distance service to use as an example perhaps there would be some hope of positive public pursuesion. For instance, using my favorite, Chicago to New York. If the thing ran like it did in 1973 when it left Chicago at 4pm and arrived in NYC at 10 the next morning ithout fail, people would use it. But it doesn't. It leaves late in the evening to insure the 12 or so connecting passengers from the west don't miss it and have to stay in a hotel at Amtrak's expense. So who wants to eat dinner at 9.30pm? It arrives sometime in the middle of the afternoon rush hour in NYC. No chance of a business meeting or anything else. Just a mad attempt to find a taxi to get to your place for your stay. Many times over the years I've heard people on the train say, "Never again!" In 33 years, train by train, the medium has been able to turn off almost everyone in the nation to train travel. To say the least of what foreign visitors must think of the country as a whole. I remember a quote that goes something like this, "You can tell the quality of a modern industrial nation by the way it runs its trains."
Humpty Dumpty had a great fall, and all the king's horses and all the king's men can't put Humpty Dumpty together again. Why? Because they don't know how, they really don't want to and they're at seminars, meetings, focus group sessions, hiring consultants, taking trips to Europe to see how "they" do it, and getting brain storm ideas that goof things up. So the "show" stinks, and the audience is leaving the theater.
Mitch

I still haven't heard how any of this is AMTRAK's fault.

So Amtrak can cut say 2 hours off its CHI-NYC schedule. EVEN IF the hostile freight RR permitted that, how much more late - thanks to freight congestion and stabbing of Amtrak trains - do you think the train would THEN run?

What dispatching does Amtrak control outside of the NEC?

If it's normall 2-3 hours late now, would 6-7 be more likely?

I was on the Calif. Zephyr when it recently detoured through Wyoming. Everyone thought that trip would be a lot shorter since it's around the mountains, not throught them.

Despite the fact that UP had in some places a 3-track main, the train was constantly delayed. 40 MPH running over some parts. The train ran about an hour or two late into Salt Lake that night.
Checking Amtrak's train status online, the train ran late and got latter, thanks to uncle ***, every time it ran on the UP Wyoming line.

Amtrak doesn't have any control over the fregith tracks it runs on. Railfans ought to know this by now and stop whining about how bad Amtrak is.

Ohlemeier:
I'm not blaming Amtrak for much of this. You're certainly correct about dispatching on freight lines. I assign blame to Amtrak for the departure times for east coast passenger trains out of Chicago. That happened a long time ago to avoid mis-connect passengers.
But you're right on with the problem of cooperation by the freight railroads. This is what ruins the arrival times the next day. So what's an Amtrak to do? It's the only rail travel product most Americans are familiar with. What do we show Americans as an example of how good this really could be? Would we ever be able to get the point across to the Class 1 freight folks that good running of passenger trains is good for the entire industry? Is this a good notion of mine to begin with? I think it is, but it's merely my notion. Old time railroad presidents in some cases thought it so. So when I speak of an improved service level in my CHI-NYC scenarios I'm looking at a situation where there might be sufficient funding to make it worth while for the host railroads to perform. But these posts I've been mking are, of course, speculations and notions I'm throwing out for discussion.
Mitch

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal
It's real simple: Go to a search engine (Yahoo, Google, etc) and type in "Amtrak market share" and see what comes up. Just because it takes a Wendall Cox to use the DOT studies to support his views doesn't delegitimize the DOT study, does it? Facts are facts, no matter the source, and frankly you are a bit off saying such people hate rails. Reformers are not the enemy, they are your only chance at salvation for retaining a national passenger rail market in some form. By demonizing them, you come accross as hyperbolic and irrational, and if every Amtrak supporter is like you it won't be long until the nation gets so tired of the same old same old that they end up killing the whole thing for everyone, and then passenger rail in any form is a thing of the past.

I wouldn't in my wildest dreams characterize Cox as a reformer." He's a destroyer.

Even James Coston - a true reformer - said Cox - appointed by Newt Gingrich to the Amtrak Reform Council shut Amtrak down - only wanted to shut down the system, not improve it.

As you advised, do a web search on Wendall Cox. See all the arguments he uses to shoot-down passenger rail - short distance, corridors, commuter, and LD.

He hates trains. You can't have a rational discussion with someone that wants to destroy you.
If you don't know that, you haven't been to the issue long.

The far-right "think-tanks" - yeah, right - that you cited are also off base.

No matter how you characterize him as positive, 'taint such an animal. He like Sen. John McCain is one of the biggest Amtrak haters of all time.

Using Cox to argue for reforming Amtrak is like using only Howard Dean's arguments when arguing about the Iraq war.

[Overmod]

JBToy, the fundamental problem with what you suggest is the fundamental 4- and 6-year cycles of American politics. You can call for a 20-year plan, you can set one up, you can do whatever you want to implement one... but either Congress or the executive branch can, and will, change what they want while in power. This has been a fundamental issue with public-policy planning since before 1828...

I know of no organization or individual 'voice' like Walter Lippmann who would be capable of evolving and maintaining a 20-year long-term vision that would be CREDIBLE to all the players. In part, these are the chickens of factionalization coming home to roost.

I can also say with great assurance that it is not practical to forecast demographics for the United States with a 20-year forecast. There are too many singularities beyond which extrapolations only produce garbage math. Tell me this: Will or won't the cohort corresponding to the children of this upcoming generation of Hispanics ride Amtrak or not? Where will they go? What media or public figures might be effective spokespeople? (Etc.)

If general systems theory allowed us to produce a ferroequinological Seldon Plan, perhaps your idea would produce the positive results you indicate -- and I, for one, wi***hat were possible.

Meanwhile, the first, last and greatest rule of venture capitalism is the same as the first rule of the world's oldest profession: GET THE MONEY FIRST. You do not start wondering how to fund something until you think you know how big the need will be -- you arrange as many tranches as possible, set up your alliances early, etc. "Vulture capitalists" are like the arbitrageurs who trade in people who didn't know to ask for enough money up front...

I can guarantee you that very, very little of the actual work on the Interstate Highway System was conducted before the HTF was set up and started pumping money. It's easy to draw lines on a map following DDE's childhood vision. A very different thing to translate them into subgrade drawings, paving contracts, etc. How many of today's Interstate routes are actually following the routings called for in the mid-'50s? And how many of the roads built early remain adequate for the traffic they now see?

I concur completely with your last sentence. I'm not sure the Washington process can produce something more meaningful, though, given the convoluted logic about not-always-stated secret agendas that characterizes so much of policy planning as it is really practiced -- what was it von Bismarck is supposed to have said: Laws are like sausages. It's better not to see them being made.

What I'd like to see is an unbiased organization with a continuously-optimizing plan, which would be capable of devising an initial strategy, testing it in the marketplace of ideas and opinions to keep it sharp, and perform the appropriate networking, liaison to other groups, etc. to ensure that both implementation and execution of policies are at their best. Note that, while this is a relatively slight difference from what you advocate, it's a very significant one.

[Junctionfan]

A little of topic but I just opened a package of Maxwell House Coffee to find a VIA rail voucher inside. Does Amtrak do things like this and how well does it work?