Passenger Trains

[Anonymous]

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

[Anonymous]

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

[Anonymous]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Anonymous]

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

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

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

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

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

Alexander in Oregon

[Anonymous]

Paul:

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

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

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

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

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

Respectfully yours,

Alexander Craghead
Portland, Oregon

[cbq9911a]

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

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

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

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

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

[Anonymous]

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

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

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

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

[Modelcar]

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

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

QM

[BRAKIE]

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

[Paul3]

>I think the passenger train is dead.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Paul3]

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

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

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

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

[BRAKIE]

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

[Anonymous]

Rudy:

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

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

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

[RudyRockvilleMD]

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

Rudy

[Anonymous]

Paul:

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

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

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

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

Alexander

[Anonymous]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Always a pleasure, Ed.

[Anonymous]

Alexander,

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

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

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

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

Nice chatting you up - Ed

[Paul3]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Anonymous]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Anonymous]

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

[Anonymous]

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

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

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

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

Thanks Mike! want to start a railroad with me?

Alexander

[Anonymous]

Larry:

You like asking questions but giving no answers!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[sooblue]

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

[BRAKIE]

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

[Anonymous]

James:

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

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

Anyway.... try this on for size:

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

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

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

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

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

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

So I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

Alexander in Flyover Country

[Anonymous]

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

I admit no such d***ed thing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why?

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

--
James H. H. Lampert

[Anonymous]

Ed:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alexander

[Anonymous]

Jenny:

Maybe both, .

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

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

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

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

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

[Anonymous]

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

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

No doubt Iowa is part of the Midwest rail whohaw?

[Anonymous]

Alexander,

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

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

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