Passenger Trains

[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