Amtrak

[dthede]

QUOTE: Originally posted by donclark

I am of the opinion that Amtrak should shut down its transcontinental lines, and concentrate on HSR, Chicago to New York City, Boston to Miami thru Atlanta, and Oakland to Los Angeles... When these are built turning an operational profit, I would like to see a HSR line from Chicago to Houston thru Dallas, a line from Houston to Jacksonville, and a line from Chicago to Atlanta..... These lines will cut thru 27 of the 50 states.... with over 80 percent of the nation's population.....

And keep building and expanding the HSR system.... Most of these lines are less than 900 miles in length. A train averaging over 150 mph could do these runs in 6 hours or less.... Because of the shortened time, the same number of trainsets operating on these lines could provide instead of a daily service a twice a day service easily..... No more Cleveland departures and arrivals past midnight.... a train leaving Chicago at 9 AM could be in Cleveland by noon and in New York City by 3 PM. Considering air traffic and congestion at the airports, this might be competitive in time......and price.....

One thing is for certain, no one in Europe is calling for the elimination of their High Speed trains......

Interesting observations and imaginative thoughts! One additional thought and a conclusion to throw in the mix is: look at the airport hub system whereby it is "sensible" but not necessarily energy-wise, to ship people by air 300 miles in the wrong direction relative to their final destination, in order to get the numbers up at the hubs to make a plane load. Conclusion might be that an integrated system of road, rail, and air transport should be created. We are heading to that state, little by little, as the U.S. government becomes the owner of the roads, the owner of the rail lines, and the (effective) owner of airlines. Eventually, under one management "roof" it dawns on the entity that all these modes of transport must be consolidated, organized for what part of transport they do best, and balanced in terms of energy usage.
--Didrik

[dthede]

QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd

QUOTE: Originally posted by daveklepper

Bush and his transportation secretary should look at the situation immediate post 11.09.01 and ask what would have happened if Amtrak had not been around.

....

Take the Crescent as an example. Even with 5 coaches and two sleepers, the max capcy of the train is about 400. Considering just Atlanta to the northeast, Delta, Air Tran and USAir have over 30 flights a day, just to Phila. If you allow another 60 for NJ/NY and another 30 for DC, and 150 seats per plane, and 70% load factor that's 12,000 passengers per day or 30 train loads!

Amtrak can never be an emergency alternative to flying. Only the highways have enough capacity to do that.

....

And, I'd add that Amtrak will not be such an alternative so long as no one plans for it. Lack of planning is our forte.

Contingency planning in the event that air traffic is grounded for a substantial period of time, nationally or regionally, would of necessity shift traffic to the other means. It is obvious that shifting additional passenger traffic to roadways is one approach, but imagine doing so during critical, recurring, rushhours, especially at the rate of one person per vehicle. Now transplant that scenario to Washington, D.C. , L.A., S.F., NYC or Boston. Combine the scenario with a job-function-prioritized, "national emergency," seating plan. Under the right circumstances, people can use rail transport crammed in sardine-style (Tokyo style?) and perhaps begin to approach air transport capacities.

The thing to remember, of course, if that the rail infrastructure must be in place for any of that to work. Then, scheduling is next important.

The stupidity of the Amtrak concept of operations is that the infrastructure shared with CSX, etc., puts freight (things) always more valuable than passengers (humans). So Washington passengers will understand what I'm saying when I say that they might be able to escape Washington in a national emergency providing the freights don't have the northbound passenger trains bolixed up in the Alexandria yards, as they have for that last 10 years; or, provided the daily freights Eastbound to Syracuse, NY don't have the Lake Shore Limited creeping along at 20 mph for an hour, so that every 15 mintes that go by reveals the train to be 15 minutes later than before.

Aside from my simple and naive speculations about national emergency transport, though, simply list the alternatives. Estimate capacities. Do the arithmetic. That's when the scary part begins.
--Didrik

[dthede]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TRAINMANTOM

O.S.YOU DONT SEEM TO REALIZE THAT PEOPLE ARE SICK TO DEATH OF ALL THOSE OUTIN THE US WHO ARGUE A POINT WITHOUT LETTING ALL THE CORRECT FACTS ,OR ARE OF THE OPINION THAT WHAT IS GOOD FOR THEM IS GOOD FOR ALL .JUST BECAUSETHEY DONT USE AMTRAK NO ONE SHOULD BE ALLOWED .YOU KNOW WHAT I DONT WANT MY TAX MONEY USED FOR THE HIGHWAYSOR AIRWAYS NOW WHAT IS TOUR REPLY SIR

That seems to be a complete misreading of what O.S. was saying: you two may well agree. Some followup to clarify your respective positions might show that.
--Didrik

[daveklepper]

I think if one is really fair, one can conclude that the subsidy for the average long distance Amtrak passsenger is not any greater than the airline passenger and less than private plane operators. To me, the people who want to shut down Amtrak are guiilty of as much discrimination as racial or religious discrimination. There are people who cannot fly for various reasons. To shut down Amtrak, just because it only serves 1-1/2% of the population, is unfare to the people who use it. It means that these people are denies their rights as Americans to enjoy all of America and not just their immediate neighborhoods. I've discussed national defense, and yes troop trains were used extensively in the Korean war despite the existance of a strong airline system. I've discussed towns in the NW snowed in accept for Amtrak. But to me, it is simply that Bush is prejudiced against rail passengers and that holds for others as well. If the Canadians can support a well-run national passenger rail system, and generally it is well run and adequately funded, the USA should be able to do similarly, and from a cost reduction and organizational standpoint, David Gunn seems the best person to do it.

[klahm]

I was stranded in Houston on 9/11. Amtrak sold out before I could even think about using it. In the end, I just waited out the suspension and flew home, though driving the rental car back to Chicagoland might have saved me a day of time at the expense of much more frazzled nerves.

Outside the NEC, Amtrak didn't have the capacity to make any significant impact on strandees.

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by daveklepper

Bush and his transportation secretary should look at the situation immediate post 11.09.01 and ask what would have happened if Amtrak had not been around.

Are you seriously suggesting that Amtrak moved significant number of air travellers stranded by 9-11? Maybe in the NEC and it's branches, but the long distance trains don't have enough seats to even make a dent.

Take the Crescent as an example. Even with 5 coaches and two sleepers, the max capcy of the train is about 400. Considering just Atlanta to the northeast, Delta, Air Tran and USAir have over 30 flights a day, just to Phila. If you allow another 60 for NJ/NY and another 30 for DC, and 150 seats per plane, and 70% load factor that's 12,000 passengers per day or 30 train loads!

Amtrak can never be an emergency alternative to flying. Only the highways have enough capacity to do that.

If Amtrak's LD trains were not around post 9-11, Avis, Hertz et.al. would have had a few more rentals.

[Anonymous]

Again, I can only comment on the northeast operations: an airliner is faster - in the air. But, a train gets you to downtown NY City where you were trying to get to in the 1st place. This is how we had over taken Eastern Airlines, making them the #2 carrier of passengers from Wash. DC to NY. Amtrak became #1. When you take a flight you have to consider the travel time to the departing airport, how long you have to wait for the runway to clear your flight to take off, then, land. Once in NY, you now face a costly cab ride of 45 minutes, or, longer, just to get to downtown Manhatten.

The bullet train post: in japan, that's the Only train allowed to run on those tracks. We inter-mix freights on the rails here. and, that was something that had impressed the French RR visitor who had once come out here to see a high speed crossover we had placed into service (it was a French product). They couldn't believe the size of the American freight cars, plus, how we could mix freight and passenger service.

MagLev trains: Balt. to Washington was a contender for this train. A train that cost over $800 million per mile to install and could only shave off 8 or so minutes from our existing MARC commuter trains. Wow, there was sure a lot of rail "excitement, interest" for that train! We wi***hat kind of excitement would be directed at the existing Amtrak the country now has and try to improve on that!!

The MagLev train would have had only 3 passenger stations: Wash DC, BWI Airport, and Baltimore. So, you're going to drive through the already congested roads in this area to get to a major city's MagLev station, wondering how long you'll be tied up in traffic to get to that station, to board the MagLev to save a few minutes compared to the MARC train??

The MARC train makes more station stops = more convenience. Communities here have grown because of the MARC train (owned by the state but operated by Amtrak crews). I've seen it 1st hand where the small town of Odenton, Md has exploded in population, where this once little commuter stop has now had its parking lot expanded already 3 times (free parking still). BWI station now has 2 muli-level parking garages with a free bus shuttle to move passengers from the train station to the airport.

We'll just have to wait and see what happens in October - which is the start of Amtrak's fiscal year 2006.

[daveklepper]

Bush and his transportation secretary should look at the situation immediate post 11.09.01 and ask what would have happened if Amtrak had not been around.

[Anonymous]

Don,

You must take into account that the capital costs in that 900 mile corridor are higher for the rail line than it is for the airline. Assuming that no one gets a subsidy, all the airline has to pay for in terms of capital investment is the airplane, and about 20,000 ft worth of two runways, and maybe their share of each air terminal. The railroad has to pay for 900 miles of railroad. The HSR may actually be more fuel efficient than the airline, but their capital costs are a multitude higher. Plus the airplane will still get there faster.

There is a reason passenger rail plays second fiddle to all other forms of moving people. Rairoads are slower than airlines, less flexible than bus lines, and lack the individual freedom of the private auto. The only way around this is to use freight rail lines (hopefully only having to pay for incremental maintenance costs), and run the rail schedule in situations where the time factor is not critical e.g. sight seeing tour trains and/or the overnight sleeper trains (where it is better for the traveller to take eight or so hours in transit than to only take two hours by plane in the same corridor but having to embark/disembark at odd hours of the night).

That is why it is important to lobby for a retention of the rights of passage over the Class I rail network, and pinpoint those corridors in which sufficient tour passengers can make a go without the need for a subidy, and those corridors where a train can leave at a decent evening hour from one city and arrive at a decent AM hour in the next city at normal freight train speeds.

[coborn35]

It looks like this is turning into a political bashing thread. Personally I think that Amtrak should do more like Japan and make bullet trains. I think that would solve a problem.

[Anonymous]

I am of the opinion that Amtrak should shut down its transcontinental lines, and concentrate on HSR, Chicago to New York City, Boston to Miami thru Atlanta, and Oakland to Los Angeles... When these are built turning an operational profit, I would like to see a HSR line from Chicago to Houston thru Dallas, a line from Houston to Jacksonville, and a line from Chicago to Atlanta..... These lines will cut thru 27 of the 50 states.... with over 80 percent of the nation's population.....

And keep building and expanding the HSR system.... Most of these lines are less than 900 miles in length. A train averaging over 150 mph could do these runs in 6 hours or less.... Because of the shortened time, the same number of trainsets operating on these lines could provide instead of a daily service a twice a day service easily..... No more Cleveland departures and arrivals past midnight.... a train leaving Chicago at 9 AM could be in Cleveland by noon and in New York City by 3 PM. Considering air traffic and congestion at the airports, this might be competitive in time......and price.....

One thing is for certain, no one in Europe is calling for the elimination of their High Speed trains......

[Anonymous]

Geepers Wally...We could get a guy to run the sleepes, parlors, lounges, and diners. Hope his name is Pullman.

Mitch

[garr]

Amtrak was essential to a finite point on/after 9/11/01. But it is limited by its max capacity. Even if Amtrak could have/afford reserve equipment for such emergencies, it would still be limited by # of employees and track capacity. Not to mention the cost.

Jay

[daveklepper]

Again I stress the point that in a national emergency like what happened on 9 Nov '01, Amtrrak was proved to be essential.

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by O.S.

Don, that's more clarity than I've seen in many years. Your suggestions are congruent with the goals you set out.

Some minor observations:

1. Your rationale #1 is what is keeping Amtrak l-d service afloat. Political bacon for largely rural states, who figure that dropping Amtrak will be a substantial net negative, because the tax money it would save (if any!) wouldn't be enough to buy anything of equal value.
2. Your rationale #2 is basically the same as the National Parks argument. It resonates well with the suburban middle-class, and Amtrak marketing goes directly to this rationale.
3. The most difficult part of getting muncipalities to pay for the station will be in large cities, not small.
4. How would you propose getting around the losses on food and sleeper service? I don't think the concessionare can make money on it, even if the equipment was furnished and maintained without charge. How would you propose to enforce service levels? Concessionaires in places like airports, national parks, toll-road islands often have an enormous price-value spread and once in, seem to be cemented in place.
5. What about pension obligations? Could those that exist be severed into a separate funding mechanism?

OS

Not claiming any "bullet proof" ideas, but here are a few:

1. Maybe it should be OK to call it what it is, then!

2. Good point. When middle class America says they want continued Amtrak funding (as polls have shown several times) I wonder exactly which Amtrak they're thinking of?

3. I think maybe you can give the big cities and end points a free ride. The economy of scale probably makes them pretty effient as is. It's the lower volume places where you could get good bang for the buck. Also, you could set the stds. higher than current levels so overall svc is better and cost to Amtrak goes down.

4. You could do this two ways. One would be to charge sleeper operators a flat fee per car based on incremental cost to haul plus. This wouldn't likely attract an operator on many routes, but might on some. Operator might be able to balance summer traffic in the west with winter traffic to FL. The other would be to bid out the operations so Amtrak would be seller of service, but consessionair would be the supplier.

5. The pension obligations and Amtrak's "poison pill" labor contracts would only have to be dealt with once. Might be worth the short term pain.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by klahm

A few thoughts:

I ride Amtrak often for biz trips in the NE corridor, it being so much more efficient and productive than flying or (shudder) driving. But these are 60-to-200 minute ventures. It would be just as useful elsewhere if (a) the time frame were the same and (b) it were readily possible to reach my street destination from the station, either by rental car or public transport.

I used European railways similarly when on biz there during the '90s.

I doubt that I'm alone at this. Rail makes a lot of sense when the density of major metro areas is high and the connecting infrastructure extensive. Otherwise, it's not very practical (even in Europe, with the possible exception of TGV). The "car culture" has ensured this.

During the great blackout in '03, I rode Amtrak CHI-ALB, revisiting the stations on the Water Level Route that I passed on the Empire State Express during my youth. Seeing the weed-overrun and dilapidated was a real eye-opener. Though the Empire Corridor seemingly has the metro density, it appears to lack the connective infrastructure that it had in the days of the Great Steel Fleet. Hence, JetBlue thrives.

I frequently commute to downtown Chicago on Metrarail, passing Amtrak's service facilities. Most of that rolling stock goes to smaller, faraway places that I would never travel to by rail. Places I need to go, e.g., Cleveland, it doesn't, at least not at any biz-friendly hour, nor at any useful speed.

The political necessity of serving "everywhere" collides with the economic reality of limited demand for long-distance services through comparatively lightly-populated regions. Congress has denied this paradox for 34 years. That's why Amtrak is in its current state. If the Shrub's budget proposal can get Congress to think "outside the box" (doubtful), perhaps some good will come of it.

Many consider it heresy (especially politically so), but careful devolution of Amtrak from federal control to consortiums of states, with transitional block-grant funding, might well create a larger variety of useful short-haul routes that would provide better service at lower cost. California and Washington/Oregon have shown potential within an adaptation of the current Amtrak structure.

Perhaps such changes won't save much money. But I would wager that the money spent would move more people.

While these are some good thoughts, such plans would have to way way long term, since most states don't have any extra money to provide additional train service.

Like Oregon, Missouri and other states, they're having a hard time funding what little rail service they already have.

Even if they wanted to expand service outside of Amtrak, the fed's won't cooperate. They feds provide 80-20 matching on road and aviation projects, but become skinflits when it comes to rail. That's why there aren't as many thriviing corridors that we should have.

This group, the Midwest High-Speed Rail, which wants to modernize short-distance trains throughout ILL, WI, MO, MINN, IND, etc., says the Bush plan of killing Amtrak is shortsighted and will only hurt not help corridor development.

http://www.midwesthsr.org/promote_National.htm

They argue for an interconnected sytsem, which makes more sense than Bush's all-or-nothing "plan."

To get to the point the writer proposes, the feds should significantly increase its investment in short-distance and LD trains. The short-distance ones are the trains requiring the biggest subsidies, in the billions, for infrastructure, equipment, etc.

THe problem with the BUsh plan is it goes after the least-expensive part of Amtrak - its national trains. Bush's people blame those trains for all the problems when clearly the majority of subsidy goest to the corridors.

The LD trains are comparatively cheap - only requiring $70-$300 million to run the nation's 18 LD trains.

Like the highway system, a good and strong passenger rail system would consist of shorter runs, longer runs and higher speed runs. LD trains have a future in this as well as most of them have seen increases in patronage.

[Anonymous]

Don, that's more clarity than I've seen in many years. Your suggestions are congruent with the goals you set out.

Some minor observations:

1. Your rationale #1 is what is keeping Amtrak l-d service afloat. Political bacon for largely rural states, who figure that dropping Amtrak will be a substantial net negative, because the tax money it would save (if any!) wouldn't be enough to buy anything of equal value.
2. Your rationale #2 is basically the same as the National Parks argument. It resonates well with the suburban middle-class, and Amtrak marketing goes directly to this rationale.
3. The most difficult part of getting muncipalities to pay for the station will be in large cities, not small.
4. How would you propose getting around the losses on food and sleeper service? I don't think the concessionare can make money on it, even if the equipment was furnished and maintained without charge. How would you propose to enforce service levels? Concessionaires in places like airports, national parks, toll-road islands often have an enormous price-value spread and once in, seem to be cemented in place.
5. What about pension obligations? Could those that exist be severed into a separate funding mechanism?

OS

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by klahm

A few thoughts:

I ride Amtrak often for biz trips in the NE corridor, it being so much more efficient and productive than flying or (shudder) driving. But these are 60-to-200 minute ventures. It would be just as useful elsewhere if (a) the time frame were the same and (b) it were readily possible to reach my street destination from the station, either by rental car or public transport.

I used European railways similarly when on biz there during the '90s.

I doubt that I'm alone at this. Rail makes a lot of sense when the density of major metro areas is high and the connecting infrastructure extensive. Otherwise, it's not very practical (even in Europe, with the possible exception of TGV). The "car culture" has ensured this.

During the great blackout in '03, I rode Amtrak CHI-ALB, revisiting the stations on the Water Level Route that I passed on the Empire State Express during my youth. Seeing the weed-overrun and dilapidated was a real eye-opener. Though the Empire Corridor seemingly has the metro density, it appears to lack the connective infrastructure that it had in the days of the Great Steel Fleet. Hence, JetBlue thrives.

I frequently commute to downtown Chicago on Metrarail, passing Amtrak's service facilities. Most of that rolling stock goes to smaller, faraway places that I would never travel to by rail. Places I need to go, e.g., Cleveland, it doesn't, at least not at any biz-friendly hour, nor at any useful speed.

The political necessity of serving "everywhere" collides with the economic reality of limited demand for long-distance services through comparatively lightly-populated regions. Congress has denied this paradox for 34 years. That's why Amtrak is in its current state. If the Shrub's budget proposal can get Congress to think "outside the box" (doubtful), perhaps some good will come of it.

Many consider it heresy (especially politically so), but careful devolution of Amtrak from federal control to consortiums of states, with transitional block-grant funding, might well create a larger variety of useful short-haul routes that would provide better service at lower cost. California and Washington/Oregon have shown potential within an adaptation of the current Amtrak structure.

Perhaps such changes won't save much money. But I would wager that the money spent would move more people.

Interesting thoughts!

Something, anything, different at this point couldn't hurt, could it?

I think part of the problem with Amtrak is that's trying to be several different thing at the same time with little regard to how efficient it is at doing any of them.

Until you can distill exactly what Amtrak's mission(s) are, you never can get your hands around the problem.

The NEC is certainly a useful mover of people and competes for riders who have the option to drive or fly. You might define this "corridor Amtrak" mission to be:

-provide capacity in a congested markets
-aid in improving air quality in EPA non-attainment zones
-improve mobility
-cover short term variable costs

Hardly anybody argues the usefulness of the NEC (even McCain).

The long distance trains are another story. They currently do several things among them:

1-provide indirect subsidy to some parts of rural America
2-provide vacation opportunities for middle class america
3-provide basic intercity transportation
4-provide subsidized transportation for those who can't/won't go any other way.

At some point, each of these points has been used to argue against Amtrak, usually without any regard to the other points. But, the basic problem is that nobody has ever really defined what the purpose(s) of the LD trains is(are).

If it was decided that the mission of the LD trains was primarily #3, then you could restructure to accomodate.

Here's a strawman:

Have Amtrak operate a network of trains where they provide basic, no frills, coach service.

Have any town along the route that wants service own and operate the station (per stds. maintained by Amtrak)

Have sleeper/diner/food service be operated on a concession basis where consessionaire is responsible for service and equipment.

Investigate 3rd party ownership and/or maintenance of equipment.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by amtrak-tom

Garr - ummmm, not sure about the Amtrak/Conrail birth dates, I was just going on what was told to me by the employees I worked under when I was hired in 1979 with Amtrak. These guys were the former PRR, Penn Central, then Amtrak employees, and, about how they were then approached to join Amtrak or remain Conrail because Congress then still wanted a passenger service. One history note, when Eastern airlines was still around, they were the #1 carrier of passengers from Wash. DC to New York. Amtrak took that #1 spot away from the airline and this was before Eastern had ended its operations.

Tom,
As railroaders do from time to time they may have gotten their facts or carriers mixed up. They may have meant Penn Central, whose bankruptcy drove home the issue of needing Amtrak, or there may have been a further labor agreement at the time of Conrail's formation that may have lead to the question of Amtrak or Conrail for further employment.

On the question of funding...I would say that if Amtrak gets cut there should be a full disclosure on Federal funding that is provided to the air and highway industry for comparison. That way we can compare the apples to apples. Fossil fuels won't last forever. Just do a Google on Hubbert's Peak and see what's being said about what maybe the very last drops of oil. The wide open spaces out west won't stay that way forever either with the development of our civilization.

Mitch

[Anonymous]

Garr - ummmm, not sure about the Amtrak/Conrail birth dates, I was just going on what was told to me by the employees I worked under when I was hired in 1979 with Amtrak. These guys were the former PRR, Penn Central, then Amtrak employees, and, about how they were then approached to join Amtrak or remain Conrail because Congress then still wanted a passenger service. One history note, when Eastern airlines was still around, they were the #1 carrier of passengers from Wash. DC to New York. Amtrak took that #1 spot away from the airline and this was before Eastern had ended its operations.

[daveklepper]

Sure the "vast" majority of FAA funding is from user fees. But their spending so outstrips the subsidy for Amtrak that it STILL means the air passenger is subsidized at least as much as the Amtrak passenger. As as for private plane owners, they are even more subsidized. To shut down Amtrak is move exactly in the opposite direction from movement to energy independence for the USA and if Bush sticks to his plan he proves to me that the effort in Iraq was primarily to benefit oil companies and the Saudis and NOT to preserve Democracy. I had thought differently. But this, coupled with the fuel cell Hydrigen nonsense (again, it takes a lot more energy, electrical, to make Hydrogen, than you get out if) proves the point. Especially with the long delay of USA automakers introducing hybrids.

Whether or not Amtrak on a per passenger basis is more fuel efficient that all other forms of ground transportation is not the point. Although it is pretty efficient. What is important is its standby value in case fuel imports are cut for any reason whatsoever.

My own impression is that closing down a national railroad system, without a viable replacement that is truly national, would be more harm to USA security than all the communists in the USA ever did during the cold war or earlier.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by vandenbm

I seem to recall an article in Trains a few months back (sometime last year) that spoke to exactly what Don is asking about in regards to their fleet.

On a different note: After returning from a recent trip to England and Scotland I was so disappointed at what pass. rail travel is offered in the U.S. Now, I understand the very good arguments on size of the US vs England and infastructure currently in place. But still, it was so wonderful to be able to travel all of England and Scotland just with my backpack and shoes, no car needed!

To me it seems to be a real shame to have our country going backwards in my mind toward pass. rail travel. If anything it needs to expand, and I also understand the arguments toward what gets the funding first, but still in principle we need more rail pass. rail networks with more destinations that will appeal to all of us gas hogs.

I tried to counter all the arguments I would receive first, and mainly state my opinion on principle.

When comparing US vs the world in the field of passenger rail services, you must remember that all those overseas rail lines are either owned by the government or are private open access lines. We don't have that here. We are stuck with a privately held owner-operator oligarchy here. If we are backwards to any degree, it is in this.

[DSchmitt]

QUOTE: Originally posted by klahm

A few thoughts:

I ride Amtrak often for biz trips in the NE corridor, it being so much more efficient and productive than flying or (shudder) driving. But these are 60-to-200 minute ventures. It would be just as useful elsewhere if (a) the time frame were the same and (b) it were readily possible to reach my street destination from the station, either by rental car or public transport.

I used European railways similarly when on biz there during the '90s.

I doubt that I'm alone at this. Rail makes a lot of sense when the density of major metro areas is high and the connecting infrastructure extensive. Otherwise, it's not very practical (even in Europe, with the possible exception of TGV). The "car culture" has ensured this.

During the great blackout in '03, I rode Amtrak CHI-ALB, revisiting the stations on the Water Level Route that I passed on the Empire State Express during my youth. Seeing the weed-overrun and dilapidated was a real eye-opener. Though the Empire Corridor seemingly has the metro density, it appears to lack the connective infrastructure that it had in the days of the Great Steel Fleet. Hence, JetBlue thrives.

I frequently commute to downtown Chicago on Metrarail, passing Amtrak's service facilities. Most of that rolling stock goes to smaller, faraway places that I would never travel to by rail. Places I need to go, e.g., Cleveland, it doesn't, at least not at any biz-friendly hour, nor at any useful speed.

The political necessity of serving "everywhere" collides with the economic reality of limited demand for long-distance services through comparatively lightly-populated regions. Congress has denied this paradox for 34 years. That's why Amtrak is in its current state. If the Shrub's budget proposal can get Congress to think "outside the box" (doubtful), perhaps some good will come of it.

Many consider it heresy (especially politically so), but careful devolution of Amtrak from federal control to consortiums of states, with transitional block-grant funding, might well create a larger variety of useful short-haul routes that would provide better service at lower cost. California and Washington/Oregon have shown potential within an adaptation of the current Amtrak structure.

Perhaps such changes won't save much money. But I would wager that the money spent would move more people.

[#ditto]Sounds good to me.

[klahm]

A few thoughts:

I ride Amtrak often for biz trips in the NE corridor, it being so much more efficient and productive than flying or (shudder) driving. But these are 60-to-200 minute ventures. It would be just as useful elsewhere if (a) the time frame were the same and (b) it were readily possible to reach my street destination from the station, either by rental car or public transport.

I used European railways similarly when on biz there during the '90s.

I doubt that I'm alone at this. Rail makes a lot of sense when the density of major metro areas is high and the connecting infrastructure extensive. Otherwise, it's not very practical (even in Europe, with the possible exception of TGV). The "car culture" has ensured this.

During the great blackout in '03, I rode Amtrak CHI-ALB, revisiting the stations on the Water Level Route that I passed on the Empire State Express during my youth. Seeing the weed-overrun and dilapidated was a real eye-opener. Though the Empire Corridor seemingly has the metro density, it appears to lack the connective infrastructure that it had in the days of the Great Steel Fleet. Hence, JetBlue thrives.

I frequently commute to downtown Chicago on Metrarail, passing Amtrak's service facilities. Most of that rolling stock goes to smaller, faraway places that I would never travel to by rail. Places I need to go, e.g., Cleveland, it doesn't, at least not at any biz-friendly hour, nor at any useful speed.

The political necessity of serving "everywhere" collides with the economic reality of limited demand for long-distance services through comparatively lightly-populated regions. Congress has denied this paradox for 34 years. That's why Amtrak is in its current state. If the Shrub's budget proposal can get Congress to think "outside the box" (doubtful), perhaps some good will come of it.

Many consider it heresy (especially politically so), but careful devolution of Amtrak from federal control to consortiums of states, with transitional block-grant funding, might well create a larger variety of useful short-haul routes that would provide better service at lower cost. California and Washington/Oregon have shown potential within an adaptation of the current Amtrak structure.

Perhaps such changes won't save much money. But I would wager that the money spent would move more people.

[UPTRAIN]

Just to let ya know...If I hated Amtrak...why would I go over once a month and see it at 1 and 3 in the morning just to PHOTOGRAPH IT?!?!?!? Look at my site for the pix! [;)]

[UPTRAIN]

CONSERVATIVE HERE: I don't think Bush understands the importance of Amtrak to some people's everyday life. Maybe he and Gunn should ride cross country and let Gunn point out the problems that they are having. And if your gonna boycot Texas and everything Texas controls...DON'T RAILFAN BNSF. You remember they're headquarters are in FORT WORTH. I don't recken' yall thought of that...I better get my hind end outta here before I get pissed off...

[DaveBr]

Gentlemen; Would you think the Presidant would add a little more funds to Amtrak if
all the people would get together and start to boycott Texas and everything Texas controls?I see all these numbers on here,someone must have a number or come up with numbers if Texas were boycotted?Didn't the boycott against France hurt them a little or lot?Just a thought.....DaveBr.

[conrailman]

Today News Bush is giving another 950 Million to Asia and 150 to 200 Million to Poland, All this aid to other Country, plus the 280 Billions for the War. Spend all this money at home not over Seas? Bush gives 80 to 100 in aid to Different Country every year. [V][:(!]

[Anonymous]

I seem to recall an article in Trains a few months back (sometime last year) that spoke to exactly what Don is asking about in regards to their fleet.

On a different note: After returning from a recent trip to England and Scotland I was so disappointed at what pass. rail travel is offered in the U.S. Now, I understand the very good arguments on size of the US vs England and infastructure currently in place. But still, it was so wonderful to be able to travel all of England and Scotland just with my backpack and shoes, no car needed!

To me it seems to be a real shame to have our country going backwards in my mind toward pass. rail travel. If anything it needs to expand, and I also understand the arguments toward what gets the funding first, but still in principle we need more rail pass. rail networks with more destinations that will appeal to all of us gas hogs.

I tried to counter all the arguments I would receive first, and mainly state my opinion on principle.