Passenger Trains

[Anonymous]

Yes, government waste at it's best.

[Anonymous]

Now the question is, can we get anyone to do anything about it? The admin appears fully ready to stick by their approach to reform, but without Congressional support I don't know if we'll get anything but another delay out of this.

With no action due to Congressional heel dragging, the likelihood is that we'll be looking at this whole debate again this fall.... only this time the price tag will be in the billions.

Alexander

[Anonymous]

" To do the same for railroads, every Amtrak passenger would have to buy their own car (at a $1 million a whack, at least).  Unrealistic, at best. "

Sorry to disagree, Paul, but there is no MORE realistic option. This is the way it is in the rest of the modes.

Example:
Greyhound and Trailways own their own buses.
Example:
JB Hunt owns it's own tractors and trailers
Example:
US Air, Southwest, et al own their own airplanes.

So the analogy really would call for the passenger train OPERATOR owning their own equipment at $1 million per car. What's so unfair about that?

"Really?  Who built the original highways?  How far back does the fuel tax go?"

So waht are you suggesting? That we sink billions of dollars into a rail system without a trust fund, and then later enact this trust fund? So we should do the wrong thing twice?

No, sorry, the Fed was NOT the pioneer in road building. States were. Matter of Fact, my home Oregon was one of the first to produce modern highways. the Columbia River Highway predates the Lincoln Highway.

But anyway, what difference does this make? That is a CAPITAL expenditure, with which i have no problems. It is the OPERATIONAL subsidy I cannot support.

On Trust Fund etc... yes, the fuel tax RRs pay is stupid, stupid, stupid. If they should pay it then they should get something back out of it that benefits them. This is a basic fundamental principle of all fair taxation: no payments without (at least tangential) benefit.

" "We want a nationwide network, but we aren't going to pay you enough to run it.  Ha ha!" (Yes, I'm paraphrasing here) "

Well that would be more accurate if it said "we want a nationwide netwrok but don't want to build it."

Congress substituted operational susbidies and unrealistic demands, when it should not have given an operational dime. Instead, it should have provided significant capital spending and told Amtrak, "find some passengers that justify a train and we'll build you the system to run on."

But I maintain my point. All other modes, (except when Congress gets stupid(er) and bails them out, ala United,) recieve significant capital expenditure subsidies, but do NOT receive operational subsidies. And this OUGHT to be the rule for ALL modes.

Alexander Craghead

[Paul3]

>Why does it seem so hard to understand? It's
>not. Trucks and buses and cars ARE
>subsidized.... by their own taxes, which pay
>for infrastructure ONLY.

Really? Who built the original highways? How far back does the fuel tax go? Did you know that rail passengers did pay a tax (starting during WWII) on their tickets? Where do you think that money went? Right into the general fund. Right now, railroads are paying a tax on their diesel fuel. Where does that money go? Right into "deficit reduction". Railroads have never gotten their own "Trust Fund", and they should have. However, that is not the railroads fault, that is the fault of previous Congress' and administrations who thought that we don't need passenger trains anymore. They were and are wrong.

"There is NO OPERATIONAL SUBSIDY for roads!"

No public agency pays anyone to drive (except the MBTA does pay Peter Pan to run busses Boston to Worcester, as the commuter rail would otherwise kill them off in that market). And why would we? Every car/truck is privately owned. To do the same for railroads, every Amtrak passenger would have to buy their own car (at a $1 million a whack, at least). Unrealistic, at best.

>I see no reason why this model cannot be
>implimented in ANY mode.

Buy your own private passenger car, then we'll talk. :-)

>Course, I also see no reason why this isn't
>clear to everyone.... you can't imagine how
>POd I get when people compare Amtrak to the
>local freeway. I wi***hat they WERE on parity
>but the are NOT.

Yeah, Amtrak's been getting shafted for 31 years, and has never been fully funded for what the expectations have been from Congress. "We want a nationwide network, but we aren't going to pay you enough to run it. Ha ha!" (Yes, I'm paraphrasing here)

Paul A. Cutler III
******************
"Whom the Gods would recruit, they first tick off." - D. Weber, "Oath of Swords"
******************

[Anonymous]

Alexander'
I agreed 100% with your statement on interstates and airports. The public will never use long distance rail service. The Northeast Corridor and California are the only locations for anything more than city based commuter rail.

[Paul3]

>Are you being honest?

Yes, and I was also being sarcastic. I think it is possible to be both... :-)

>Do you want to have the subsidies for Amtrak
>stopped but you want the highway financing
>system replaced by this private system you
>outlined?

No, I do not want the subsidies stopped for Amtrak. I do not want the highways replaced by all toll roads. I did say, if you want Amtrak to survive purely on ticket revenue, lets make highways and airlines do the same.

And no, I do not consider the gas tax the same. I buy gas for my garden tractors, rototillers, shredder, lawnmowers, snowblower, etc., and these will never be even on a public road, much less on a highway. Yet I am paying taxes that supports the roads by buying gas for these devices that will never use any roads. Why should I have to do that?

What about our own Big Dig? I never drive into Boston (I take the MBTA), yet my taxes are rising to pay for this. What gives?

>Do you realy think this proposed financing
>system is more efficient than the taxes
>collected at the pump and more equitable as
>well?

No, it is not more efficient. However, it would be more equitable (I never drive on MA Rt. 2, why should my gas taxes go to support it?). Let the user pay, let the non-user not have to pay. Simple, right? After all, that's exactly what you want Amtrak to do... :-)

>Do you also think that the subsidies paid to
>airlines are as appropriate as the subsidies
>paid to Amtrak and that these are superior to
>the fuel taxes as well?

Actually, I am in favor of airline subsidies, just like I am in favor of Amtrak subsidies and highway subsidies. We need all three modes in this country. At the very least, airlines for long distance, Amtrak for medium distances, and roads for short distances, with some blurring of the lines where appropriate. Note: I do not advocate bottomless pits of money for anybody who wants it. Set up an acceptable level of service, then fully fund it. As yet, nobody has done this for Amtrak.

>There appears to be an intellectual disconnect
>here. The highway users pay taxes to build and
>maintain highways.

Non-highway users are *also* being taxed to build and maintain highways (see tractor example above). Just like non-Amtrak users are being taxed to build and maintain Amtrak.

>If you don't buy fuel for your car, you are not
>supporting construction of the highways. All I
>am recommending is for Amtrak and airline users
>to do the same.

Airline passengers, IIRC, are taxed as well. I just don't know the particulars.

>Right now, I have to support the airlines and
>Amtrak regardless of how much I use it. There
>is no comparison to the highway funding model
>here.

Right now, I have to support the highways regardless if I use them or not, just like the airlines and Amtrak.

Paul A. Cutler III
******************
"...and he raised his head to glare at the low clouds.
'Why me?' he demanded. 'Why is it always being *me?!*'
The clouds returned no answer, and he snarled at their silence." - D. Weber, "Oath of Swords"

[Paul3]

>When you say there are several NE states that
>own part of Amtrak, are you refering to the
>track or everything?

Well, the states in question own the Right of Way, which obviously is the land. Not so obvious is, does this include all structures built on the land? I can only assume that it does, or that the states are being paid (would you allow somebody to build anything on your land without compensation, or you owning a piece of it?).

>Does Amtrak have to rent the track from the
>state the way they rent track from the major
>railroads?

I don't know for certain. You'd have to ask either the MBTA, M-N, or Amtrak. Amtrak does pretty much what it wants to do on the MA portion of the NEC, in my experience. Meanwhile, M-N barely tolerates Amtrak (IMHO). (shrug)

>This is interesting considering my thesis that
>the system should be run by the benificiary
>states.

The problem you don't see is that, for the most part, the states don't interfere with each other in their operations because they don't really intermix their operations. Rhode Island cooperates with the MBTA because it now wants service, but not that long ago, there was no commuter rail in Rhode Island because they wouldn't pony up the cash.

CT and NY cooperate because they have the common goal of getting people to NYC.

But MA/RI and CT/NY *don't* have a common goal, and if they took over the NEC, there would be conflicts. Each agency wouldn't want to mess up the commuter rail for an Express (more local people, ie. voters, on the commuters), and I can see them fighting over slots during the rush hours so they don't have to deal with it. And all it would take to totally mess things up for intercity service is for one state to have a budget shortfall, and all service would come to a crashing halt.

The NEC needs a single company/agency running the whole thing (owning/maintaining track, cars, engines, stations, the works). I don't care if it's Amtrak, M-N, or the Feds. It must be a seemless operation for the best possible performance, IMHO, where the primary consideration is the Express, not the commuter.

>P.S. Did they get this track when Conrail was
>split up, from another railroad (pre Conrail)
>or did they build it themselves?

I think they (MA, CT & NY) got theirs during the Penn Central bankruptcy proceedings. Amtrak got the rest of the NEC from Conrail...

Paul A. Cutler III
******************
"You know, I used to think it was awful that life was so unfair. Then I thought, wouldn't it be much worse if life were fair, and that all the terrible things that happen to us come because we actually deserve them? So, now I take great comfort in the general hostility and unfairness of the universe." - Marcus of "Babylon 5"
******************

[Anonymous]

Jason:

Sorry! Whenever I say (or think) Europe, I never include the UK... it's just habit. Mentally, I cannot picture GB / Scotland/ Etc as being European.

Maybe I should have said Continental Europe, aka France, Germany, etc....

[Anonymous]

The UK does have mortgages - I know I have got one.

We also have a tax system - I would much prefer to have someone in London set my taxes than someone in Brussels or Frankfurt!

Jason.

[Anonymous]

Well said, Ed! Just when I was about to post, and I read your reply. Bravo.

Especially on that last point. Herb, if you are reading this, the point is, just because everyone else does something it doesn't mean we ought to.

What makes you think the TGV or Shinkasen model will even work here? I should point out that the density in Japan makes the NEC look like the Sahara. THE most dense population in the world! No real freeways in the sense that we know them, and cars are mostly puny and underpowered... just as most city streets are not suitable for high or medium speed auto use, and cater mostly to pedestrians.

Plus, gas and oil are prohibitively expensive in Japan.

And conditions in Europe? Ok, point made. Nuff said.

When I started this circus with The First Post, (and please don't be offended- I consider myself part of said circus-) my entire point was that any solution MUST take into account the special conditions that only exist in the US.

Supply and demand are the rules of the marketplace. I cover transportation for a local market pub, and I worked this particular topic quite recently- air use is down almost 15% nationally, much more regionally. Only a few carriers are making profits or even covering their costs.

(Southwest is! Alaskan is!)

If the airlines are not doing well... it's cause there are too many flights, too many planes, too many carriers. Shut some down! Don't just hand them some tax dollars, pat them on the head, and say, "good boy, next time you make a bad biz decision, just call on Uncle Sugar"!

We should not reward failure.

So, too, for rail. If a route cannot cover it's OPERATIONAL costs, let it go... or let the local community decide if they want to make the social decision to subsidize it. But DON'T impose arbitrary political routes from the floor of the US Congress.

[Anonymous]

Herb,

I consider the funds for the highway system, including the Hound and the 'Ways share, to be comming from the highway users not from Washington. This is because the highway construction and maintanence funds are collected from user taxes at the pump. The sad bit is that the lions share could be handled at the state level if somebody could cut through the politics.

As most of y'all know, I am against all the subsidy funding on the federal level for transportation (again the highway money is not what I consider a subsidy) but when you hear the stuff like the $500+ million for African AIDS education mentioned above it makes the Amtrak stuff sound like small potatoes (Yea, with an 'E'). At least we get something for the Amtrak money.

But I think that allowing Amtrak to perform as a private organization will ultimately lead to the best passenger rail system because that is the best model for accountability. Without that, the system will never be required to improve to meet customer demand. As long as it is controlled by congress, it is just a social experiment.

I believe the proper thing to do in the short run is to get with the states and regionalize Amtrak. I believe there is a sincere need for passenger rail service in the NEC. But I think the residents of that area should bear the cost. I don't care what mechanism they use to collect the funds because I don't live in the NEC states but if I did I would want the cost to be substantially carried by the users. There is something to be said for the benifit to the highway users since this takes commuters off the highways, but I think the impact of this is widely overstated in this forum.

Based on the news about airlines and Amtrak, it sounds like we may have too much transportation in this country since the supply is greater than the demand. Maybe if one of the players gets out of the game the others will be able to stay in. In this respect, it is a bad time for Gunn to be thinking of playing his trump card.

Finally, I don't buy the argument that 'They do it in Europe and Japan and ...' We have different market dynamics in this country so we need to find the solution that fits us. Mind you, I am not saying that because they do it in Europe it can't be good for us. I am just saying that we need the solution that is best for the US.

Thanks for indulging me in a small sermon. - Ed

[Modelcar]

The last message was well said....and now Tues. 25th their saying the new window for Amtrak closure is July 8th...

QM

[Anonymous]

Up until the 1970s, there wasn't a user tax for airline tickets. All the construction before that time came from the federal purse. There are people who say the user taxes paid for the airports and runways, but they are wrong. Well, they have since the 1970s, but most of the runways and airport terminals were already built.....

Would it not be nice to have the federal purse pay for the infrastructure of high speed rail before the user fees kick in, just like the airlines?

Also today, United Airlines asked for another $1.8 billion.... Who says the airlines do not have their tin cups out?

[herbster]

Ed
Let me say I couldn't agree with you more about buses as a need. It a very important part of the overall system as they go everywhere. But your statement about buses not being fed. fund is not true, its included in the highway tax. So don't worry about your tax burdon those in Wash allready took care of that.
Who knows the answer? We all have opinion and ideas, but what they need to do is find a solulion. I read the paper and the headline read, AMTRAK MAY SHUT DOWN BY TOMORROW if they don't get 220 million by Wed. On the third page of the paper United Airline ask congress for 2.2 billion the stay out of bankrupacy. What wrong with this picture? Then on another artical Washington gives 550 million to Africa and someone else for HIV education and study.
I don't know the answer on how to fix it but to destroy it is not. We need a National Rail System run or overseem by the goverment, as a service. Other countries do it why not us.

[Anonymous]

Tom Chmielewski, the editor of this widely observed magazine, whose bandwidth we pervade is putting webcams on trains: a start, as I see it, to less crashing.
"Lousy" is an interesting choice of operational descriptives for transport systems, extant or proposed. Here's hoping that this missive finds you able to evade most of the travel faux pas foisted on an ever-enduring public by Congress through SpAmtrak and the roadbuilders.
John Bradley

[BRAKIE]

Ed,Very good reply! The Graydog and Trailways go everywhere like you say.Even places Amtrak and planes don't go.I dare say they are cheaper then going by Amtrak and planes.

[Anonymous]

Terry and several of you other folks,

Why are the choices in this debate always limited to Amtrak or your car or a plane? Why will you not consider using the bus? Busses go everywhere! If some of y'all would take a bus then they would earn some more bucks and I could have my tax burden reduced. Emissions go down, traffic goes down and everyone wins. I imagine the ticket prices are less as well but I haven't checked. I never heard of congress bailing out Greyhound or Trailways.

Sorry if this seems offensive. That's not my intent. Just trying a little straight talk. - Ed

[Anonymous]

Terry,

Why should I pay taxes to provide a passenger train option for y'all in the NEC (or anywhere else for that matter) when you are not paying taxes to provide one for me? If it is a right, as a public utility, then where is mine?

Sorry to have to be so blunt. - Ed

[Anonymous]

Alexander,

This thread is becomming a quilt.

Sorry, I don't have the capitol, but if I did I would consider in building a railroad. I am a civil engineer so I have some knowledge to contribute to the team. Later - Ed

[Anonymous]

Well, Ed, I agree that any fund administered by the fedgov is not as efficient... but consider this: Amtrak never had the financial responsibility to do this on thier own, and so lost nearly ALL of those (potential) funds. If the USDOT had imposed a system such as you described at least tha 80% would've made it back.... that'd be an improvement!

Always a pleasure. Want to start a railroad with me?

Alexander

[Anonymous]

Don,

All highway construction, as far as I am aware, is funded by taxes collected from highway users. Whoever told you anything otherwise was either uninformed or dishonest. I don't think the taxes charged on airline tickets cover the construction costs of airports, so that is a different matter.

Thanks for the cost data. I will take a better look at it when I have the time. - Ed

[Anonymous]

Alexander,

Let me kow what you think of this comparison:

If Amtrak were funded using the 'highway model' then beginning back in '70 every passenger ticket would include a 'User Tax' dedicated to raising funds for building and maintaining roadbed. This money would be forwarded to the federal government who would establish minimum criteria for a region to qualify for an 80% matching fund for new construction. If a region met the criteria then a project would be authorized for construction. Then the federal government would send some of the collected tax money back to pay for 80% of the construction cost. Why not all of the tax money? The federal government spent some of it running this new department and reviewing applications for the money.

This is why I think Amtrak should have set aside a portion of their own revenue to build it themselves; no losses due to federal government overhead. But if they won't do it on their own, then the 'highway funding model' could be used for Amtrak and administered by the federal government. This means ticket prices will go up!

Regards - Ed

[Anonymous]

John:

Tom C? Webcams? I must've missed something... care to fill me in?

On your other comment, yes. It makes no sense to offer an OPERATIONALLY (not capitally-) subsidize mode of ANY transport, just because "one (Congress) can".

NEC is a prime example. It can be, and in many places IS profitable or at least break even on OPERATIONS. This is all I ask. The infrastructure is another matter.

If the truth is that an air ticket would cost $4000 if it had to cover operational expenses.... then it should cost $4000! Why creat an artificial market? So we can subsidize my trip to Disneyland?

Reality is, someone, (namely Southwest,) would figure a way to scare up a profitable and cheap airline and prove everyone wrong.

Where is the SW for rail? As long as Amtrak is around playing boogey-man and holding onto it's monopoly, there will be none.

I am as certain that passenger rail can be OPERATIONALLY profitable as I am that any other business can.

Or maybe I should put it this way: In this country, of all countries, with our ingenuity, wouldn't it be strange if we could NOT make a profit running a few lousy trains? Or at the very least, not hemoraging to death doing so?

[Anonymous]

Alexander:
And so to payload sizing, at long last. Not the way it used to be: with subsidies keeping everything blimpie and scaring up the ridership for the engine. No more, please.
Now it's time to size the engine to the ridership and to put some eyes out there, as Tom C., et al are beginning to do with their webcams.
John Bradley

[Anonymous]

On that note, AP wire reports today were stating qoutes from the G-man that reform "along the lines of a transit model" (paraphrasing) would be welcome in his eyes. Largely Fed and some state Capital funds, all local operational funds. Ve-ery interesting.......

I could live with that!

[Anonymous]

Actually DART does not make money operationally. However, with the one cent sales tax as its foundation, we get one of the best bus systems in the country, and when the second phase of light rail is completed soon, one of the best commuter rails systems in the country too.

As I have posted before, if we were willing to spend $5 to $6 billion a year for high speed rail, we could have a pretty good intercity network in twenty years....

[Anonymous]

The high speed rail associations, and the engineering experts who are planning new metropolitan commuter lines, have mention the price of building double track rail lines as $20 to $30 million a mile...... At least that is how much it is costing DART to build its new electrified double track. Obviously, the experts have an idea how much materials, labor, land, and construction costs.....

My new high speed rail system suggestion includes new right of way from New York City to Chicago, Chicago to Denver, Chicago to Dallas, Chicago to Atlanta, Dallas to Atlanta, and Washington DC to Atlanta, Atlanta to Miami, and Los Angeles to San Francisco basically.... My Road Atlas says the miles are in order: 821, 1011, 928, 716, 792, 632, 661, and 380 miles. Grand total of new high speed electrified rail is 5941 miles....To make the math easier, let us round this off to 6000 miles..... The total cost is somewhere between $120 billion to $180 billion. Keep in mind that DART is building new track in a metropolitan area where real estate is more expensive. I dare say the feds would be building track in rural areas where the real estate will be cheaper.....

The House subcommitte passed legislation to spend $59 billion to build the new high speed rail on existing track..... However, in testimony before the Senate subcommittee, the President of the Railroad Association, the big four, CSX, NS, BNSF, and UP, told the Senate subcommittee not to build high speed rail on existing freight track, saying it would be UNSAFE and a NIGHTMARE to operate high speed passenger trains and slow freights on the same track.

The numbers are real! All that is needed is a will and a vision to build high speed rail! And of course the money! Over a 20 year period, all we would need is something like $5 to $6 billion a year.....This is just a drop in the bucket as compared to highway and airport spending the feds undertake.....

But you are right, We couldn't charge enough on tickets to spend this money......But somehow we spend more than this for highways and airports without expecting a dime back!

[Anonymous]

Terry:

Oh, where to begin?

I'll keep this short.

1.) Amtrak only is a serious drain on air in the NEC. The majority of air routes are not seriously threatened by rail, and so, the majority of airlines could care less.

2.) NASDAQ? Are we in a depression? Are people starving in the streets? No more than usual. We are still the largest, richest, and most succesful capitalist country.

3.) Oil lobby conspiracy???????????? I am speechless. Ok, by providing an analysis of the partisan sit, I may have asked for it... but lets keep this on topic.


4.) Air is in trouble. Yes. I agree. It received bail outs from Congress. It should not have. If a company goes bankrupt, it ought to be liquidated, not nationalized.

5.) Trains are efficient. Yes, they are, IF they go where people actually WANT to go. If not, then they are no more efficient than a horse drawn dogcart.

6.) Return of rail? Even in those places where large rail systems are being built- (and note these are not cross-country systems, but commuter and light rail, thus not comparable to Amtrak or airlines-) they still serve a MINORITY of passengers. Well over 80% of people still use the auto and the airplane.

Until something better comes along and competes the heck out of them, this will remain the same.

7.) As for trucking damage? This is due to one factor, and one factor only.... the interstates were NOT built to last this long!

(And frankly, should not have been built to begin with.... they created the very demand that now requires them.)

I hope I have not in any way offended you. I tried not to be harsh- rudeness solves nothing- but if I was, I apologize.

Alexander

[Anonymous]

Terry:

Sorry. Rail is not a public utility, as you assert. We gave up that idea about, oh, 80 years ago, whenh the USRA was disbanded instead of made permanent.

Will there be a major road impact in the NEC if it shuts down? You bet. Does that mean that the rest of the country ought to pay to subsidize that trafic flow? And a bunch of trains accross the rest of the continent that less than 1% of people use?

That's a question that Amtrak's critics and skeptics are more than willing to debate. Amtrak supporters, on the other hand, seem intent on putting their hands over their ears and yelling for more cash and fewer questions.

Whatever your viewpoint, the era of re-regulation and nationalization is over.

[Anonymous]

Thank you, Ed!

Why does it seem so hard to understand? It's not. Trucks and buses and cars ARE subsidized.... by their own taxes, which pay for infrastructure ONLY.

There is NO OPERATIONAL SUBSIDY for roads!

I see no reason why this model cannot be implimented in ANY mode.

Course, I also see no reason why this isn't clear to everyone.... you can't imagine how POd I get when people compare Amtrak to the local freeway. I wi***hat they WERE on parity but the are NOT.

Alexander

[mnwestern]

Alexander:
Read Gunn's lips — all Amtrak corridors lose money. The NEC is not a money-maker, but should it have to be. Think about the options. All those folks go back to cars on east coast freeways already jammed. Nice thought. Passenger rail is a public utility, and should be viewed as a necessary component of society like being able to turn on the water tap, flu***he toilet or the street outside your home. Few, if any, of those bring in money. But you wouldn't want to be without them.

[Modelcar]

Exactly correct...Scaled back service across the country just kept driving nails in the Amtrak coffin....If it's not there as a nationwide system, it will wither and die. Furthermore tax payers across the nation surely won't want to support it to benefit the NEC only...!

QM

[mnwestern]

Alexander:
Have you driven any distance on our Interstate system lately? I was on it this past weekend. Roughest ride I've ever seen. Here in the Midwest, most of the I's are nearing 50 years old and are degenerating back to the wagon paths of our forefathers. Most of the damage is done by the trucking industry which is not coming near to covering the damage it does through its licensing fees and fuel taxes.
Have you flown lately? With security check points on each end, the very good chance your luggage with be lost, rifled by airport workers, or sent to Bangor, Maine when you are headed for Salt Lake City, the prospect of flying is not very attractive. In the NE, the short flights have basically given up the ghost. They can't compete with Amtrak on the runs between Washington, Philly, New York and Boston.
As for the Bush administration's latest plan, have you wondered who benefits if Amtrak goes away under this bogus set of requirements? Well, oil companies would love to see those millions of train riders have to go to cars and stop at their gas stations. Oh, do you know Bush has ties to oil?
Or how about the airlines, drowning in a sea of red (they were already on a glide path to a financial crash long before 9/11)? Don't you think they would love to gain those former rail passengers (but for many, flying's cost eliminates that option.) Talk about a poorly run industry. Even with all the benefits state and federal governments bestow on airlines and airports, they still screw things up.
The trains are still the best way to move passengers efficiently (both fuel-wise and cost-wise).
Oh, and, yes, I do think the trend is back to railroad travel. Have you checked out the undeniable growth in light and commuter rail systems in our major metro areas? Or how about the growing view that high speed corridors should be established for intermediate routes (Chicago to Minneapolis, K.C., St. Louis, Detroit, etc., for example.) The extension of that would be faster long distance trains. What if the Empire Builder or Southwest could travel 120 mph over its entire route and go from Chicago to the West Coast in little over a day instead of two days-plus at a infrequent top speed of 79 mph?
My wife and I have gone to Washington D.C. twice in the last six years to visit relatives. We flew once before that —— and are unlikely to fly again and that is even with two family members as flight attendants for a major airline. We also have gone to Milwaukee from the Twin Cities area. There is so much less hassle than flying.
As for making money, have you looked as the NASDAQ lately? There hasn't been much money made there for two years.

[Anonymous]

When you say there are several NE states that own part of Amtrak, are you refering to the track or everything? Does Amtrak have to rent the track from the state the way they rent track from the major railroads? This is interesting considering my thesis that the system should be run by the benificiary states. - Ed

P.S. Did they get this track when Conrail was split up, from another railroad (pre Conrail) or did they build it themselves?

[Anonymous]

I suspect that if the service in the rest of the nation is suspended, then federal support for Amtrak is over. Then the NEC states, or the riders themselves, will have to carry the full burden. That is why scaled back service is never given much thought. - Ed

[Anonymous]

Are you being honest? Do you want to have the subsidies for Amtrak stopped but you want the highway financing system replaced by this private system you outlined? Do you realy think this proposed financing system is more efficient than the taxes collected at the pump and more equitable as well?

Do you also think that the subsidies paid to airlines are as appropriate as the subsidies paid to Amtrak and that these are superior to the fuel taxes as well?

There appears to be an intellectual disconnect here. The highway users pay taxes to build and maintain highways. If you don't buy fuel for your car, you are not supporting construction of the highways. All I am recommending is for Amtrak and airline users to do the same. Right now, I have to support the airlines and Amtrak regardless of how much I use it. There is no comparison to the highway funding model here. - Ed

[Anonymous]

But why? If NEC is so vital as earlier stated, ought it not continue?

Don't get me wrong... Cascades Corridor service is attractive and appealing, and I will be sorry I never got a chance to go to Seattle on board.

And I don't want the EB to stop either. But if that is what is necessary to keep Amtrak going in NEC so we don't end up with some kind of half-baked commuter crises, so be it.

Then maybe we'll have bought enough time for some debate on the Senate floor. Ok, maybe that isn't a good thing, on second thought...

[Paul3]

>A minority of us are saying let it sink or swim
>on its own. I imagine most of y'all know it
>will not swim.

I'll agree to let Amtrak "sink or swim" when everything else does the same. No car or fuel taxes to support the highway lobby, make every highway a toll road so that it could be a privately owned road (just like the 1700's). Airlines? No taxes for them either. Let the passenger pay the full cost everytime they fly. Rapid transit lines? Forget that $1 token. Let's jack that up so the rider can pay for the real cost of his ride, as well. After all, only those that use the system should have to pay for it, right?

Let's see how far I can go Libertarian: We should go back to the old days in firefighting, when no taxes were used to pay for fire protection. Private fire companies had to be hired if you wanted to save your house from buring. If you didn't pay, too bad. Because after all, you said "I believe the 100% private system is best..."

BTW, I do believe the British rail passengers would disagree with you about that...

>Nobody weeps for the buggy whip makers
>displaced by an automobile industry.

It's funny, but I do recall great hordes of people crying when a certain "big 3" auto maker was about to go down the tubes due to Japanese competition and their own shoddy products. Didn't some rich personage come around and bail them out? Oh yeah, that's right, it was Uncle Sam...

Paul A. Cutler III
******************
"B-52's: We take the 'fun' out of fundimentalism." - J. Ringo
******************

[Paul3]

>So the NEC states don't have to pay for
>even part of the system, but we do have to
>pay for part of ours.

Some of the NEC states actually own their parts of the NEC. MA owns the NEC in MA, CT owns from NY to New Haven, and NY owns from CT to New Rochelle. Rt. 128, Back Bay & South Station here in MA are all state owned. If nothing else, this relieves Amtrak of a large financial burden that would normally come out of Amtrak's pocket (see: Penn Station). Do the Pacific Northwest states do the same, or is it BNSF?

>As for the expenses on NEC, for one,
>electrification should have been dropped
>long ago for exactly the reason you state.

It is too expensive for all new catenary to be paid for by a single state (look at Rhode Island). However, it can be *maintained* by single states (see: CT and Metro-North).

BTW, the dropping of the wires would be a huge mistake on the NEC. Diesels just don't cut it in super heavy commuter rail, as the acceleration on a conventional diesel train is pathetic compared to a string of MU's. We're talking about a triple and quaduple track railroad here with very short headways. You may not be aware of the huge numbers of people who ride the rail to NY, but I assure you that electrification is absolutely needed on the NEC.

>Unfortunately it is the economies of inertia
>here.

More like the economies of moving large quantities of people to and from NY, Phila., etc. :-)

>And now with investments in Acela it
>garauntees at least another decade of
>overheads.

Try practically forever. The wire will never be dropped until someone invents "Star Trek"-type devices, as railroads are *the* most effective way to move mass quantites of people (provided they all want to go to the same destination).

Paul A. Cutler III
******************
"Finally, after months of delay, we have the administration's model for the future of rail passenger service in America," said Rep. James L. Oberstar (D-Minn.), his voice dripping with sarcasm. "It was not worth the wait."
******************

[Modelcar]

For my part, if some of it has to be shut down...I want it ALL shut down. I hope Gunn sticks to his "guns" on that one. As for Hastert, he impressed me with not caring very much at all what happens to it. Almost brushed it away.

QM

[Anonymous]

Well, the NEC will probably go last, as it has the most political support. However, Gunn says everything goes, all at once.

It is in the NEC that the most mayhem will occur... for most of the country, Hastert, (who I did not see this morning,) is right. There are no places, really, outside the NE that Amtrak cannot be replaced by something else.

Is the replacement something better? No, defintely NOT. Greyhound can't touch the Talgos to Seattle.... no doubt CalTrans service is better too.

But as long as the NEC stays running, how many people will really become concerned with Amtrak? There just aren't enough riders out there.

[Modelcar]

Passenger Rail's D-day is this coming Wednesday [26th]....according to our paper today. Wonder who's section of the country they will begin to shut down...? Denns Hassert [Speaker], just passed it off as no one's riding it so we might as well do away with it....Not much concern in his voice...Wonder if he does that when the Water ways, Airlines, etc. are in trouble and need attention. His reply to a question [Paraphrasing], on Meet The Press this morning.

QM

[Anonymous]

Don,

The conditions that existed back in the 1800s were different from those today with regard to new railroad construction. I am uninformed about the construction of Texas railroads so I can't say if it were good or bad that these were land grant roads.

The original (rail)roads built in this country were private ventures with only government charters to provide emminent domain privilages to the rail companies. There was a rudimentary transportation network for these companies to use to help them construct their lines. They even had barges and steamboats transport materials for them before they put those jokers out of business. Life is strange that way.

Out west, things were very different. Not only was there no existing transportation system, there was no labor, towns or anything before the railroads came along. I believe the reason the railroads were given land grants were to help overcome these obstacles and because the land wasn't worth anything to the US government either until the railroads were built. If you don't already have a copy, I recommend you read the book 'Nothing Like it in the World - The Men Who Built the Transcontinental Railroad' by Stephen Ambrose.

I also think there is a dramatic difference between a one time land grant and the annual payments being made to Amtrak with no end in sight. - Ed

[Anonymous]

Ed:

Our Portland light rail system is an example of your points.

We did NOT attempt to ake it private, and instead issued general ob. bonds and the like... never overwhealmingly received...

So what now? The latest expansion traded publicly held land leases to a private company in exchange for the private company, a SF based developer, building the light rail line to the airport?

Result? The design has many flaws, including no long term park & rides.... however, it didn't cost us more property taxes! I still think it's a ridiculous system but I am much more at peace with it for it's funding.

And now, altho some die hards will not let go of an expansion proposal, the future appears to be in- yup- commuter rail! You know, built on existing freight tracks, co-existing with them, not costing immense fortunes to build!

Privatization is certianly a lesson that we need to learn up here! But we're getting there.

[Anonymous]

Don,

I don't think we will every have the population density of Europe anywhere but in the NE. Americans love their cars and their space.

I still believe you need a certain population density to make passenger rail profits. The only places I know of in the US where it does make a profit, there is significant population density. Actually, your example of the DFW area is the only one I have heard that makes a profit. The NEC come close according to what I have heard but nobody outside Amtrak know for sure. - Ed

[Anonymous]

Don,

You are proving everything I have been saying.

1) Make it private.
2) Build only after a study shows the ridership is there.
3) Consider it part of a regional system and fund it that way.

I imagine the DART organization will expand further in your area. I think that is great. I wish Roger luck out in LA as well.

I would like to go back and point out one thing from what you said. Y'all built that DTW system which covers 32ish miles (?) for two billion. An earlier post said we could build a national system for $200 billion. This just doesn't add up. That is another part of why I don't think it is realistic to commit government funds to a new HSR Amtrak system. I think the cost would be so much greater than the $200 billion that has been thrown out that you couldn't charge enough for the tickets to break even.

Good story. I will use it to support my point of view in the future. Thanks - Ed

[Anonymous]

Well, the freight railroads very nearly did lose their traffic 100% to trucks.... right now, they only survive on captive traffic that cannot be easily moved to truck, such as grain and coal, and on traffic that is hard won against trucking... by competition.

As for land grants.... one could argue this proves the point of a partially privatized system, with a private operator and a public financier... however, even so, not all railroads received these land grants. It should be noted that during the financial panic of 1893, every major rail player went bus- but one: James Hill's Great Northern, which had not taken a dime in grant or subsidy.......

[Modelcar]

Correction...."aisle".

[Anonymous]

Define cheaply.... the price of construction today for general road construction has allready soared for us on the west coast... I can imagine what it must cost out there on the east coast.

I think your density prediciton is perhaps a little strong... maybe west of the Mississippi would be more precise, as I don't see most of Nebraska or Wyoming ever being that dense.

[Modelcar]

I'm thinking about the situation with Mr. Gunn as he came out of retirement to take on the task of Amtrak....Those in Congress who actually know something about the Amtrak situation i.e. how it might effect so many in large city areas [commuters in the N.E.] and even add to grid lock in the same areas on freeways may not want to pu***oo hard as if it all fails they will have to take the responsibility of it all...Or don't they care. This is an election year though. I mean those on both sides of the isle too.

QM

[Anonymous]

Oh, I forgot, the price of a ticket is $1 for a two hour train-bus pass, or $2 for an all day train-bus pass in Dallas County; however, when you cross the Tarrant County line on the commuter rail to downtown Fort Worth, one has to pay the T's fare which is also the same.. Therefore, you can take a train 32 miles for just $2 and if you want to come back you can take a train 64 miles for $4. Not bad, eh?

Too bad, Roger Snoble who worked so hard was stolen by LA....

[Anonymous]

The company already exists, the Dallas Area Rapid Transit and the Forth Worth T, the local bus and commuter rail systems. Unlike Amtrak, DART bought all of the abandoned railroad lines around Dallas including the former Rock Island extension from Fort Worth to Dallas on the northside of the Trinity River. Today both DART and the T run a commuter rail over the line with ever increasing ridership, on this line alone, up to 9,000 riders a day. In a few years, when the line will have a connection to the large DTW airport besides the connector buses they run today, ridership could possibly double or triple....

I read recently about the woes of the Sounder Transit in the Seattle area, and I have to admit that at least Dallas did something right with our local transit system. We hired the best, Roger Snoble , and he presented a starter plan to be built in 10 years, with an additional plan to be built in 20 years. It went to a vote of the people, and it passed easily, 80 percent.

The key to DART is the one cent sales tax in which a half cent goes for the buses, and the other half cent goes for the commuter rails. Everyone so liked the starter system, DART went to the public and again won with an 80 percent majority to hasten the second phase by 5 years with another $ 1 billion bond package. No one in the Dallas Fort Worth area thinks freeways are the answer anymore. No matter how much the government expands the freeways, from 4 to 6 to 8 to 10 and even to 12 lanes, they fill up as quick as you build them. So now they are building 6 lanes of turnpike, and hope as they raise the toll, they can keep the turnpike moving.... They are even thinking that they might change the freeways into turnpikes whenever they rebuild them again....

On the first of July, DART will have built the first part of the second phase, from Loop 12 on the northside of town all the way to FM 544 in Plano. DART has already built from SH 66 in Garland to Loop 12 on the southside of town, and from Westmoreland on the south- westside of town to Loop 12 on the northside of town. The second part of the second phase, to be finished in 5 years, will build a new line from I-635 and US 175 on the southeast side of town to I-35E and SH 190 (the new George Bu***urnpike) on the north-westside of town.... Pretty impressive for a $2 billion project of commuter rail. No one inside Dallas County will be more than 6 miles away from a commuter rail line.......

[Anonymous]

The point of the matter is the fact that the so called European density everyone wants to talk about today as being a negative against passenger rail in America is moot, in less than 50 years we will have the same density east of the Rockies......

The other point, is alike Europe today, in less than 50 years, actually it is becoming so in even less time, there won't be any airspace over America to build another airport, and if we don't get cracking soon, there won't be much land space either to build a freeway or high speed rail.....cheaply........

[Anonymous]

Presumably you think the private freight companies built their railroads without government subsidy. Every railroad built in Texas either received a federal land grant, a state land grant, or even a local land grant...

However, it didn't take long for the railroads to sell that land, did it? The railroads had to raise funds PDQ to pay off their loans....

If you ever decide to spend a vacation in Europe, please ride one of those cheaper than airplane ticket TGVs in France, you might come to another conclusion which form of transporation is modern and which is not.....If the automobile industry was so great, why haven't the trucks taken over all of the freight business by now. If you put your brain to it, you might come up with the same answer why airlines cannot replace a high speed train traveling 4 hours.......

[Anonymous]

The answer why should anyone not live within 30 minutes of a high speed rail station should be the same reason why should anyone not live within 30 minutes of a major airport (an airport with at least a Boeing 737 service), or for that matter live within 30 minutes of a freeway, not to mention today's Amtrak rail network...... I think you will agree many don't. Density is so very important. Not even the Europeans are attempting to place high speed rail within 30 minutes of everyone. Heck, it is hard enough to get everyone within 30 minutes of a paved highway... many in the West don't.......

It is the same with a lot of cities beginning to build light and heavy commuter rail systems. Commuter rails are not for everyone, but if they attract enough riders, it makes the way better for the rest of us to drive.....especially in the major population centers......

My proposed high speed rail network mention several cities, but I did not mean that those would be the only cities with stops..... There are a lot of intermediate stops in between.... However, with a high speed rail network, the stops should be the same as today, about 30 minutes apart..... of course today that means about 20-30 miles, with high speed rail the stops whould be at least 60-80 miles apart...Obviously, a train cannot average 150 mph if it stopped every 10 miles, now would it?

One has also got to get out of this 30-40-50 mph mentality.... A properly built high speed rail system will average 150 mph.... therefore, stops will have to be further apart, and people should be expected to ride a bus, a local train, or drive further to get onboard!

My suggest rail network included almost every state east of the Mississippi river except Michigan, West Virginia, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine......Just about every state of the Mississippi River are small, most of the people can drive out of their state in less than an hour or so....Furthermore most of the population of Michigan would be close to the high speed rail line running from New York City to Chicago to be WITHIN your 30 mile or so limit......And I would think the New England states could take a bus to Boston to catch high speed rail to get to Denver....as much as they would drive on a local highway to get on the interstate, for crying out loud......

Nevertheless, like new commuter rail system networks, after the starter plan has been completed in 20 years or so, I ain't against increasing the network to include more lines. When the US Highways were constructed originally, the routes went from 1 to 101, without any 177s, 277s, 377s, and 477s....Are you getting the picture????

[Anonymous]

Yes, I don't think Europes passenger trains make money which is why I scoffed at my own invitation to have the Europeans come over here and show us the way. As far as Gunn, yea, he appears to have some guts but I wouldn't want the Congress of the US on my back. Just ask Mr. Microsoft, Billy boy, how it feels to get Congress in a knot. Gunn may not even be in Amtrak anymore when they find their way to get their pound of flesh. And that's the way those bullies in Congress like it too. Just ask Judge Bork. - Ed

[Modelcar]

I doubt if Europe has very many profitable Passenger trains....and doesn't Mr. Gunn sound like he has pretty thick skin. What's he got to loose, I doubt if it will bother him much to have Washington paw on him...He sounds like a man that will fight for what he wants...be damned the Washington crew...

QM

[Anonymous]

As I have said, let Amtrak sink or swim on its own. If it doesn't swim, and the Europeans have the solution, I say welcome aboard. I don't think the US has the right ingredients for a profitable passenger system becuase of our high quality interstate highway system and the dispersed population. In short, if the ingredients are there, we won't need the Europeans to come in here and show us what to do. We have all the knowledge we need to do it ourselves.

The sand is running out of the hourglass. Although I don't want to see it, I think Washington will flinch first. But I also think they are going to take it out of Gunn's hide next time he is in town.

Ed

[Anonymous]

Your example of Amtrak in Texas is a perfect example of why the Feds shouldn't be involved. I doubt a business would have arrived at the solution Amtrak uses there.

Under the current law, could a private company build a rail line from D to FW (no 'and')? Is the only barrier the power of emminent domain? If the potential ridership is there, a group of investors could go before the Texas legislature with a charter to form such a company.

Is Oklahoma City a major Federal Government regional center? What about DFW? I suspect you could look at the location of Federal Government offices around CONUS and find a strong corrolation with Amtrak stops. Business isn't done that way. Regards - Ed

[Anonymous]

Paul,

I don't think anyone is chanting 'Kill Amtrak'. A minority of us are saying let it sink or swim on its own. I imagine most of y'all know it will not swim.

I believe the NEC should be funded by the passengers as would happen in a private system. Since I doubt the ridership would be adequate to make that happen, then let the cities and/or counties help support the system. Then the people who benifit from the system will essentially pay for the system.

I think the same with regard to the other portions of Amtrak. Either go 100% private or let the localities subsidize it.

I believe the 100% private system is best because all of the cost of the ticket goes back to the company to cover the costs. If you funnel tax dollars through the government, only a fraction gets to the train company. Since the government entity is not adding value, it is only a drain on the market efficiency of the transportation system.

I regret the possible loss of jobs at Amtrak, but that can not be anything but a tiny concern in this debate. Nobody weeps for the buggy whip makers displaced by an automobile industry.

Ed

[Anonymous]

I agree with Alexander; your argument is well formed.

In my opinion, the correct answer is to:
1) Have the Federal government get out of the airline subsidizing business and let them sink or swim on their own.
2) Disolve Amtrak. Allow any local government to pick up a piece if they can reach an agreement with Amtrak. I believe the Northeast US should enter into such an agreement with the NEC portion of Amtrak.
3) Clear the way or private entities to run passenger trains instead of government entities. If nobody steps in, then thats tough.

Amtrak could not survive politically if they don't appear to serve the whole nation. But the argument that connecting fifteen or so cites puts everyone within two hours of an Amtrak station is only a paper tiger. Why should so many of us have to live more than thirty minutes from a station. What makes two hours drive, or thirty minutes, the magic number?

I honestly think the best solution will be found after the Federal government gets out of the train business. And the solution may be to have none at all. - Ed

[Anonymous]

As I just said to Don above, I really never considered Amtrak's work on HSR serious to begin with.

And as long as Alstrom and Siemens and TGV are in business, they are going to be looking at new markets to sell their trains to.... and I'm betting that the US is the biggest, richest untapped market on the globe.

[Anonymous]

Unfortunately, I do not believe that Amtrak is that serious about HSR to begin with.

You site examples in Florida, Texas, California. Yet, in two of those three states, Amtrak's performance record on providing conventional service alone is horrendous.

Another person on this list pointed out earlier that Amtrak could have provided Dallas-Houston service and it would have been fairly succesful, considering the high population of those two locales.

Instead they chose to run a line to 500k pop OK-City.

As for your last comment, American Consortiums did exist.... in co-op with TGV, in the past..... if FRA can get off it's butt and get some safety standards written so they can finally rubber stamp TGV tech, then maybe these guys can get back to where they were, oh, what? A decade ago?

[Anonymous]

Paul:

I apologize, I wasn't clear.

The states out here don't pay for their trains 100%, which is the impression I inadvertantly gave.

Rather, the states have to provide a level of funding almost matching federal funds.

So the NEC states don't have to pay for even part of the system, but we do have to pay for part of ours.

As for the expenses on NEC, for one, electrification should have been dropped long ago for exactly the reason you state. Unfortunately it is the economies of inertia here. And now with investments in Acela it garauntees at least another decade of overheads.

Alexander Craghead

[Modelcar]

If Amtrak really does stop...and it is real...This will stop any reality of work on High Speed Rail. Out of sight, out of mind. The opposing forces will then accelerate the rhetoric of how we really don't need it, etc. In certain regions there is no more room to build more concrete and if they do it will be full in a few years.

QM

[Anonymous]

Sadly, the northeast corridor would have to come to a complete shutdown before Congress acts. However, what attempts to build high speed rail in Florida, Texas, and California would disappear too along with Amtrak.....UNLESS, ICE or TGV decided to move into the market......looks like will be the Europeans who will show America how to build a run a passenger rail network.......

[Anonymous]

I used to live in a home in Lawton, Oklahoma, with the Frisco train tracks not more than 30 feet from our back yard's fence. I know about train noise and the horn toots. Yet, somehow, I managed to sleep at night and watch television like any other child, although, when my aunts, uncles, and cousins visited, they were frightened......

Yet, the Dallas Area Rapid Transit light rail cars make less noise running over their new tracks in Dallas than a bus on a street........
When I rode the TGV in France, leaving automobiles on the autobahn as if they were sitting still, I MUST ADMIT THIS IS A WONDERFUL FEELING-BLOWING THE DOORS OFF THE CARS-there were a lot of noise repression walls(similar to freeways in some cities). There ain't no way to reduce the noise of an aircraft, but noise repression walls can reduce train noise some 90 percent.

[Paul3]

>I do not care if we fire Amtrak personnel.

I never put that forward as *the* major reason for saving Amtrak, I just pointed it out. This is about real people with real jobs, and we should realize this. Chants of "Kill Amtrak" are not productive...

>As for the NEC.... well the rest of us out
>here in the non NEC states feel a little
>p.o.'d that we pay for your bullet trains
>while the corridors out here like CalTrans
>and Cascade are subsidized by our state
>dollars.

Around here, it's a matter of neccessity, rather than choice. Are you aware that Amtrak carries more people between Wash. and NYC than all other modes combined? I, on the other hand, could get p.o.'d at everthing the federal gov't funds that doesn't directly benefit me. Imagine the years that would take just to list them all. :-) However, it is the federal gov't's constitutional duty to promote commerce and transportation between the states. It is the state's duty to promote the same inside their own state. And since the NEC runs through about 7 states and one District, it is definitely "interstate" and not "intrastate".

Besides, the infrastructure of the NEC is more than any one state can handle alone, especially considering the electrification cost...

And the problem of just "starting over" is, how is one going to force a deal on the freight roads if they don't want a "new" Amtrak? In 1971, we took a problem out of their hands. Now? They just want it dead and gone...

Paul A. Cutler III
******************
After you pull Mr. Pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend...
******************

[Anonymous]

Well, that might actually inconvenience enough Congressman to get them to pay it some real attention!

Alexander

[Modelcar]

Sorry, One too many QM's.

[Modelcar]

Perhaps not the "coming weeks"....but starting NEXT week....That's what Gunn is quoted as saying in today's paper [Indiana]. By next week, start pulling off equipment and head it for storage where ever that is. I just read a figure this week that 52% of traffic between Washington and points Northeast is handled by Amtrak. That would cause more than confusion.

QM



QM

[Anonymous]

Larry:

I agree with your comments on small town rail traffic complaints.

It all reminds me of Auburn, Washington, when the BNSF reopened Stampede. What did the city of Auburn do? They sued to try to stop the railroad from rebuilding what was rightfully their own property!

All the suburbanites who had moved into their new homes had thought the rail line in their backyards was inactive and adandoned.

Sometimes these governments are not quite on the ball.... after all, don't they realize how much more value their economies could generate possesing a rail line, than they ever could without? Either passenger, or freight?

Alexander

[BRAKIE]

Don,Yes,it is about 2-21/2 hours away from the named cities.For years they have been trying to get 1 local passenger train to run from Cincinnati to Cleveland,the ridership is there,Amtrak,railroads,and some small towns fought it for years.Reason? Amtrak said The ridership is not there.The railroad (Conrail,durning this time)said the tracks are not up to passenger train speed and we have alot of trains running that line now(true)and can not permit passenger trains.The small towns? The normal cry-To many trains already come though town.Yet some of these small towns have 1,000s of trucks/cars to pass though town daily-and they complain about the heavy traffic-go figure.

[Anonymous]

Rudy:

Glad your message finally came through!

While I agree with you that such an event is highly unlikely, (normally,) and undesireable as the confusion it may cause in many places could be damaging, it seems more likely to occur now more than ever.

It seems that Amtrak will not receive it's commercial loan... and the FedGov will not clear it for emergency Federal supported loans. Without something soon... Gunn is threatening to make the decision in the coming weeks.

Why is it you guys in Maryland are more critical of Amtrak than other NEC posters? What, is Acela service where you are not all it's cracked up to be, or sumptin?

Anyway, on shutdown, we shall see.... I am unaware of how much non NEC commute service Amtrak handles, as CA is CalTrans, (aka CA-DOT), and Cascades is WA-DOT, MD is MARC, VA is VRE, etc etc....

Nevertheless it would be very disturbing.... and we do not have long to wait to find out if your prediction will come through. If it does, it will be because Congress fins a way for passing emergency money to Amtrak.

[RudyRockvilleMD]

Alexander:
What I meant to say, before I inadvertently hit the "submit" button, was while I am not a supporter of Amtrak it will not shut down. The Cavalry will come to the rescue in the form of either a $200 million loan, a loan guarantee, or a $200 million supplementary appropriation. To close down Amtrak, even temporarily, is unthinkable because it would lead to chaos since Amtrak either runs passenger rail commuter service in many cities, or commuter trains run over its tracks.

[RudyRockvilleMD]

Alexander:

[RudyRockvilleMD]

Alexander:

[RudyRockvilleMD]

Alexander:

[Anonymous]

I agree that airlines reached their peak. They are not a dead industry nor will they go away or always remain totally unprofitable. But I would not be surprised if a major "rationalization" of the current system will take place in the next decade.

Meanwhile, investment dollars WILL be looking for other places to call a home... rail could be one of those places. But that CAN NOT occur as long as the market remains volatile, an undettled mess of old gaurd, status qou supporters and overburdening regulation.

However, I digress.

High Speed rail could work, yes. It would cost an amazing fortune, but it could work. Generally, I think that you are optimistic in your monetary predictions, especially if it is a government project. However.....

If it were to be implemented gradually, ala Talgo service up here, success might be more achievable. we''d have to get the Superliner/Bus mentality out of here though. Talgo technology (or Acela's similar tilt system) could easily adapt to current US mainlines, which could then be upgraded on an as needed, greatest ridership basis over a decade long period.

Heck, you think BNSF wouldn't welcome an extra, highest grade main track, Chicago to LA? And if Diesel or some other non-electric system were used, costs for implementation and especially maintenance would drmatically plummet. (Can you say golfball size hail?)

On that note, I would not entirely count the Admin out. We have seen nothing we have not seen before, true. Not yet,

But did you notice what I did, recently? Out at AAR Pueblo, they've got a Diesel-Turbine variation of the Acela power unit... in red and silver... it sports a USDOT logo and NO Amtrak lettering on it.... maybe they're hiding something up their sleeve....

[Anonymous]

Well, you and I DO agree that the O'hare project is a little, um, overpriced? Now just divide that $6 billon by the passenger load and find out how much those tickets really ought to cost!

Maybe the solution to that would be to actually charge the Airlines the landing slot fees that would cover the construction and maintenance costs. Then perhaps they'd be less inclined to have the government build their airports.

[Anonymous]

I did not mean that Oregon was dense, rahter the Portland Metro Area, and in that I also did not mean we are NOW dense but that we have, politically, attempted to force ourselves into higher density for the last twenty years. We are now at the point that housing prices are kept artificially high by a growth boundary, and buildable land inside this boundary is becoming fast scarce.

This is especially true of industrial lands... as a rust belt state these are of high value to us.... course that may not be wise as in tough economic times at these, we are first down and last up, as builders of durable goods.

On Texas, I agree. I do not know why Oklahoma rated and Texas did not. Politics no doubt but IMHO Oklahoma, (where I have numeroud cousins,) does not have that much importance to the nation to have that kind of pull.

[Anonymous]

Very sharp commentary all around!

I was about to suggest adding extra doors to the aircraft when I realized that extra gates would have to be built to serve them, etc etc..... how much cheaper a rail platform is!

I agree with you view of the political situation, as well as employer's views of air travel. Telecommuting may mitigate this some but not all.

Which brings up another point... most airlines, (if not all?) do not allow you to utilize laptop computers on board. This has never been the case in rail, and certainly one of the pluses of rail could be the provision of internet access, ala hotels, so that business could be conducted on board.

Also, as in Canada and Europe, overnight trains may be the most practical. It allows longer schedules and greater distances to be covered, and reduces costs in that no hotel room is required unless a stay is more than a single day affair.

[Anonymous]

Ain't Columbus within a couple of hours bus trip from Cleveland or Toledo? Not even the Europeans are attempting to build high speed rail everywhere, they are basically attempting over a period of twenty years, mind you as a starter system, to build the great box with extensions.... Paris to the Ruhr, the Ruhr to Verona, Verona to Marsailles, Marsailles to Paris, with extensions to London, Berlin, hamburg, Venice, Rome, and to Seville......

We haven't even started on a starter system, but if we build what I suggest, a local could run from Columbus to either Toledo or Cleveland, or even a local possibly through Cincinnati to Lousiville......

Everyone still thinks trains will run at 30 mph in the future..... Think a little more positive, and think that trains can average 150 mph:THE TECHNOLOGY EXISTS! Yet, everyone screams about a measley $100 billion over 20 years, $5 billion a year while O'Hare airport in Chicago wants this year, notice this year alone, $6 billion to reconfigure its runways, basically plow them under and start anew without having runways crossing one another..... And for what, a 20 percent increase in air traffic capability......with that much expended, you would expect at least a 100 percent increase in air traffic capability!

[Anonymous]

Sadly, I have to admit not much. However, having traveled quite a bit in Europe, using rail solves many problems with customs. Yes, a high speed rail network I suggest, which actually follows the high speed suggestions already declared, WITH THE MISSING PIECES IN PLACE, would be worth it for everyone... and it won't cost $200 billion, $100 billion is more likely.

The underlying truth of the matter is that the airlines have almost already reached their peak, as air space over the major cities is becoming a problem........From the long point of view, high speed rail makes sense, it will be another alternative, since most of us to not wi***o drive long distances on interstates and freeways filled with uninsured Mexican truckers......but that is another subject matter entirely.....

If you are a great rail fan, I highly suggest you fly to Europe, and ride the high speed rail from Paris to Lyons, or better yet, the high speed rail from Rome to Florence...... When you do, you will come to the conclusion most Americans have already come to: Amtrak as it currently exists, rates a 10 out of a hundred while the French and Italians rate a 99......

[Anonymous]

The NIMBY issue is very interesting, NO ONE wants a new airport anywhere near them, much less a new freeway servicing it. You consider Oregon dense, whereas I do not.

I live in the DFW area, notice in Texas parlance that no one here says anymore Dallas and Fort Worth----the AND has disappeared from Texas jargon. There are more than 5 million people living within 50 miles of DFW airport. Its the same for the Houston area. There are no bigger metropolitan areas in this country as close as Dallas and Houston without a direct rail link....And to think Amtrak thinks it is more profitable to run a local to Oklahoma City, a metropolitan area of 5 hundred thousand instead of Houston, a metropolitan area of 5 million .Furthermore, Amtrak thinks it is wise to run a daily through train to San Antonio arriving most of the time after midnight is folly beyond anyone's wildest dreams. While Houston might be the big port and petrochemical complex of Texas, and Dallas Fort Worth is the banking and warehouse center of Texas, the heart of Texas is Austin and San Antonio areas.....To say that Amtrak has blown it in Texas is not overstated.

[Anonymous]

While I did not intend to get into a discussion about aircraft, currently, while jets might fly as fast as 600 mph, economically they fly at 400mph or less (depending on the jet stream and wind direction). Yes, the new Boeing Sonic Cruiser is expected to change the situation, but the Concord does not fly economically faster than the speed of sound.

The reason why Amtrak does so well on the northeast corridor has much to do with the fact that the airports in that area are already at capacity, with no more room for more aircraft- in other words, they are already out of airspace.....

The advantage trains have over airliners is the fact that most of the passenger cars have at least two doors, if not four, whereas an airliner usually uses one....just behind the cockpit......
In Europe the fast high speed trains average length of time for a stop is 3 minutes, it would take longer for an aircraft to taxi to a terminal after landing.....In aircraft, all the passengers must be seated and seat belted in before the aircraft taxis from the terminal, while trains start to move as soon as the door is closed, long before the passengers have stowed their luggage.....

Getting back to aircraft, notice that the Boeing 777 and 767 are similar aircraft, wide bodies. However, the jet turbines on a 777 are much larger, thereby increasing the height of the landing gears, and causing terminals to build new gates, or improve older gates, to service this aircraft. This is one of the reasons why the Sonic Cruiser will incorporate the jet turbines into the wing instead of under the wing. While Boeing built the 777 with the Pacific in mind, the 767 was built for the Atlantic, to compete with Airbus.... Also, you are correct that hubs won't be as important to the airlines in the future as they have been in the past.The only airline currently turning a profit is Southwest Airlines, the one airline without a major hub or hubs....

But the key for Amtrak is not to concentrate on short lines in heavily condensed corridors, but to create fast long lines connecting the major regions of our country, in my opinion. There is no support nationwide for a government owned northeast corridor. If there is to be a government owned nationwide rail passenger system, it will have to be nationwide to gather any support in the Congress, especially in the Senate. The major population centers in the United States are California, Texas, Florida, the midwest and northeast. More than half of Amerca's population resides in these states. When you include the states in and between these major population centers, you can count on more than 75 percent of our nations population.

While Amtrak has addressed high speed rail, it has not done so seriously. Since no high speed rail network can compete with the airliners for California's service to the east, why try? Build a high speed rail link between its major population centers instead. Considering the difficulty of building high speed rail in mountainous regions, it would probably cost as much to build one line through the Rockies as to build all of the network east of the Rockies....

As I stated before, east of the Rockies high speed rail CAN and WILL compete with the airlines. However, there is no need to copy the current route structure, as we should be building a new high speed rail network averaging at least 150 mph. While businesses today will only support using Amtrak for a few hours, the range and speed of today's passenger rail traffic is very short indeed, that is, averaging less than 50 mph. Triple that average, and the distances traveled would be much larger, large enough for business to support rail traffic instead of only 4 hours today to maybe 12 hours in the future.

Also, the new bullet trains, on new track, will generate curiousity in the public, generating revenues far beyond what Amtrak sees today. Most of the people I talk to today, whether here in America or abroad in Europe, actually hate to mess with the traffic going to the airport, finding a parking space at the airport, going through security, the long lines everywhere, and then being crammed like a sardine into a seat too small for their butts. Everyone I meet on a passenger train likes too, the seats are larger, they can walk around, go to the diner, go to the lounge, etc., etc. The only thing they do not like about our passenger trains today IS THE VERY SLOW SPEED of their journey.

While I am not familiar with the east coast, liviing in Texas, I can tell you that most businesses consider the day a total loss to productivity when their employee has to fly to another city, whether Chicago, New York City, or Washington DC. It takes hours in a major city to get to the airport, hours sitting at the airport, hours actually flown, and hours to gather their baggage and rent a car at their destination....

[Anonymous]

Well, name any railroad that was doing well in 71. It was a cark time for business. Remember who was President then? One of the worst domestic admins in 20th century history. Price controlls on bread! C'mon!

So rail really didn't stand a chance in that environment. We're all lucky that we didn't get a nationalized freight system too.

We did Get Conrail... and that is an example of a successful privatization.

Yes the current admin did not jump on the rail issue. can you blame them? Less than 1% of the public uses rail, and even a heavy investment will result in a system that is still a minority player. There have been more important things to deal with than Amtrak lately.

And there is one major difference between "then" and "now" on privatization- no more ICC shoving political routes and price fixing down our throats.

I hope that some workable system emerges from this. Will it? Ha ha ha, that's the $200 bliion question.

But quite frankly I don't think the impact on the nation would be that great if passenger rail did disappear in this country. It's just not that relevant to enough people anymore. The High Line of Montana? Well, how much political clout do a few thousand people in a wilderness really have?

Exactly.

So unless a workable deal emerges soon, I think that we who like passenger rail, whether we think it should be private or public or a mixture of both, better get ready for a shutdown.

That and hope that our State Leg's can ante up to save at least some of the service.

Alexander

[Modelcar]

Privatization back in 1970-71 wasn't doing very well running our rail passenger service....Don't see anything that would make it more attractive to them now...Such as making money for them. This adminstration hasn't made many waves of support for rail passenger transportation that we've heard of. If they wanted to they could have done so many, many months ago. Now though, if somebody doesn't figure out support no one is going to travel by rail in this great country of ours...

QM

[Anonymous]

Hopefully not the wrong kind.

The status qou supporters have to be exposed as nothing but prok barrel bingers. Amtrak supporters would use a shutdown to try and tar and feather reformists and the Admin.

Course hopefully the Admin will hold tough... did you notice? Yesterday Mineta at DOT came out and presented the Admin proposals... for partial privitization!

Hallelujah! Now if only Congress would knuckle under so we get on with the 21st century instead of constantly reliving the 20th!

Alexander

[Anonymous]

....And will continue for years and years

Unless airliners become obscenely slow, or unless the public becomes fed up with transportation susbsidies in general, the Fed will continue funding airport construction & expansion.

In the case of the first, passenger rail would not be able to handle the volume. In the case of the second, then rail wouldn't get any Fed funds at all either.

[Modelcar]

Well, the Amtrak haters may soon get their wish according to today's paper. GM Gunn indicates he may have to start storing equipment by the middle of next week if some action regarding requested funding isn't forthcoming. If he must start to shut it down....we want ALL of it shut down....No NEC running. Wonder what kind of chaos and attention that may get...

QM

[Anonymous]

Sorry, but this is less and less so. The hubs are going away.

The only major hubs still around are St. Louis, Chicago, and Atlanta. But the rest are, one by one, fading away.

Why? Increased fuel efficiency and range means that flights from, say, New York to asia no longer need to stop at a west coast hub to refuel before humping over the Pacific. Airports on the Pacific Rim that built themselves up based on asian Hub traffic are becoming empty shells.

Newer technology is coming online which will only increase this effect. The Boeing Sonic Cruiser promises to make longer runs from smaller runways at faster speeds with greater efficiency. This is not just a pipe dream... this is the very real answer by Boeing to the Airbus A3XX superbus.

So while airports used to be hubs, those that remain will be a lonely few.... and will be, increasingly, local servers and not transcontinental hubs.

[Anonymous]

Well USDOT is supposed to handle all transportation issues. Norm Mineta heads it up now...

But leadership comes from either Admin (ie Prez.) or Congress. The first has more important things to worry about and the second has less important things to waste time on.

This is part of the reason a private enterprise solution would be desireable... no fetters from the feds, maybe we'd see more progress.

But none of this will happen until Amtrak is out of the way. As long as it's floating about there in limbo, half dead, half alive, no one will lift a finger.

[Anonymous]

True, the safety standards may be irrelevant, considering the TGV's safety record. but without the government safety stamp of approval they can't operate.

[Anonymous]

But keep in mind that TGV was going to buy the real estate and build the high speed rail lines in Texas....Now, they do not have to buy the real estate.....

As for the safety standards, who really cares? Bureaucrats? Has any TGV train derailed after twenty years of service. Nope..... I wish Amtrak could say the same......

[Modelcar]

I don't have any idea who or what organization may do it in the future...but someone better be thinking on HOW we're going to move people or our transportation system will become jammed so tight nothing will move as it needs to in many parts of this great country.

QM

[Anonymous]

Well, Texas has given up building freeways. Notice on a road map the new turnpikes around Houston, and the northern half of Dallas. There is even talk that when the TDOT rebuilds the interstates they will be changed into turnpikes..... Enough said....

[Anonymous]

Good luck. You guys down there might at least have the space to do it justice. And if Texas can prove it works, then maybe it'll expand.

Or maybe everyone will just move to Texas!

[Anonymous]

This is mostly an infrastucture issue... but you must realize the costs of producing such a system would be extraordinairy.... beyond reason. Just as the Interstate highway would not be built today at it's costs today.

One other thing is that the Interstates have fisrst priority... and are now falling apart, especially the bridges, which were not meant to alst as long as they have. They will suck up infrastructure dollars all by themselves for the next half century.

[Anonymous]

The governor calls it an infrastructure corridor, and yes, while he is aiming for the moon, we might get a satellite out of it after all. Not just a 6 lane turnpike, power lines, and 6 railroad tracks side by side, heck double track is hard to find in Texas, but more importantly new gas pipelines....it seems all of the old gas pipelines are reaching the end of their serviced lives, well, maintaining them has become expensive....

More than likely we might end up with a smaller scale corridor, with trains, probably double rail for passengers only. It seems the freight railroads are against public rail, they like having their little monopolies..... And yes, our governor is talking to TGV and ICE.....

[Anonymous]

A lot of the failure of Texas TGV also had to do with the lack of safety standards from FRA.

These still do not exist BTW.

[Anonymous]

And the airlone subsidies were wrong too.

We have become too reliant on this concept that we should have fast transportation between every where all the time at a low cost. well guess what? Everything costs something, adn we still pay for the ticket. We just pay for it in our taxes instead.

I do not find it palatable philosophically to be getting my plane ticket cheaper because Bill Gates' tax return is subsidizing it.

The idea of interstate systems and such are antiquated, FDR WPA style projects. This era is over. Boston's big dig promises to be the last public works project of a conventional nature to be built in the USA. (It probably still won't be finished a decade from now.)

Alameda Corridor is an example of a project model that could be successfully expanded.... a project which is based soundly on free market principles, not on socialized federal construction.

Well, regardless....even if you and i don't agree on this, I CAN make you one garauntee... you may not like it, but the solution you would like to see will not happen as long as Amtrak exists. There is no chance that Amtrak can morph into anything resembling a professional system of the caliber you wi***o see.

A new, from the ground up organization, designed to do those things? Yes, that could work. But it probably will not happend, and if by chance it did, it will not be a Federalised organization.

That era is over.

[Anonymous]

If Southwest Airlines had not of used its political clout in Ausin several years ago, TGV would have built a triangle of new high speed rail in Texas expecting to make a profit privately. i wonder why Amtrak and the Feds don't think so.......Our current governor is kissing TGV again currently......Our interstates have been taken over by uninsured Mexican truckers, our airports our out of terminal space and runways, not to mention air space. While it would be nice to high speed around Texas, most Texans wi***o vacation in Mexico, and there ain't no train going there. Amtrak's biggest mistake in Texas!

[Anonymous]

At least a train stops at small depots along its routes in the west. How many airliners you know stop at Green River, Utah, for example. Airliners and trains will never replace the automobile, but I have a feeling that we really haven't given the trains the opportunity to beat the airliners... What is needed is a high speed rail network, with a line on the west coast and a good basic network east of the Rockies. Denver-Omaha-Chicago-Cleveland-New York City ; Boston-New York City-Washington DC-Raleigh-Savannah-Miami; Savannah-Atlanta-Birmingham-Dallas; Houston-Dallas-Kansas City-Saint Louis-Chicago; Chicago-Lousiville-Nashville-Atlanta-Tampa; and a west coast line Oakland-Los Angeles....Within a couple of hours, bus or local train, three fourths of Americans would be living near a high speed rail line.....

[Anonymous]

Got news for you, the density issue is DOA. Enforced high density to support any transit system is a concept of the 20th Century and is not growing, but is in it's last, decadent, golden age.

We are the home of Density in Oregon... we have the "leading light" on New Urbanism issues.... and even those who helped write these laws are now on the other side, fighting against them. People don't want townhouses built in their backyards.... but that's another issue.

[Anonymous]

Ed:

That's great investment advice! Your DC analogy is perhaps the most pithy way of phrasing it I've heard yet!

Reasonable? Heck, i love trains, and I know that to be blind and just "wish it were so" will never accomplish anything. Except perhaps to waste more money.

I don't really know for certain if a passenger train can break even, or not. I think it's awful strange if this country can do so much in the free market but can't run one stinking passenger train wihtout subsidies. But maybe it isn't possible.

But we will never know if all we do is take knee-jerk positions and defend the status quo.

[Anonymous]

If they want to keep the NEC running they may begin to have to pay.....

The rest of the US States DO have to pay to get rail service. Cascades Corridor funding is 50% Washington State DOT Dollars. Likewise, CalTrans in California.

Matter of fact, the Congresswoman from WA was complaining last month about just that.... why does her state have to fund their rail but the NEC gets 100% Fed?

You'd be better off getting the state to fund it anyway. State leadership will be a better garauntee that the trains actually goes somewhere people want to ride.

[Anonymous]

Yeah, Amtrak had plans for the Mexico run, but ditched them. I actually was not aware that that many texans went south for holidays. I supose it makes sense, but forgive this northerner, (even tho he's got Texas blood,) but I always thought there wasn't much difference between Texas and Mexico anyway, except for about a hundred years of progress....

Your comments on routing are probably correct. Heard about the governor's recent push for a super-railway. Any thoughts on that?

Any chance the Texas Leg might morph that into something practical? After all, california has CalTrans running it's internal trains and they do a decent job. Texas is just big enough to make it work..... Think of what Southwest did for the airlines, but on rail instead.

Alexander in Oregon

[Anonymous]

I remember World War II. I recall gasoline being rationed at 3 gallons per week. No wonder the railroads profited.

Some say raise the fuel efficiency. Some say tax gasoline. But the clearest cut way to reduce auto emmissions is to ration the living daylights out of it...

[Anonymous]

The states of Massachuettes, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Deleware, Maryland, and the District of Columbia don't pay, why should an even larger state such as Texas pay?

[Anonymous]

Alexander,

Thanks for helping me carry the banner on this subject. I have been talking capitolism on this subject for a while and nobody seems to understand.

Regrettably, No. 3 is their top reason. I think the other two are just interesting filler for the 'debate'.

Funny thing about the comming interstate tolls, [I agree completely they will try and confuse us by calling it something else] that may be the mechanism that actually jump starts passenger rail travel in this country. I think they would have to do something about the low cost of buses before trains would have a significant share of the market.

Another friend of mine attacks the problem from a different angle. First he points out that federal grants got the transcontinental railroad started. So he believes the feds should pay for the construction of a dedicated passenger rail network. His other comment is, 'If you build it, they will come.' Now this is real sneaky. If the Feds did build it, at the staggering cost it would require, they would never abandon it and admit they wasted that much money, so they would subsidize it and hide the true cost any way they could.

It never ceases to amaze me that Americans will believe they can send a dollar to DC and when DC sends 90 cents back they have made a good investment. Just send a dollar to your locality and get them build your project instead. You get to keep the whole dollar and you don't have to do it their (DCs) way.

One other thing I would like to offer. I don't think the railroads made much money taking passengers out West in the 1800s. What they were doing was creating freight markets by having people out there harvesting raw materials to ship back East and creating a demand for goods out West.

Thanks again for being reasonable. - Ed

[Anonymous]

I beg to differ. The major airports are hubs, and about half the people that fly into them fly out on a connecting flight. So an airport does not necessarily support a locality......

[Anonymous]

I posted this as a starter system. But I am all for expanding the system later. I would love to see another high speed rail line from Chicago to Florida, and Georgia to Texas. When you include these, we are getting close to three fourths of America's population living with a couple of hours of a high speed rail line. We do need density for high speed rail to work....

[Anonymous]

I don't want you to have to support the airlines unless you use them. That's my whole point. I don't want to support them either. If the Federal government stopped supporting the ones that can't support themselves, then the overcrowded airways would fix themselves. In my opinion, an airport serves a locality. Therefore the locality could chose to support the local airport in order to support local business. But the Feds shouldn't be involved in subsidizing the air travel industry.

Which leads to my next point. If we can't stop the Feds from supporting Amtrak, the sickest little pig, then everyone else starts screaming 'Hey, where's my cut?' Then everyone goes broke supporting industries which are not earning their way. Next thing you know, we act like a bunch of Europeans; Socialist to the max and whining for the old glory days when we were a great nation while watching our standard of living plummet. No thanks. - Ed

[Anonymous]

Every solution y'all propose favors the Northeast. You insist on having Amtrak commuter service up there and then say we should add highspeed service to the West and Florida from the Northeast. That leaves out much of the country. Why should we pay into the plan when you are not going to provide us with commuter service and trips out West and to Florida? That is why it is a regional issue. Your region has the population density to make train travel realistic. I think passenger rail is great for the places where it makes (dollars and) sense. I seriously doubt you could build the rail network that would service the whole country for a reasonable price. Just have the riders pay the costs and everything works out the way it should. But remember, you need to pay the whole cost, operations and infrastructure. - Ed

[Anonymous]

There are over 20 million people living in the state of Texas, and Amtrak runs one daily train, Texas Eagle, north south route from Chicago and San Antonio. Amtrak also offers the trice weekly Sunset Limited, east west route from Los Angeles to Orlando. While it might look pretty good on the map, it is nothing really. The connection in San Antonio is in the wee hours of the morning. While Amtrak switches a sleeper and a coach car westbound, eastbound the Amtrak personnel wakes people up and throws them off the train. Keep in mind the station is closed, and there is no cover for bad weather.... Whereas Amtrak recently introduced a local, Heartland Flyer, to Oklahoma City, it is painfully obvious that the fools went the wrong direction. If anything, the congressmen from Texas should insist on a daily Dallas-Houston local. Considering that Texas has more population than New York, Amtrak's should beg forgiveness for its dismal ****-pour performance in Texas!

The Sunset Limited should also be routed from Houston to Dallas and west through Abilene and Midland-Odessa on its way to El Paso. Considering the fact that half the people of Texas vacations in Mexico, it would be a bright idea to run a long distance train from San Antonio to Mexico City! That is, if Amtrak wants to deliver vacationers to their destination!

[Anonymous]

Last year the feds spent just in the Transportation Department, notice not the FAA, $11 billion for new terminals and runways......We would be better off spending all of this on high speed rail......Keep in mind that was just for last year, this subsidy has been going on for years and years.

[Anonymous]

Haven't you notice that all of the airlines have their tin cups out, wanting billions for a bailout on top of the billions we pour into terminals and runways? Why should I support air travelers?

[Anonymous]

What Amtrak needs is its own high speed rail network. Forget the freight right of way, its a right of way of freight, not passengers.

A national plan, similar to the interstate highway system needs to be instituted. I suggest a high speed rail network of Boston to Miami along the east coast, a New York City to Denver route through Chicago, a route from the big state of Texas to Chicago, and a west coast line between the Bay area and Los Angeles to start.... A third of the east coast line is almost already built. Such a starter network, it can be expanded later, would get some sort of high speed rail nearby to at least half of America's population... I don't see a high speed rail as being feasible over the Rocky Mountains or the Sierra Nevadas.

[Anonymous]

I have to disagree. Amtak passengers buy tickets, some of this revenue Amtrak pays the private railroads for track access. Frankly, as much as Amtrak pays, Amtrak should expect priority in dispatching by the railroads. But we all know that you cannot spell stupid without U and P.

[Anonymous]

Quite frankly, the price of a sleeper accomdation should reflect the price of hotel food, besides the bed. Riders in sleepers get for free all the coffee, sodas, and bottled water they wi***o drink, chocolate mints and chocolate chip cookies too, not to mention fresh fruit. When I travel by rail I travel in a sleeper. It is worth the price.... being able to sleep in a private compartment instead of being in coach.....

[Anonymous]

Not only is Amtrak in trouble, so are our airlines, they are all going broke, and all of them with their tin cups out! Considering that last year the federal government subsidised the airlines with $ 11 billion, for new terminals and runways, a $ 1 billion Amtrak subsidy is just a drop in the bucket! Keep in mind that the our airports/airlines have been receiving this subsidy for years. The airlines received a $15-25 billion bailout last year to boot, and Amtrak can't even get $55 million to fix damaged rail cars which are desperately needed..... downgrading service is not the answer!

What is needed is a new plan, of high speed rail across the nation similar to the interstate highway system. It should be funded and operated by the federal government, and should resemble the French/German system with new rails only for passenger traffic, keep the slow freights off! If you think our major airports won't run out of airspace, look again!
They are near capacity already! Chicago wants the feds to revamp the runways at O'Hare with $6 billion of our tax dollars! This is just for one airport!

For less than $100 billion, spread over 10-20 years, America could have a high speed rail network, of new passenger only 150 mph track, linking New York City to Miami, to Chicago, and beyond to Denver and Dallas. Add a high speed rail link between the Bay Area and Los Angeles, more than half of our population would be within a couple of hours of high speed rail whether by a local train or bus. I doubt seriously whether it is feasible to build high speed rail over the Continental Divide.

Yes, high speed rail is the ticket. You only have to look how air traffic dropped dignificantly between Paris and Lyons. Airliners are slow to board, consume huge expenditures of energy to get to altitude, and usually fly at less than 400 mph for fuel economy, and bad weather disrupts air travel. I doubt seriously whether high speed rail would ever be better than air travel over long distances, but high speed rail can and should be reevaluated for the short distances.

The question remains how short? Many say for only a few hours, 3 or 4. I am of the opinion that a high speed rail network can compete with the airlines up to 12 hours, which is the average time of daylight.... 12 hours at 150 mph could get rail travelers from New York City to Kansas City, Denver to Cleveland, Dallas to Cleveland, and yes, New York City to Orlando.....

Yes, it is time to reevalutate rail travel. But the answer is what I described above, not a complete shutdown. There is no support in the Congress for just a northeast corridor Amtrak.... Some might think this could survive, but it will be dead on arrival......

[Anonymous]

I don't think that Amtrak supporters have enough political clout that their support is worth making a deal for... as you yourself stated, they are the "cranks and the fans".

I agree with your comments on visibility. I do not agree with issues on state fair share. If Mississippians do not want their legistlature to pay for trains then so be it.... and then get no rail service. Fair is fair.

We in Oregon are on Cascade Corridor Service. We have frequent trains to Seattle but only one in Oregon to Eugene. Why? Because the Seattle - Portland trains are largely paid for by WA State DOT. Oregon's Legislature does not put up the funds to pay for it's share of the project, so they only get the one Amtrak paid for Eugene train.

So be it. I disagree with the leg but that's life. If there was enough demand then there would be complaints in Salem and the funding would make it to the top of the ODOT funding list. But there are not enough people who want to ride a train between Portland and Eugene... so why would we want the Fed to waste money there? States are much better at knowing what their constituents want and use than a beltway bureaucracy ever will.

The only case where I agree with you funding comment is in long distance service. But Corridor service and Long Distance service are two entirely different fields.

Alexander in Oregon

[Anonymous]

Paul:

On this we cannot agree. I must respectfully submit that as little as I wi***o put Americans out of their jobs, I do not care if we fire Amtrak personnel. Why? Because I am heartless? No. But because the purpose of Amtrak- or any passenger system, for that matter- is not to provide employment. It is to provide transportation.

Businesses fail all the time. There is always a human cost in every aspect of human endeavor. This is no excuse to subsidize failure.

And if Amtrak is not providing astisfactory transportation, then it should undergo restructuring, or if that fails, liquidization.

As for the NEC.... well the rest of us out here in the non NEC states feel a little p.o.'d that we pay for your bullet trains while the corridors out here like CalTrans and Cascade are subsidized by our state dollars.

I do not agree with many of Mr Gunn's initiatives. I will, however, give him his grace period to settle in and maybe show some promise of making meaningful change. but if no such meaningful change occurs within the next year or two, showing that reform is possible, then it's time to get it over with and scrap Amtrak and start all over.

Respectfully yours,

Alexander Craghead
Portland, Oregon

[cbq9911a]

Common sense has been gone from the Amtrak dialogue for a LONG time.

First, the idea that states need to contribute "their fair share" is a non-starter. It means that Amtrak would be hostage to the state of Illinois (and other states which are gographically favored). If Illinois decided not to fund passenger trains to an appropriate level, the national network would collapse.

Second, a company, in any industry, needs to serve the customers. Amtrak has failed in that regard. Most notably by not providing capacity to serve the customers (i.e. not repairing damaged equipment), but also in little things. Things like timekeeping and food.

Third, if you're out of sight, you're ignored. The railroad industry has kept a low profile for so long that they're invisible. This means that the only people interested in railroad issues are the cranks and the fans. Amtrak's problems aren't an issue that people can relate to.

Fourth, in politics, you get what you want by making deals. You support my project, and I support yours. In this area, the President has failed. If he were willing to support Amtrak, he might get some support for the projects that he favors, but are not generally favored.

[Anonymous]

I see nothing "unrealistic" about train travel. What I do see is a society that is losing its ability to relax. We gobble down fast food. We don't get nearly enough sleep. And far too many of us, when we go on vacation, insist on either flying to our destinations, despite the stress of cramming ourselves into child-sized seats, and of running the gauntlet of airport security, because we're unwilling to take the time to get there any other way, or driving to our destinations, with all the stress of highway travel (where do you think road rage comes from), compounded by the need to navigate on unfamiliar roads. The only vacationers whose vacations truly begin while they're enroute are rail passengers and cruise passengers.

We are becoming two separate countries, in a way far more complete, and infinitely more insidious, than what led to the Civil War. We are becoming a country of a few major cities linked by the airlines and the "corridor" trains, and the "flyover" states, millions of acres of land that the urban half never truly experiences. Air passengers never get a true feel for the size of a country that spans four time zones, because they get from Los Angeles to New York in less time than it takes to take a train between Los Angeles and San Francisco. Those traveling by automobile never really experience much of the "flyover" states either, because they're too busy driving and/or navigating, and too concerned with taking the quickest route, and too tied down to the Interstate highways that rarely even go through the back-country.

Part of the problem is that, in many ways, we've made rail travel so damned inconvenient, and so poorly integrated with other forms of transportation. In Los Angeles, it can take an hour or more to get between Los Angeles International Airport and Union Station. Contrast that with Europe, where, quite often, there's a railroad station AT the airport. The closest I've seen in my own travels has been the BART extension being built to serve San Francisco International Airport (and provide a transfer point with CalTrain). What we need is to have air travel and rail travel (intercity, commuter, and trolley/subway/el) integrate as seamlessly as air travel and car rental are today.

The atrocities of last September, and their aftermath, taught us that we're entirely too dependent on the airlines. It proved that passenger trains are still very much a viable concept today. Not only are passenger trains not an obsolete concept: aside from the fact that it would be almost impossible for a suicidal terrorist to turn a train into a giant "Baka bomb," trains are also potentially the answer to road rage and air rage.

[Modelcar]

Well said Paul....and I believe the other gentleman is correct, Columbus is missed by the rail service as it has been moved north somewhat across that part of Ohio....but yes, there must be interconnecting bus service to it.

If Amtrak would be properly funded...service to many of the places now not having it could be worked into the system. We all know it has been underfunded since it's conception in 1971. Bashing "Amtrak" for all the Ills it has is useless...as structured now it cannot operate properly until it has the equipment and all the rest to do the job. We sure "fund" a multitude of other transportation methods in this country. Surely we're not too cheap to do the job correctly. Getting past politics is another giant problem for it too. And so on.... The new General Manager in place now is a man on a mission...If he can get whats needed to work with perhaps we can see some improvement in the near future.

QM

[BRAKIE]

Look real close and check the schdule and you will see a BUS not train takes you to Columbus.
I will stand by all my statements.Reason? Your answers sounds like you live by the NEC.I have never seen a Amtra***rain doing that fast around here.As far as the freight railroads having to let passenger train run their rails,not really.All of the major cities you named as amtrak service,again how about the ones that don't? Going to leave them with out passenger service?
People believed the big lie of 1971. No more lies of what amtrak says they can do.They had there chance.Kill amtrak.No more tax dollars.Not one copper penny!

[Paul3]

>I think the passenger train is dead.

Really? Must be my imagination running near my house at 150 mph. Must be those "fast" commuter trains of the MBTA... :-)

>I also think it is really not worth saving...

Easy to say when it's not your job on the block (not that it's mine either, just pointing out there would be a human cost to killing Amtrak).

>If they take the train,they will have problems
>in getting to most major cities as most is no
>longer have rail passenger service.

"Most" major cities? Like NYC, LA, Boston, Portland, Chicago, Philiadelphia, Washington DC, Albany, Atlanta, Augusta, Austin, etc., etc, etc. I was going to list all of them off of the Amtrak website, but there are just too many. The point is that there are few "major" American cities *not* served by Amtrak, certainly not "most".

>Try taking a train to Columbus Oh.Good luck!

Why? Columbus, OH, *does* have Amtrak service. It may not be very good service, but according to Amtrak.com, they have it...

>No,the great day of the passenger train is over.

Define "great". If you mean gilded Pullman cars with velvet interiors, that's been gone since, what, 1920? Earlier? If you mean sleeper service nation-wide, we still have it. If you mean the majority of passengers taking to the rails, then yes, you won't see that again. There are too many options compared to 1920. However, if you mean that railroads won't ever carry *significant* numbers of passengers again, I believe you are mistaken.

>Most of the great stations are gone in most
>major cities.

Really? More that 50% of all "great stations" are gone in more than 50% of major cities? Like Penn Station, NY? Boston's North Station? Sure, the headhouses are gone, yet the stations still survive. I'd love to see the numbers that back your claim...

>Yes,freight railroads still go to these
>cities.The question is will they allow
>passenger trains to use THEIR track?

They *have* to, it's part of the agreement that created Amtrak in the first place...

>Most of the freight railroads don't want
>Amtrak on their tracks let alone adding more
>passenger trains to run on their tracks,tying
>up their freight trains..

True. However, freight roads would be willing to host more passenger trains if the gov't provided more "incentive", ie. give them more money or reduce taxes...

>...I simply can not see a great exodus back
>to passenger trains...

I don't see this happening, either. However, the population in this country is not going to go down. Ever. More and more people will take to the air and roadways until it's traffic-jams-R'-us, all over. It's already happening here in the northeast. Public opinion and NIMBY's will block any expansion of either highways (ever notice that Rt. 95 goes around Boston? It was supposed to go through...) or airports (see the latest on Logan's new runway battle), but the tracks are already there, waiting to take up the slack.

Paul A. Cutler III
******************
He who lives by the sword, gets shot...
******************

[Paul3]

>Since it's a high center thing, do the
>freight roads have problems with high
>clearance cars, like auto racks, or high
>cube box cars? I assume double stacks aren't
>a problem cause when they're stacked, they're
>heavy.

Like what kind of problems? Overturning at high speed? I don't think so only because there aren't too many freight trains running at passenger speeds. Even those that do, it would have to be an extreme situation, IMHO, for a railroad to have a problem with an "as built" car overturning in normal operations. The consignee would have to have loaded the car with the heavy items at the top, and the lightweight items at the bottom (a good way to get *flat* lightweight items).

Now, during a derailment, high cofg cars would topple over like the bi-levels, but who cares? The freight doesn't mind if it get's bounced from side to side like a ping pong ball. Passengers, OTOH, tend to sue at this point. :-)

Paul A. Cutler III
******************
"...a line which ranked only 30th in size among American railroads, yet was
third in passengers carried. It is THE NEW YORK, NEW HAVEN, AND
HARTFORD." - J. Swanberg, "New Haven Power", 1988, pg 6.
**************

[BRAKIE]

I think the passenger train is dead.I also think it is really not worth saving,for the very reasons Rudy pointed out.If we do see a up swing in the general pubic in riding trains as they did years ago it will be due to the next round of kamikaze terrorist crashing planes into buildings even with all the security measures in place(after all who wants to be a kamikaze passenger on a hi jack plane?).Then 1 of 3 things will happen,1 They will drive(untill gas goes to $5.99/gallion),2 take the bus or 3 take the train.If they take the train,they will have problems in getting to most major cities as most is no longer have rail passenger service.Try taking a train to Columbus Oh.Good luck! Yet,the gray dog will take you there.
No,the great day of the passenger train is over.Most of the great stations are gone in most major cities.Yes,freight railroads still go to these cities.The question is will they allow passenger trains to use THEIR track? Most of the freight railroads don't want Amtrak on their tracks let alone adding more passenger trains to run on their tracks,tying up their freight trains..
While I admire and appauld your stand and cause for the passenger train,I simply can not see a great exodus back to passenger trains any time soon-unless......

[Anonymous]

Rudy:

Perhaps a solution to the pay as you go setup would be the RR fuel tax, which currently pays for debt reduction, (like that's happening!)

As for splitting the NEC track from operations? I think the point of that is to prevent messing with the books to shift capital fund to operational uses. How else could this be done? Maybe tighter auditing...

But just as the solutions that worked in other countries may not work in ours, just because an approach failed in another country, does not mean it would fail here.

[RudyRockvilleMD]

Alexander:
Here's my take on your questions, all of them good.
1. I don't think passenger rail service has been profitable since during WW-II.
2. The demographics in Japan or in the European Countries are far different from those here in the US. What works in Europe may not work in the US.
3. What's wrong with the ARC? Nothing; their is nothing wrong with trying to get accountability, however, their plan to split the Northeast Corridor into an operating company and an infrastructure company is and was DOA. Their plan is similar to the privatization of BritRail, which was a colossal failure.
4. The only people who might take long distance trains seriously as a primary means of long distance travel are railfans and so-called "white knuckle fliers." I agree the automobile and the airplane have given us both flexible and rapid travel. Most people fly on long distance trips because they want to get there fustest with the mostest, and most people drive because it is either the most convenient or the least expensive mode of travel especially for families. Further, very few business organizations will allow their employees to take the train if the trip is any more than 3 - 4hours
5. Some have complained about the government spending too much on highways an air tavel facilities. According to the Amtrak Reform Council's 2nd Annual Report to Congress any subsidy the motorists or the airlines may get (if they get any at all) is for infrastructure and capital improvement paid for from their respective trust funds. Compared to airline passengers or motorists user charges, railroad
passengers pay zero, zip, or nada for user charges

Rudy

[Anonymous]

Paul:

That's interesting info. I wasn't aware of how heavy the Bi-Levels are.... I guess all that aluminum and stainless fooled me!

I totally agree with you on the high centers.... I knew there was a point I had missed, and that was it.

A question, if you know the answer, (I don't):

Since it's a high center thing, do the freight roads have problems with high clearance cars, like auto racks, or high cube box cars? I assume double stacks aren't a problem cause when they're stacked, they're heavy.

Alexander

[Anonymous]

I think the theory behind paying for airports with fed dollars is two fold:

1.) Local munis usually can't handle the entire costs on their own, especially medium sized markets,

2.) Feds consider that it helps to build a system, so benefits the enire nation.

Oh, and one I forgot:
3.) It's another thing your congressman can bring back from the beltway to please constituents.

As for toll roads, BOO!!!! I know what you mean, tho, there has been a push locally in the PNW for them..... but I don't think they'll ever be on all interstates... heck they aren't getting good response here. Tolls are such an east coast thing, though I know of some in CA.

BTW they call this Roadway Pricing Stategies now, and not tolls. Trying to confuse us, i think.

Yes, trains will have to be at capacity. Yes, we probably won't see it anytime soon.

And on ads? I think Freight Roads are trying to get back some of the respect they used to have. Hey, my dream would be to see a combo of their advertisement and our passenger trains. Let them run them again!

(OK OK unrealistic. I can have my fantasies, can't I? At least I admit they are such!)

Always a pleasure, Ed.

[Anonymous]

Alexander,

I like trains a lot myself. I may take my family on a train vacation in a year or two. But I don't expect anyone to pay a portion of my expenses when I do go.

I have known for a while that we do pay for the airports, that is we all pay for them whether we fly or not. I only fly when my company sends me somewhere. I don't have a problem with a municipality (sp?) that elects to build a regional airport. I just don't think federal dollars should go to airports. My reasoning is that airports benifit the community, not the nation. National defense benifits the nation.

Highway users pay for their use of the highway. However, there is a legitimate debate regarding the portion of highway costs carried by cars vs trucks. I have been told that the trucks don't pay their share and I am inclined to believe that. BTW, the day is rapidly approaching when the government will tax us an additional amount for our interstate highway usage. Many places have special electronic toll collections to reduce congestion at toll plazas. This same technology will be used in the future to measure our highway usage and taxes will be collected soon after.

I think we agree that labor costs will have to be addressed if trains are going to compete for passenger travel. Another problem is that these trains are going to have to run at near capacity. This is going to require both a competitive price and quality marketing. I don't expect to see either soon. I did see a good advertisement yesterday for the freight railroads. I wouldn't have thought they would need to advertise.

Nice chatting you up - Ed

[Paul3]

>Again, I think it is mostly a speed thing
>that really gets Amtrak. That, and consider
>that the cars they pull are much lighter in
>comparison to freight cars, so they jump the
>tracks easier when jostled or traveling too
>fast.

They aren't *that* much lighter. Old heavyweights were approx. 1 ton per foot (85' long), and the first lightweight cars in the 1930's were only about 60 tons. Figure that modern single level cars are lighter still, but also consider that that long distance (LD) trains have Superliners, which are bi-levels (and are heavier yet). I guesstimate around 70 tons each (maybe more).

Freight cars are in the 100 ton class loaded. However, depending on location, up to 50% of the time freight cars are empty, and they only weigh 25 tons or so.

I agree with speed being a factor, but also consider the higher center of gravity the Bi-levels have compared to all other equipment. This leads to the cars toppling over during minor derailments were other cars wouldn't.

>Maybe someone more knowledgeable than me
>might know the percentage of accidents on
>Amtrak that are human error, and that are
>cause by non-Amtrak problems, such as track
>structure?

Technically, all railroad accidents are "human error". Either through direct or indirect means, somebody messed up somewhere everytime a train hits the ground. That false green signal caused by faulty wiring? Someone didn't inspect it, or used faulty wire to begin with. A sun kink derails the Auto Train? Someone didn't leave enough expansion capacity in the rail. A washout? Someone didn't put in enough drainage. Now, one can say these were "unforseeable" at the time, and that is true. But still, somebody made an error in judgement somewhere...

Still, I understand where you are going with this. But I think your question should be: "Of all the Amtrak accidents, what percentage were caused by Amtrak (it's employees or it's equipment) compared to those Amtrak accidents caused by other means?"

You'd have to have a list of all the accidents and consider each one. I do know that the worst (the Louisiana and Gunpow wrecks) were caused by external means (a lost barge operator and a stoned Conrail engineer, respectively).

Paul A. Cutler III
******************
Peace Is Our Profession......War is Just a Hobby - J. Ringo
******************

[Anonymous]

Loco ride along------ ???

Aw heck, good luck, these days, with all the security concerns. I guess they are justified and we'll just have to come to terms with that...

I DO think rail can compete with air in short corridors... does a really good job of it up here on the Cascades Corridor, one of the few ops that Amtrak does right, (And which I hope Mister Gunn isn't going to screw up by his reorganization.)

But that's a corridor with about 200 route miles or less between city pairs. On long distance? Eh. It's going to take a lot to compete with air for travellers who actually have to Get There fairly on time. The real competition is more with auto in short distance, urban corridors, and in super-long distance, cross country corridors.

You might want to go to (gasp) the site for Railway Age, and read what the AAR chairman said to Congress today. (I'll bet Trains.com will post it tommorow afternoon.)

The long and short of his testimony was "don't stick us with passenger trains without building capacity on our systems to accomodate it. Otherwise, your passenger trains will clog our system and force millions of trailers back onto the highways, which will make pollution WORSE not better."

Hope somebody up there was awake and listening.....

[Anonymous]

I totaly agree with you on issue #4. While I love to watch a train roll by I believe that traveling by train is totaly unrealistic. We have so little free time that we can't afford to waste it in tansit. After one gets off the train one must then rent a car, I know the same is true with jet travel, but at least you saved the time getting there. I would love to get to ride with the crew in an engine(a steam engine would be great also), but I can't imagine that droning along in a passeger car would be much fun. I believe that most Americans want the freedom to chose there own route and stop when they want to, or get where there going quickly. Let the railroads do what they do best; move frieght! What we as rail fans need is a locomotive ride-along program.

[Anonymous]

For the most part I agree with you Mike. Problem is most of those rail systems our cities build are in the wrong place and cost WAY too much to build and operate.

You see, most of them follow part of your suggestion- the subsidize side- but don't follow through on the other- privatize.

Oh, and Trolleys. That't the bitterest irony, cause it was usually the very cities trying to build them now that tore them out. "They get in the way of cars", "They clog the streets", "They're antiquated" etc...... And then proceeded to revoke franchises and chase out old tracks on trumped-up environmental charges that could easily have applied to their own sewage overflow problems.....

Oops! Not about passenger trains anymore! But if anyone reads this lives near the largest city in Oregon, you, too, know what I am talking about.

Thanks Mike! want to start a railroad with me?

Alexander

[Anonymous]

Larry:

You like asking questions but giving no answers!

To put a slightly finer point on it, Amtrak was doomed because of the big lie- as you said- that it could make money *running passenger trains on routes selected for political purposes* where the private rrs couldn't.

Do you really think Amtrak is dead tho? Dontcha think that congress will keep it limping along just so they don't have to really do anything about it?

BTW I titled this forum PASSENGER TRAINS, not Amtrak, just for the reason you point out- that they are not one in the same topic.

IF Amtrak DID die, only THEN would we have the debate you talk of. Before then, we are just the crackpots and the status qou is holy.

Auto trains would be a great idea, which would make passenger service more attractive. That, and a comprehensive terminal established at all major points, where you could actually rent a car!

Leave commute trains out: these are local issues. Intercity is the most likely- high speed aint gonna happen for a long time, if ever, but one thing that ought to happen in that feild is the FRA and the AAR need to develop safety standards for it so that private investment is possible at last. After all, the Texas TGV and Fox both went under because they could get no financing without first getting safety ratings from the previous Administration.

I still believe that we (taxpayers) should not pay a dime for ops, only for capital improvements. So if we need to build a new interstate system for rail.... flying junctions, superelevated curvature, quadruple track, full grade seperation, Positive Train Control, Electrification, (doesn't this sound a lot like NYC or Pennsy of 1938?) Then fine.

But I don't want to pay for your ticket to ride it.

[sooblue]

This isn't nessesarily a reply just an observation.
I think Government for the people by the people
demands that we do the BEST for the people as we do it, for ourselves. We should have EVERY type of transportation available for the people to use.
Every option should be well developed and balanced with each other.
Planes, Trains, trucking, buses, Automobiles, even Bicycles all have there place.
they feed each other.
In Mpls. we could have the northstar rail system
into the down towns of both Mpls. and St Paul
but you than need to have a way to get the people around the cities, buses, electric autos, bicycles, TROLLY CARS( oh for the good old days when the TCs had one of the best systems around )
It makes sense to me to have each major city running commuter rail and each city connected with each other with long distance rail.
When you need to get there fast use air.
short haul with trucks at every opportunity.
long haul with rail at every opportunity.
Use the car to fill in the gaps.
Not every one would make use of such a system but at least the options are there and a good percentage would use a balanced system.
Finaly, we ALL should pay for a portion of it because even now we all use what we have for a system.
privatize and subsidize to have the BEST.
after all it's for us and our children.

[BRAKIE]

Amtrak is dead.It died with the BIG LIE of 1971.That lie being Amtak could make money in passenger trains where the railroads failed.The day has come to put it to rest.May it R.I.P
Now,We need to look at passenger trains as a whole and ask these questions.What do we want the next passenger train to be? High speed? Intercity? commuter? Do we want it to serve a wider range of cities or just a select few?(many cities has not had passenger train service in years)Do we want more auto trains? (this maybe a plus in getting riders)finally,How is this to be paid for? The feds? The Feds and States? A special transportation tax ear mark only for passenger trains? (tax payers and Congressmen will LOVE that!) Put it in the hands of private industry? After all this,who will ride the train?Will freight railroads co-operate with this new rail passenger system?(Why should they?)

[Anonymous]

James:

With the exception of your comments about the trips through the Dakotas, or maybe your not-entirely-off-the-wall comment about that car commercial, most of you commens are more about urban transit than about passenger trains.

Maybe I should've made the subject more specific and called it "Long Distance Passenger Trains".

Anyway.... try this on for size:

If I want to go to Yellowstone, or Ranier, or Yosemite? I will have to take a car. With the exception of Grand Canyon you cannot travel most of the western sights by rail. Heck, if I want to go just about anywhere, i'll have to use a car. What about Boise?

Ok ok, I know what you'll say: who want's to go to Boise? True. (Kidding folks!) But the point is, cars are more flexible than rail in most corridors. You cannot toodle around the countryside in a train. You can see some of it, but you can't exactly hop over to this winery here, and go visit that old fort there, and take a side trip up to the waterfalls.

Just like you can't take a car up a trail, or to the top of Mount Whitney or Mount Hood.

And gas prices, even when they were high, are still cheaper than an air ticket. Granted, an Amtrak COACH ticket might be cheaper....

But the fact is that for the 99% of the country that isn't in NYC, Chicago, or LA, (you know, the flyover states...) the car will be the primary choice, whether you or I think that's a bad one or not.

Oh. And auto gas taxes are paying for the transit you ride.... goodness knows your tickets aren't. But that's another thread entirely.

So I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

Alexander in Flyover Country

[Anonymous]

> While you may like a break from your car, you
> must admit that, because of it's unfixed route,
> it is more flexible, and therefore will remain
> the primary choice for most corridors, and for
> most vacationers on a budget.

I admit no such d***ed thing.

Just because we have a more-or-less constant barrage of automobile ads promoting sports cars and SUVs as adult toys (like the one where a husband and wife are driving up a long, winding road to look at a house, and the husband, after looking down at the long, winding road, declares "we'll take it," without even looking at the house itself) doesn't make it so, and just because the open road is promoted as "freedom" doesn't mean one is particularly free while stuck in an automobile for hours at a time.

Simply put, driving is work. It demands constant attention, and precludes more than a fleeting glance at the scenery.

A microcosm:
For many, many years, I made the drive from my Orange County, CA home to Hollywood Bowl, two or three times a week. Under ideal conditions, it's slightly less than an hour each way. I spent a small fortune on gas and parking, but since I lived in the middle of a huge, gaping hole in the Bowl's park-and-ride system, I had little choice. When on-site parking became prohibitively expensive, I started parking in a shuttle lot, even though it meant driving another few miles.

True, I had the freedom especially when I was still parking on-site, to make a side trip to Tower Classics in West Hollywood on my way home, but with a large selection of classical CDs available in the larger bookstores, and through Internet merchants (and with my tastes growing steadily more esoteric), even exclusively-classical record shops have lost much of their appeal, and besides, even without the side-trip, I was arriving home more than a little bit frazzled from the drive.

Then, last summer, the price of gas went through the proverbial roof. The curtain time for most of the concerts I attended had been changed to half an hour earlier, making it feasible, at least for those concerts, for me to try taking MetroRail. I investigated, and found there was a free shuttle service from the Red Line station to the Bowl, and that if I paid my fares in tokens, my transportation would cost a fraction of what it was costing me to drive there and park in the shuttle lots.

After nearly a full season of taking MetroRail to the Bowl, I can safely say that I love it, and look forward to using it exclusively this season. It's cut my summer gas bill in half, and allowed me to completely bypass the worst of the traffic. I can spend my travel time reading the week's program, and (at least on the way up) looking at the scenery.

I still have clear, unpleasant memories of the days when "family vacation" meant "car trip to North Dakota." I remember hour after hour with little change of scenery. It wasn't as long as a train ride would have been, but on a train, I would have been stuck in the same seat for hours on end, unable to even get up and walk around. I remember hunting around for a motel, because we were hours behind schedule, and wouldn't make it to the one where we had a reservation. I remember passing through the Mojave Desert, by day, without air conditioning.

As to air travel, we mustn't forget that a typical rail coach seat is about the size of a first class seat on an airplane. While I've had occasional pleasant flights, I've far more often found that air travel meant spending time strapped into incredibly cramped seats, with tiny windows and food a starving Rottweiler would turn his nose up at. And that was before the atrocities of last September. Now, with the additional hassle of heightened security, air travel is an even more time-consuming pain in the backside than ever.

This leaves vacationers with three choices: Put up with the monumental hassle of air travel, or drive, or take the train.

Somebody else (possibly on the "Libertarian Doofus" thread, possibly on this one) came out against the idea of increasing fuel taxes in order to make the highways more self-supporting, and to make trains more attractive to travelers and shippers alike.

Why?

Whatever portion of the cost of highway maintenance isn't covered by fuel taxes and vehicle license fees ends up being covered by income and sales taxes. Why shouldn't we shift the burden of paying for highways onto those who derive the most benefit from them, and who cause the most wear and tear on them? Our air would be cleaner, and our shrinking petroleum reserves would last longer.

--
James H. H. Lampert

[Anonymous]

Ed:

I LOVE passenger trains. I also love steam. Am I crazy enough to think that the latter will come back? No. Or the passenger train? well... I might be that crazy.

The answer for the staffing issue on Amtrak is to eliminate staff. How many stewardesses (or whatever they are called now) per 747? 6? And how many passengers? 400?

As for maintenance, you got me there. No doubt passenger cars DO cost more to maintain.... and probably to build, too, with upholstery and carpet and whatnot.

Track, ballast, etc.... well these are in the realm, mostly, of private railroads. If you include them in the cost of your rail ticket, well... then no one will ride.

But guess what? Almost every dime of airport construction, of flight control, are comming out of your pocket, and mine. Airlines pay for "slots" to get in and out of an airport, and these are supposed to pay back for construction. But you can bet they don' come near the costs. Instead, the costs come largely from Federal Income Tax funneled through congressional appropriations, and through Municiple Bonds, which are paid for with property taxes.

Heck, let's not even count the 15 billion they got as part of a bailout for September 11th!

If you had to pay for the airport in your ticket, well, no one would fly either. And driving? If you had to pay for your interstate when you started your car..... well, you get the drift.

I really don't like airlines getting their terminals built on our dime, cause invariably terminals which are too large and too grandiouse are built... pork, anyone?

But I have no problem, *in general*, with funding infrastructure improvments. Or even with garanteeing loans for cars & locos. But I don't think that we ought to finance the staff and food and fuel of a passenger train. Operations should be paid for by the users, just like drivers pay for their own cars, gas, and tires. And airlines pay for their own fuel, airplanes, pilots, etc....

Rail is fantastic... but it definitely is not priceless. Only life is.

Alexander

[Anonymous]

Jenny:

Maybe both, .

Seriously, there are freight accidents all the time, but they are usually not as spectacular. Just last Wednesday, a BNSF train smashed through a semi in AZ. Fortunately, no-one was killed.

Again, I think it is mostly a speed thing that really gets Amtrak. That, and consider that the cars they pull are much lighter in comparison to freight cars, so they jump the tracks easier when jostled or traveling too fast.

But yes there have been a few bad Amtrak incidents... and the longer that these go on, and the more frequent they are, the less liklihood that Amtrak (or any other passenger system) will be taken seriously, instead of being a staple of Leno late-night monolgues, along with Tanya Harding and a certain former president.

Maybe someone more knowledgeable than me might know the percentage of accidents on Amtrak that are human error, and that are cause by non-Amtrak problems, such as track structure?

PS Jenny: have you askef Op-Lifesaver or your state DOT about getting signals on that crossing? If they are reluctant, a local fundraising push might help convince them there's local support and (token) local monetary support....

[Anonymous]

How does your state Leg feel about this? If you really want such a thing, it'll have to come from the state level, cause you and I both know there won't be any Federal leadership on this issue in our lifetimes.

It wouldn't cost a great deal to put together a very BASIC service.... but it'd have to come from the State. I think your two fatal flaw possiblities are IAIS- are they receptive? and Chicago itself... how do you get in?

No doubt Iowa is part of the Midwest rail whohaw?

[Anonymous]

Alexander,

Thanks for the information about freight revenue. It is very helpful in analyzing this problem. It seems to me that there are many more RR employees involved in operating one car in an Amtrak than are needed to run the double stacks. I understand that the typical freight runs with only an engineer and a conductor. Two employees per what, fifty or seventy cars? I don't know much about Amtrak but I would guess they need one employee on the train for every two or three cars in addition to the engineer and conductor. Since labor is one of the greatest expenses for the RR industry, they are going to have to raise the revenue generated per car above the $8000. I also imagine the typical passenger car needs more maintanence beyond the typical stack car.

I hate to keep going back to this but it needs to be understood. This neglects the cost of the track, ballast, grading, etc. I don't know how much the airlines get from the government for the airports. If they get anything then it is too much. The cost of the airport should be part of the ticket, in my opinion. But it appears to me that one major area for savings in the airline industry is they don't have to build and maintain any roadbed. I know they use a bunch of fuel per passenger mile, but not having to pay for roadbed skews the problem a good deal.

You are the first one here willing to talk serious numbers to analyze the problem. Many of the other folks here think passenger rail is priceless. - Ed

[Anonymous]

If it's routed right, an Omaha-Chicago corridor could work. It won't be the magnitude of the NEC or I-5, but it would be healthy. What kills Amtrak right now on its Omaha-Chicago run is that it runs south of all the major cities in Iowa (Des Moines, Davenport, all 3 college towns) since it runs on the BNSF line. It is possible that they could run some service through the center of the state on the Iowa Interstate (former Rock Island) single main, or possibly even on the UP east-west double main through Ames and Cedar Rapids. In terms of driving distance, Ames is closer to the capital city than Osceola, and the depot is still there.

Even if it only ran every other day, that would be enough to take care of all the Chitown freaks (me included) who populate this great state of mine.

[Mookie]

Alexander: I have really no thoughts either way on how to solve the problem, but you are right - as long as trains and cars/trucks travel on the same ground - there will always be problems. I know in some high traffic areas, they practically put up walls to keep the cars back - but this was a rural area and it had only crossbucks - no signals. They said it was early morning, very clear and no obstructions to his line of sight. Just probably had his head elsewhere and never gave a thought to a real train being on train tracks. But how will we ever help Amtrak if the basic human error isn't first corrected. You don't hear of many freight accidents - and I live in the heart of coal train country - but Amtrak is constantly hunting up the # of their insurance agent. Am I being too simplistic - or completely off the subject?

[Anonymous]

Jenny:

Do you mean, grade seperationg/singalization? Or are you referring to actually transfering road traffic to rail?

If the first, then, yes, I totally agree. And, BTW, I see nothing wrong with using 100% tax dollars to do this.

What is real crazy is we have a situation locally where a commuter rail system may be going on atop an existing, rapidly growing shortline freight route. And the city I live in wants to plunk two additional grade crossings in...... Singalized or not I think they're nuts.

As for the second option? In short run corridors, maybe you can get some cars transfered over, but you'll never get more than a minority percentage. In long run corridors, you probably could get a significant dent in trucking... but that's another topic.

Amtrak has such a high profile very time it wrecks into something because it wrecks into things all the time. This is mostly the function of higher train speeds. That trucker was probably used to pulling in front of trains all the time.... 30 mph or less freights... and misjudged the faster Amtrak train.

Sadly, even if every crossing were signalized, hitting vehisles will always be a fact of life for RRs.

[Mookie]

Gentlemen: Without getting too far into your discussion - I need to throw something very basic into your mix.

Amtrak lost another engine yesterday when the eastbound California Zephyr collided with a gravel truck (no serious injuries)just west of Omaha.

Another example of cars/trucks needing to get on the railroad track with the trains! Should this be a basic price of doing business?

[Anonymous]

James:

You might be right there. Passenger trains were often run as an example of what the road could do for freight routing, and as advertising, and also, as you say, for LCL/Mail/Express.

I don't know that it is necessery to REDUCE airline and road dollars to get Amtrak to parity.... unless you are just suggesting to keep overall USDOT spending the same, but re-allocate it.

Here is one of the benefits of privatization: Like airlines, you'd have a lobby group of insutrialists pushing against the truck.auto lobby and the air lobby, hopefully balancing out the distribution of funds. Whereas Amtrak has little or no pull, as the money they would theoretically throw around comes directly from those who it would be thrown at- Congress.

However i do not claim privatiziaton is the magic bullet. only that it might result in better rail lobbying.

Mm.. politcally oriented trains? Never! However, it is MY understanding that the Short corridors were more profitable.... speaking not of the NE corridor, but of Cascades and of CalTrans. (Course it's all realative... who really has the deinitive numbers, anyway? Probably not even Amtrak!)

While you may like a break from your car, you must admit that, because of it's unfixed route, it is more flexible, and therefore will remain the primary choice for most corridors, and for most vacationers on a budget.

Regards to the Professional Dilettante,
From an Amateur Troublemaker,

Alexander Craghead

[Anonymous]

Ed:

Love your last paragraph. Free market indeed! It seems strange that this country can produce some of the finest stuff on earth with the free market system, but can't run a decent train.

I think recently that Trains ran a story about Intermodal not making as much money per car as carload, since it's time sensitive, but was the fastest growing segment. To make money, you had to be both fast and run as high a volume as you can.

The estimate was a revenue of $8000 per "car" (well doulbe stacked.)

Now take a coach full of, what, 100 seats on a Superliner? that's make a ticket $80 per seat. Not too bad, huh? And on sleepers, with about 30 passengers, what? $300 per? Heck these prices are TOO low, for the most part. And service costs go down the more coaches you run. Seems to me service at least comparable to Airline travel is available at break even.

We just need to get these defeatists out of the Amtrak managment.

[Anonymous]

In the first place, even though the transportation system that is more energy-efficient than steel wheels on steel rails has yet to be invented, transporting passengers by rail has rarely been a profitable enterprise, anywhere in the world, at any time in history. There are, of course, exceptions. Japan's passenger trains, I'm told, are exceptionally profitable, and those in some European countries are marginally so. But Japan has a far higher population density than most of the U.S., and for the most part, its rail corridors and its population centers coincide.

So if passenger trains lose money, why did the railroads not only provide it, but compete with each other to see who could provide the fastest, most luxurious trains for the lowest fares?

Two words. Freight revenue. The passenger trains were directly subsidized by express and mail that ran in them, and indirectly subsidized by the fact that they were the railroads' principal means of selling freight service.

What changed?

Scheduled airlines and interstate trucking.
Suddenly, the railroads weren't competing so much with each other as with other forms of long-distance transportation that didn't have to bear the full cost of owning, building and maintaining their own right-of-way.

In the second place, from what I've heard, the long-distance routes are better-off financially than the shorter ones, but it's the shorter ones that are the sacred cows with Congress. Moreover, breaking long-distance routes into shorter-distance ones is a fool's pastime: long-distance trains can stop wherever it's convenient to build a station (staffed or otherwise), and many do a certain amount of enroute switching. So in effect, every long-distance train already IS the series of short-distance trains it could be broken down into.

Could Amtrak ever achieve a financial break-even? Maybe. Someday. Given better management, a completely healthy infrastructure, and less subsidies for air and highway transporation. But a self-sufficient Amtrak was never the goal of the Amtrak Deform Council.

So how would I reform Amtrak?

I'd recognize just how much federal subsidy goes into airlines and interstate trucking, and base any definitions of "self sufficiency" on that.

I'd renegotiate agreements for use of railroad-owned trackage, to create strong financial incentives for the railroads to send Amtrak trains through without unnecessary delay.

And I'd take a long, hard look at short-distance routes that appear to exist purely for the gratification of certain members of Congress, and either extend them so they have connections at both ends, or get rid of them.

As to people using railroads as their principal means of long-distance travel, I do. As far as I'm concerned, "vacationing by automobile" is an oxymoron; I vacation FROM my automobile. And unless I simply don't have the time to take the train, AND there'd actually be a time savings from flying (which now requires a somewhat longer distance than it did before the atrocities of last September), I really don't care to fly: the seats are tiny; the windows are tinier, the security checkpoints are a pain in the fundament, and the food barely qualifies as food, let alone coming close to what even the worst dining cars serve.

--
James H. H. Lampert
Professional Dilettante

[Anonymous]

Alexander,

I'm not sure we disagree on point one but maybe. I just believe that the lack of people who want to get into the railroad market is evidence that it is not likely to be possibly to make a profit. I agree completely that anyone who would go into competition with the Federal Govenrment is plain nuts.

I would be in favor of a passenger rail company getting tax dollars to build track if the taxes were collected from the users. There is the rub. Nobody wants to bear the cost of the track, either building or maintaining. Highway users pay gas taxes to build and maintain the highways. Rail users should bear the cost of the entire system; construction, maintanence and operations. My whole problem is that these jokers want me and everyone else to subsidize the train for their use.

As another aside, I read the article under the News forum on this site and a fellow said, "Passenger rail is priceless." Well, the next time he wants to travel on a passenger train they should ask him to pay $40,000 per mile for the trip. He should be grateful to pay this tiny sum to enjoy a 'priceless' experience. If Amtrak could only find these guys who think rail travel is priceless and charge them what they are willing to pay (can you say 'free market'?) they wouldn't need any tax dollars.

Later - Ed

[Anonymous]

Steve:

Can those corridors support enough traffic to work, tho? In the PNW, the Cascades Corridor (mostly) works, but look at the populations of the stops of just the Portland-Seattle Trains:
Portland (metro) 1,000,000+
Vancouver, WA, 150,000+
Longview, WA, 60k
Olympia, WA, 100k
Tacoma, WA, 500k+
Seattle, WA, 1,500,000+
All this in less than 200 miles of track.

Can say Omaha-Chicago provide similar numbers?

[Anonymous]

I'd like to chime in here with an opinion from a taxpayer and a fan:

Amtrak is pretty well down the toilet right now, but it is still an essential piece to our transportation system. I even put it on a higher level than the airlines (when was the last time you saw a train grounded by a terrorist attack or weather?).

Since it has been proven that cross-country trains are not economically feasible, I say that Amtrak (or whoever does the rails in the future) should break the routes down into segments. For example, the Zephyr could go Chicago-Omaha, Omaha-Denver, and Denver-Emeryville. The Chief could go Chicago-KC, KC-Albuquerque, Albu-LA. I also think that the Trak needs to get more involved with high speed rails. I for one would love to have a train running from downtown Des Moines straight into Union Station, instead of having to drive an hour to the nearest station.

Since we've brought up the subject of bringing back the old passenger trains, I wouldn't mind seeing the old C&NW Executive F running again.

[Anonymous]

Ed:

So we agree on most points but the first.

I would say, what business in their right mind would go into the passenger business in the 1970s, when not only passenger traisn looked antiquated, but rail itself seemed doomed as a free-enterprise feild? None, so Amtrak was formed to serve VERY political ends.

And later, even today, no third party company in their right mind would run trains for passengers as long as a government funded monopoly is around. Heck, how would they get trackage? Station service? FRA cooperation? Amtrak could just freeze them out of their assets and the big RRs would just laugh in their face w/o government backing.

There is only one other entity that could take on this project; the original railroads. This is something they haven't done basically because they have enough problems as it is getting back to where they used to be for freight.

If Amtrak goes away, things could radically alter... government contracted third parties, for example, could come in.....

As for subsidies? Yeah, I get you. I'd like a Jaguar XK8, doesn't mean that Congress ought to buy me one. And we don't fund aisling ships with government money either.

I DON'T have a problem with rail infrastructure getting tax dollars... it's just another road or terminal, different mode. But I don't like operational money going to these things. it is, however, a fact of life in all "alternate" forms of transport, from city buses to light rail to subways.

There is, of course, one more possiblity..... advertising, and the visibility that a passenger train brought to pre Amtrak railroads, is now on the minds of the Brass Hats at last..... maybe a certain four-letter carrier might take it under advisement that a few green and orange "streamliners" would make their companies a lot more visible...... and show off just how fast their service can be.....

[Anonymous]

Alexander,

I have been discussing this issue every time somebody puts it up and seldom do I get any answers.

In response to your first question; Can passenger rail make money in the US? My answer is 'Doesn't appear so.' If any serious investors thought so they would have built a passenger system to make the money. The absence of a private system tells me that no serious investors find any merit in the idea. And as others pointed out, the big railroads gave it up.

Your second question ... I agree. The economics of transportation in other countries is different from our own. That's why we should solve our problems with our own ingenuity. As an aside, it is partially because we have such cheap transportation that we enjoy a higher standard of living here.

I don't follow the ARC so I have no opinion on #3.

On #4, I suspect that if the government were to tax us enough then trains could become attractive again, but why would I want to be taxed so severly to make that happen. I am very sad that so many of my countrymen want others to give them a free ride.

Ed

[Anonymous]

Mike:

Yes. And many Amtrak defenders I see out there say "but train travel is priceless" etc. etc. but they forget that our wallets aren't priceless.

I think, again, volume is the cause. A jet plane MUST cost more to operate than an equivelant passenger train (or am I wrong????? Any pilots out there???). But Airlines can and do make OPERATIONAL money... enough that they can justify issuing stocks and bonds....

Course, goin from Mpls to Maryland would entail, what? three trains with two transfers?

Up here in the NW, the short distance corridors are much better- about $35 for Portland-Seattle. Portland-Vancouver BC was $75 or so... but again volume cuts in: there's only ONE TRAIN between Seattle and Vancouver, so anyone commin from Portland can't make a connection; they have to stay overnight, raising the trip costs by about $100 or more.

This distance could be driven in a day, even in bad traffic!

[sooblue]

I wanted to take my family on the train from Mpls to fredrick Maryland two years ago and Amtrak quoated me a price of 2600.00 round trip!
than last year I thought it would be nice to auto train it from maryland to orlando fl. 2400.00 one way!
long distance passenger travel or even intermediate passenger travel will never make a come back with pricing like that. There is no value to it that justifies the price.

[Anonymous]

I think for sleeper class, yeah. On a long distance. I wouldn't be surprised.... From Portland to Oakland fro two people it's $750.

[Anonymous]

It costs double to take the train?!?!?

[Anonymous]

Mike:

Part of why it used to be cheaper was because of ICC regs.... in other words by price fixing the market, the railroads couldn't make money at it, so they asked for a bailout.

However, another reason fares used to be lower was volume and competition. If you wanted to take that trip today, all you'd get would be one train daily, (if that!) via Amtrak.

In 1967 you probably could've taken ATSF, UP, RI/SP, CBQ/WP/ATSF, etc etc and there were probably more than one train per company per day! (e.g. 2nd class trains as well as limiteds)

IF there was enough volume fares would go down. IF IF IF.....

[sooblue]

I think you answered your own questions.
however! If long distance passenger trains could only survive with some kind of subsidy, from the government or from the host railroads, I think they still should be running. The fare should be cheap enough so that average family would be able to travel. Every one should travel by rail even if just once. I traveled from Mpls. to LA. in 1967. I WANT TO GO AGAIN but I won't pay 2000.00. I can get tickets for my family from the airlines for 1000.00 and I could drive out for less than 500.00.
AMTRAK, STOP TRYING TO MAKE MONEY!!
We have to start over and do it right so that we can take OUR kids on a train through this wonderfull country we call home.