Passenger Trains

[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.....

[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]

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

[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]

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

[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]

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.

[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......

[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.
**************

[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...
******************

[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!

[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

[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.

[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]

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

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 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]

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]

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]

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...