Passenger Trains

[RudyRockvilleMD]

Alexander:

[RudyRockvilleMD]

Alexander:

[RudyRockvilleMD]

Alexander:

[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.

[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.

[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]

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

[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

[Modelcar]

Sorry, One too many QM's.

[Anonymous]

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

Alexander

[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]

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.

[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.......

[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]

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

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[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]

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

[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]

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 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]

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]

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....

[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]

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.