Passenger Trains

[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