Amtrak funding

[mnwestern]

Has anyone commenting on the necessity of long-distance Amtrak trains actually been on them?

I have. Who were the other passengers? Yes, there were some railfans who would rather take the train and see the countryside and were in no hurry to be beamed to some far off land by a flying bomb.

But there also were many students headed to college or back home, taking the opportunity to study along the way or to see the world.

There were older people who, for health reasons, can't flyer, or who recall the golden age of passenger trains, and enjoy the opportunity to meet people. They can't drive long vacation trips anymore, and being trapped in bus seats for hours and for miles is not appealing.

There were scout groups whose cheapest way to get to a annual national jamboree was by train. Not only did it cost less, but it was a better learning experience seeing their great country through the train windows over a span of a day or two, than from 35,000 feet up for three hours.

There were families, minorities or economically disadvantaged who can't afford airline flights.
There were overseas visitors used to traveling on trains in their homelands who wanted to see the U.S. by train.

In some communities, such as those in North Dakota and Montana, Amtrak's Empire Builder is about the only public transportation available for a 100 miles or more.

So, yes, some of us can find other means of getting across country. I can still drive. I'm less inclined to fly after 9/11. Didn't like if before then and like it less now. But others will be left with few and any options. They will, in affect, become shut-ins.

If long distance trains are not needed, why then are they packed this summer, even with all the talk of a possible Amtrak shutdown? Seems the traveler may be speaking with their pocketbooks after all, guys. Tickets sales were up in late June and early July even with all the bad publicity.

You won't know what you're missing until you don't have it.

[Anonymous]

Terry:

No, we won't pull up the tracks. They'll still be there, the backbone of our freight system, as they always will be.

Yes, waxing the car, driving to the convenience store for an ice cream, maybe roaming one of the classic byways of the country... sounds really nice to me...

And if you don't like that? Then don't do it- that's what freedom's all about.

And yes, I am guilty. From time to time I stray... but I always try to get back to whatever topic a thread is supposed to be about.

So going back to Amtrak funding, I would say, the tracks will be there, and if people really hanker for passenger rail so much, do you think the RRs are just going to sit there and say, "wow, a new market. No, we don't want that."

And if no one is interested in that market, it's probably because we don't really want it that badly.

[Anonymous]

Well, i can give you one good example of the "just touch" concept. In the Cascades Corridor, there are two (or is it three?) daily trains between Portland, Oregon and Seattle, Washington.

Now 1/2 of those trains are (operationally) funded by Amtrak and 1/2 by Washington. (These are rough figures here.)

Now Portland is in Oregon, so shouldn't Oregon be paying a share? Well, maybe it ought to, but we don't. The Oregon Leg. has never seen a need for passenger rail (outside of light rail) and has refused to put up their half. This is why there is only one train Portland-Eugene, and fully funded by Amtrak.

Now, under the way I outline, there would be NO train Portland-Eugene. Good! Because we shouldn't have the Fed's bailing out our Leg's sorry butts. If we actually knew how little we got for what we gave to Salem, maybe the Leg would finally feel the heat to reorganize their priorities.

BTW the OR Leg is currently nominally Republican, but has been guilty of this oversight for the last 20 years. There really is only one party down there- the pork party.

I think you might also be concerned over, say, a train from Denver to Dallas that must pass thru the panhandle of Oklahoma- but then what if OK doesn't fund it any? I would guess that if there is no funding, there are no stops.

More serious might be a train from LA to Albequeque, but AZ doesn't kick in anything. That might be more troublesome. But if the ridership is sound between those city pairs, and if the tracks being used are Freight RR rights, then it may not be as big a deal as you might think. The only escess cost then would be in the extra time (labor) and fuel that would have to be shared 2 way- CA / NM, versus 3 way, CA / AZ / NM.

This might be more of a problem in the NE with so many states converging in tight quarters. But since the run is shorter there, it may not be that big of a deal.

The place this would be killer is for long distance trains. I do think they could still work, as faster scheduled, medium distance night trains. But I agree that the long distance train is not really very relevant to modern transporation systems. Too slow, and eats up too much equipment.

Alexander

[Anonymous]

Terry:

The main problem I have with your argument is that you are essentially extoling the social virtues of train travel. Trains are good for the community, good for the nation, build character, teach, etc...

That may be true, but it is also true of many other modes we no longer significantly support, like horseback riding and steam paddleboats. Some of them do survive because of what you state. Could long distance trains be good tourism tools? Sure, that's why American Orient Express and Rocky Mountain Railtours and Montana Daylight etc etc are in business, along with dozens of rail excursion and tourist railroad companies.

But these social arguments have nothing to do with a transportation system as a whole. They don't address efficiency or ridership or routing or cost effectiveness. People don't fly for social reasons. Some do drive for social reasons, and I guess there might be a few people who think riding a bus is neat and ride it for social reasons. But if it weren't for the ability of these modes to exist at a reasonable cost recapture rate, then these modes too would wither and die.

So I am not saying long distance trains are worthless, but I am saying that, at the speeds and with the methodology by which they now run, they are not significant contributions to passenger transportation capacity as a fraction of the national whole.

Regards,

Alexander

[Anonymous]

As a former officer in the United States Army, I forgive you for your cheeky response . . . this time.

[Anonymous]

Whkey,

Thanks for clearing that up. I thought you were advocating us converting AMTK into some modified European variety. I think that would be a huge mistake because AMTK would only be accountable to the US Congress. Since AMTK would be a small piece of the pie by comparrison, nobody in Congress would spend any time on it unless someone were seriously injured.

As I have stated before, Amtrak would raise their level of service if they were more beholden to the customer. Moving government involvement down to the states from the federal level would get things closer to that goal.

Consider the benefits of having the NEC portion of AMTK concentrate on providing service to NEC customers. Also, AMTK would only provide long-haul service to corriders which demonstrate demand. A fellow a while back said AMTK sidestepped the Dallas-Fort Worth area in favor of a smaller metro area to the north. An AMTK concerned about the bottom line and not beholden to a congressman would not have the luxury of making a fundamental mistake as that.

As far as handling 46 different states, my company does exactly that. We have offices which specialize in each state market. I have a special skill and I am particularly suited to working in the state where I have the most experience. If I am needed in another state, I go and assist someone who is a specialist in that state. It is something that can be overcome. I'll tell you something else, I like working for a state more than I like working for the Feds, which we also do from time to time. - Ed

[Anonymous]

Not only have I been on them but I worked for AMTK for 11yrs while on a leave of absence from the BN.Worked the Calf.Zepher and the Pioneer for the short time it ran out of Denver.Your talking a very small percentage of travelers who rely on AMTK long distance pass. trains.All I've been saying is that its time to give AMTK the funds it needs to run properly or put it out of its misery.

[Anonymous]

Ed,Do you in your capacity have to deal with the ICC? The FRA? The DOT? or any of the other myriad goverment agencys? Well anything that deals with interstate commerce or the conveyance of goods or passengers do.

[sooblue]

Hi,
what happens with the freight trains now?
If Amtrak was supported by all of us, improvements to the infrastructure could be done to facilitate smooth movement. We have yet to see (and admittedly may never see) what Amtrak could become given proper support. A long time ago the RRs gave up on passenger traffic. They couldn't wait to unload it and they did so with out thinking. They could have united togeather in that one part of thier buisness, it was money losing any way. Togeather and with the government lending support just like the Alamida corridor the nation would have had access to a complete passenger system instead of a broken down shell.
It will take a dissaster like running out of gasoline before new track will connect the cities and towns again. Until than yeh, the RRs can do their part and donate the infrastructure and help the people. Think of the PR for the first RR to stand up and say We'll help facilitate Amtrak.
Maybe "we the people" would give THEM a tax break
for being "helpful"
Anyway, If people would unite togeather with the same zeal 9-11 and Pearl Harbor brought on and focused that on our government "we the people" would make one heck of a diffrence. It shouldn't be Business telling "us" what we can or can not do or want, after all, name one business that doesn't ask "we the people" for help and support.
In this country, Thank God, all of us are subsidized to some extent. Put it into perspective, We give our taxes to our local, state and federal governments and we get every dime back in some way, even when some of our money goes over seas we get that back too. Maybe just in good will, so that when your son or daughter serves over seas they get treated better by those they are helping.
What's a buck now days anyway, It's not even backed by gold any more. It's only worth the price of the paper and ink and labor. One doller just may be worth more than one doller but a ten doller bill isn't worth any more than that one doller. It would be so simple to drop money all togeather but that's another topic on some other forum.

[Anonymous]

Um, the ICC was completely dissolved in 1995, so it is impossible for Ed or anyone to deal with them. It would now be the STB, who's current chair is Linda Morgan.

And if transit agencies can successfully deal with these agencies, as do state DOTs. I see no reason why a passenger rail system could not also. No one would suggest that transit or that state DOTs would be run better from DC!

[Anonymous]

Mike , Sounds good but not really posible without a very sizable dollar cost.Remember the RR's are in the frieght moving business.Can give you a few examples if you want.A couple of weeks ago I was operating the Chi-Den Z9-train with a sizable UPS trailer load which is on the BNSF's guarenteed delivery timetable.We were put in the hole(siding)outside of Denver on account of AMTK#6 leaving Denver.Because of the delay in allowing AMTK to leave on time we missed the 9PM guarenteed delivery cut-off.Costing the BNSF countless dollars.Just one of many examples that happen on a daily basis nation wide.The BNSF does a very comendable job of giving AMTK priority over frieght trains.At what cost?Well if the BNSF meets the AMTK set incentive it could get a kick-back of up to 5 million dollars on a yearly basis from AMTK.Does it cover the cost of late trains? No.Doesn't even come close.Remember the BNSF is forced into letting AMTK run over its rails.Empire Builder,Zepher,SanDiegans,SuperChief,many trains many delays.I personally don't mind getting out of the way for AMTK but does it make buisness sense for the BNSF? Remember the RR's pay for the up-keep and maintanece of their own tracks.Also pay taxes on their right of ways.The tracks I operate on are very busy.Single track CTC.Approximately 30 trains a day.The cost of doulbe tracking is cost prohibitive until you reach a certain level of train numbers.Building more tracks isn't as easy as people think.It also doubles the maintanence costs.The other problem out here in the west is that the cities are so far apart.Closest city to Denver with a population of over 1 million is either Salt Lake City or Kansas City over 500 miles away.What is the answer? Wish I knew.What I do know is AMTK came about 32yrs ago because the frieght RR's realized that it was impossible to make a profit from passenger trains.Still is.Sure you could charge more but you get to a break-over point where no body would pay because it is far to much.On the Calf.Zepher AMTK has to come up with over 125 dollars per paying passenger to break even.AMTK statistics.Another words we're all subsidizing each and every paying passenger who rides the Zepher with our tax dollars.

[Anonymous]

Excuss me!STB. Do they have to deal with them on a nation wide basis?Thought we were talking about trains that ran through many states.Like to see the states agree with a simple thing like schedule times.I want my train to run during such and such a time.No I want my train to run those times.Why should my train have to run at night.Not fair to our citizens....Or are we going to have to change trains state to state? Ideas sound good on paper but in reality ...well.

[Anonymous]

On the long distance runs Amtrak operates on any section of track 2 trains, 1 train in each direction. If the railroads capacity is so short that it cannot handle 2 trains on any section of track, how do the railroads intend to increase their business? While Amtrak might not pay for the maintenance of the track, Amtrak does pay the railroads plenty for dispactching....
More than likely Amtrak could do its own dispatching along the tracks it uses for less.....

[Anonymous]

Most regional systems don't run end to end trains, so at any city in a city pair- Vancouver/Seattle, Seattle/Portland, Portland/Eugene, you DO have to transfer trains, and that is on today's amtrak.

However, the issues you bring up re scehduling would not be a major concern for most systems, as the distance/frequency would ensure that most trains would run at peak demand times.

True though that there are difficulties with this now. Portlanders cannot ride to Vancouver BC in one day because W-DOT has not yet funded the extension of the afternoon Bellingham train to Vancouver. Argh!

But I know that I am not saying that the states run the system, only contribute to the funding. Look at the relative successes of both PNW and California Corridors, and applaud not DC but the WA and CA Leg's for funding this.

The actual passenger railroad authority could be multi state easily. In many places it would have to be.

This does mean that certain states will have to cooperate to get these systems running, so pressure on your governors is also a must. Good regional inter-state relations are a must, and are not unworkable at all.

[Anonymous]

This sure is a nice senario you pose.We all get along we all agree type of situation.What happens when one state balks at wanting to join such set-up?Lets say we're talking about a train from say Chicago to Portland. All the states agree to cooperate except say Idaho.OK we'll run it through another state say Utah.But Utah says not interested.What do we do in that type of situation? I do know for a fact that Colorado's DOT studied running trains in this state and came back with the findings that it wasn't feasible until the population grew significanly.Another words no funds for inter-city rail in this state for the forseeable future.If Colorado didn't want to pursue their own in state rail network don't think they'd be interested in funding a train that runs through their state that wouldn't really make much of a differance to their economy.Keeping all our mountain roads in shape and plowed in the winter for the skiers,which this state relies upon for alot of their revenue,and eats up a good deal of their alloted budget is more of a priority than pass.rail.I for one don't want to see my state taxes raised to pay for a passenger rail system that makes no sense.

[Anonymous]

Give me a break! AMTK dispactchers! What a laugh.I for one don't want AMTK dispatching my FRT.train.Or do you propose two dispactchers,one for frieght and one for AMTK sitting at the same console.Who pays for the AMTK dispatcher?Pays plenty for running their trains ?Not hardly.When you have a single track running at almost near capacity at times ONE train that requires all ather trains to get out of its way does create a tremendous traffic nightmare.All those trains sitting at various points along the subdivision all sit longer account the first trains to go after AMTK passes are the priority trains which cause the other trains to sit longer waiting for them to pass and so on and so on.Their have been situations where every siding has been filled for 90 miles waiting for AMTK to pass.No place for anyone to go.Don't have to tell what happens when AMTK encounters a mechanical delay think you can figure out what it causes.

[Anonymous]

You paint a sick picture when trains are sitting at sidings waiting for a higher priority train to pass, and not necessarily an Amtrak train. Think about it from Amtrak's point of view. Amtrak pays the railroads to run our nation's passenger trains down their tracks with priority. Amtrak, a government agency, is owned and operated by the American people. The government does provide the dispatching service for the airlines, and at one time the Panama Canal. When the government dispatched the Panama Canal, cruise ships were provided priority over cargo. If the railroads cannot provide adequate dispatching, the government should take it over! It could not possibly cost as much as the FAA.

The Texas Eagle and the Sunset Limited lately have had a lot of dispatching problems with the Union Pacific. Amtrak brought out car 10001 and hitched it to the back of them so that one of their vice presidents could see for himself the problems. The Eagle and the Limited on time arrivals were so low recently, at 20 percent, that this was the number one complaint from passengers. Guess what, the trains ran pretty much on time the whole length of car's 10001 journey.

So why does these trains run so poorly when car 10001 isn't hitched on to the back of the Eagle and Sunset Limited? Obviously, the trains can run pretty much on time, if the railroad dispatchers wanted them to. If I was the president of Amtrak, or even the Secretary of Transportation, if a raillroad deliberately slowed my passenger trains as badly as the Union Pacific has delayed the Eagle and Limited, I would take over that railroads dispatching, and pay the dispatchers what they deserved, civil service G-3 pay....the bottom of the barrel.....

[Anonymous]

As I have posted on another thread, Amtrak should concentrate all of its resources on a national system of long distance trains. However, commuter rail systems, very short lines, should be funded locally or at the state level. For example, Dallas Area Rapid Transit and the T's Trinity Railway Express are operated and funded at the local level.

While the state of California and Washington are paying for its local service, Amtrak is operating them but shouldn't. These states should be operating this service. It is the same in North Carolina.

Amtrak operates a lot of locals out of Chicago, but shouldn't. The states of Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana and Michigan should be operating and paying for these local trains.

As for the Northeast Corridor, Amtrak should be operating its long distance trains to Florida (thru Atlanta), and Chicago, and New Orleans, but some of the short locals should be operated by the states of New York, Vermont, Connecticut, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Maryland. I could name several trains that Amtrak should not be paying for and operating.

Which finally brings us to the Acela trains. Since this train has the most modern equipment in the nation, so far, Amtrak should be operating them now, but should attempt to unload these locals too in the future.

Amtrak should be a national system of long distance trains, preferrable high speed. Amtrak should not be funding or operating trains of short duration, let the states do this.

From a Texas perspective, Texas should build and operate a high speed rail lines in the triangle of Dallas, Houston, and San Antonio. However, Amtrak should build and operate high speed rail lines from Dallas to Chicago, and Dallas or Houston to Atlanta. With Amtrak running trains north and east from Texas linking to other Amtrak trains running east of Chicago to the New York City area, and/or linking to locals not operated by Amtrak out of the Chicago area to Detroit, Inidanapolis, and Milwaukee, possibly even Minneapolis. The same can be said of the high speed Amtrak train to Atlanta linking to other Amtrak trains to Florida and up the east coast to New York City area, plus locals out of Atlanta to Savannah, Mobile, Charleston, and Nashville.

As for Colorado, Amtrak should operate a high speed train from Denver to Chicago, pick your choice whether through Omaha or Kansas City. However, I have noticed that there is a local ski train already operating to the slopes. Maybe Colorado coud pay for and operate a local from Cheyenne down to Pueblo.

While the locals might not necessarily be high speed, the longer distance Amtrak trains should be of high speed.

The FRA has a map at its web page of future high speed rail improvements along existing track. You can find it at
http://www.fra.dot.gov/rdv/hsgt/states/index.htm

You will notice some gaps between Buffalo and Cleveland, Cleveland to Pittsburgh, jacksonville to Orlando, Atlanta to Birmingham, Houston to San Antonio and Dallas(which I find unbelievable), Tulsa to Kansas City, Little Rock to St. Louis, even Lousiville to Nashville to Atlanta or Birmingham. Notice that the state of Ohio would rather connect Cincinniti to Cleveland thru Columbus than connect to Buffalo or Pittsburgh which I find distrubing. There are no plans currently to build high speed rail west of Kansas City and Minneapolis, except on the west coast. Obviously, there won't be any high speed rail lines over the Rockies, or the Cascades and the Sierra Nevada. Fill in the gaps of teh long distance trains with high speed rail, and do as I suggest above. Amtrak should not be running and paying for any trains that aren't high speed rail. Its just I rather have Amtrak on its own rails....Running high speed trains on tracks with slow freight in my opinion is UNSAFE!

[Anonymous]

Wkhey,

I usually am involved with DOT, state and Fed level but sometimes Army Corps of Engineers.

Your questions regarding states demanding certain schedule accommodations illustrates my point about government involvement not being a healthy thing. In my view, AMTK would lay out a plan to a region of states. These states would be given statistics or other data illustrating the benefits of AMTK and they would be asked to contribute a specific share of the cost, with the balance to be paid directly with tickets. The states would be able to negotiate with AMTK and AMTK with the states. If the states want more, AMTK asks them to pay more. If the states want to pay less, AMTK lists what would have to be reduced from the service to reduce costs. If one state wants to have service to another state (city) where that state is not interested, the states would have to work it out on their own. If the states are unreasonable then AMTK walks away and does it the best way they think on ticket revenues alone. Unless the states want to bear a high percentage of the cost to run a specific train on a specific schedule, the states don't get much say in the schedule. That is a decision AMTK should make based on demand and equipment availability. As for changing trains, that is also part of AMTKs internal affairs. If a state is not getting any service then it doesn't pay anything to AMTK even if AMTK track goes through their state.

I see this last point as highly significant and it is why I also see AMTK as a regional carrier right now. AMTK goes from the NEC through the south to Florida. The service in the south is modest. Most people traveling that corridor are comming from north of the MDL and not getting off until they get to FL. I think most southern states would not be interested in paying much into AMTK when in their state portion it is only conveying people through the state, same as your Colorado example. Incidently, a state can't tell AMTK that it can't come in. That is a violation of the US Constitution. But the state can't make a train stop at a given city either.

Let me know what you think of this stuff. - Ed

[Anonymous]

Don,

I agree that if AMTK is going to upgrade to HSR then they should build their own R/W. My question is, who's going to pay for that? I think the users should pay for it. But it appears that everyone agrees that is not economically viable. So some say let the government pay for it. But the government is me, and you and everyone else whether they visit this website or not. Most folks, when they hear the cost, would not want to shoulder the burden.

I am not so sure that AMTK would be better if it were only in the long haul business. Then there would be scheduling conflicts between AMTK and the local commuter systems. The old railroads ran commuter trains, along with long haul passenger and freight trains. They were able to coordinate schedules and provide service with much less technology than we have today. I also think that if you break the long haul and NEC commuter type service apart, then AMTK becomes pollitically unviable at the Federal level. As soon as the NEC people have to pay for their portion of AMTK without outside contributions, AMTK is dead at the Fed level. BTW, the same works in reverse too. If the Feds only supported the NEC and the long hauls had to go it alone, AMTK would be dead at the Fed level as well.

But your idea has merit. I think it should be reorganized into Regional and National profit centers. Have the regional profit centers work out the commuter stuff with the states/regions and have the National profit center deal with Congress. But a significant majority of the costs are going to have to be paid by the users directly or AMTK is not going to survive. Their over-reliance on government will insure they never walk on their own.

I still can't see AMTK having enough demand to provide regular scheduled long haul passenger service. They might be able to operate charter or excursion trains from time to time, but I just don't see the demand for the long haul ever being great enough to pay for the construction and maintanence of the R/W. - Ed

[Anonymous]

Mr.Clark,
Amtk does not pay for the operation of the trains you mentioned.The state agencies put out a bid for the operation of such trains.AMTK was the low bidder.The state agencies pay for the entire cost of operating those trains including crew cost and also pays AMTK for providing the crews and maintanece of those trains in certain situations where the states don't have a mechanical dept.
I would love to see deadicated high speed rail but where is the money going to come from?The CB&Q once ran a test train from Denver to Chi. to see how fast they could do it.Took 12hrs.That was back in the 30's.Pretty sad when you think that record is still standing some 60-70 years later.

[Anonymous]

Ed,
Looks like a accounting nightmare.Who gets what for how much,when,where,how,etc.
Your illustration of the N.Y.-Florida train is precisely the point I've made in other messages.Its nothing but a cruise ship on rails.Doesn't do anything of significance for the states or local cummunities it travels through.The same can be said for most of the long distance AMTK. trains.
I don't know what the solution is,thats why we're discussing these matters here. What I do believe is that most states will bauk at providing funds for passenger rail.Sad Do we as a nation want long distance pass. rail? Everybody wants it but nobody wants to pay.You'll have to convince me that LONG distance pass rail can run at a profit.I really don't think it can .Either in the private sector or state or fed. run.

[sooblue]

Thank you for giving me a better picture of the way it is. I agree with you that the Amtrak of today is a pain in the butt. BNSF trains shouldn't have to get out of the way or stop enroute for Amtrak trains yet Amtrak trains still need to have priority in a commuter setting. Long distance cross country travel maybe just equality is needed. At any rate if Amtrak was given real support by all of us the money would be there for Amtrak funded improvements like double tracking and passing sidings and maintanence.
I really don't know the costs for such things BUT
I do know that this Nation is capable of great things. We are a people who are MORE than able to accompli***he impossable and we have ALWAYS been up to the task financialy when pressed.
I do wi***hat it wouldn't take a pearl Harbor to modivate us though.

[sooblue]

After posting my last reply it occurred to me that in some spots Amtrak needs to by-pass the the "mess" and lay new routes and place depots in the outskirts of major towns and let light rail convey the riders into city centers. This will upset probably everyone but I see transportation hubs marrying air, rail, bus and light rail togeather complimenting rather than fighting each other.
I know..What's the color of the sky in your world
sooblue!
Things are going to change as we run out of what we have taken for granted for a century or more.
If not in our day than in our kids day so we should get it done so they have time to tweek it for the better.

[Anonymous]

Wkhey,

Sounds like we agree on more than I thought. I guess you know how deeply I think AMTK is in trouble because they don't appear to even want to consider going it alone without the government.

I think the best scenario I can come up with involves AMTK cutting service temporarily on almost all long haul service. They could offer a charter passenger service for groups that can afford it, like a bunch of boy scouts on the west coast needing to get to the east coast for a summer jamboree. It appears there is inadequate demand for regular scheduled long haul passenger rail service. AMTK could build on their apparent success in the NEC when demand is adequate to make the commitment.

I remember a few years back when AMTK was offering summer passes for a modest price. If I had the vacation time, I would have bought two and toured the country. I imagine that would have opened my eyes about AMTK. I have heard many complaints about their service. - Ed

[Anonymous]

Well the trains you propose- Portland-Chicago- aren't competitive anyway so they wouldn't be the core business of a new passenger system that is rationalized based on ridership.

Your points on Colorado and an intra state system? Well if you don't like that policy, then take it up with your Leg or Governor.

Guess what? Here in Oregon the situation is the same, precisely. We have only one intra-state route (not counting the Starlate)- a daily Portland-Eugene Talgo train, 100% courtesy Amtrak and Feds. Why not two? Because our Leg doesn't make it a priority.

Well fine! If that's how the people in the state feel, then no trains. If we really need them that much then we'll have to get worked up about it and get on the phone to the state captiol.

What I'd ask is, if there isn't enought outcry by the populace of Colorado (or Oregon) to produce trains, then why should the rest of the country pay to build us or you a system?

That's like someone not fixing their own roof, because they're too cheap, and then expecting the city to come by and pay to have your roof fixed for your own good. Hey, if i want raindrops on my head then that's my problem. And if Oregon and Colorado don't want passenger trains, then that's our problem. Don't make it Rhode Island's problem too.

[Anonymous]

Ok, Disclaimer- I am not a McCainiac! However, read on:

A. It seems that we all agree long distance passenger rail cannot support itself- can't even break even- unless it's luxury cruise like AOE, and in that case we don't need the FedGov involved.

B. It also seems we agree that the percentage of ridership on long distance trains is so low it does not significantly affect either air or road travel.

C. Additional agreement: passenger rail can and does make significant contribution to reduced congestion in all modes in dense corridors, both as commuter and as medium distance trains between city pairs, ie Boston-NYC, NYC-Philly/Baltimore/DC, LA-SF, PDX-SEA, etc....

D. It seems most of us agree Amtrak missed the ball in some corridors which had potential of joining the above, esp. Dallas-Houston, and others.

NOW- let me advance an idea that you may or may not hate me for. Disclaimer- I am not a McCainiac, do not particularly care for the man. But:

Since the long distance trains don't pencil out and aren't significant contributors to transport flow, eliminate them.

Then, take their funding, and invest in in both existing and new corridors. Since these systems have a relatively high success rate, expand these corridors as ridership levels increase.

Theoretically, ridership is a reciprocal pattern. IE if you get 1000 people SF-LA, and maybe 200 would also like to go to Pheonix, then if you increas the SF-LA ridership to 5000, you should have 1000 people who want to go to Pheonix, and enough to justify adding that route to the corridor.

(BTW those numbers are just to illustrate the point. I think more than 1000 are needed!)

Eventually multi-corridor regional systems will develop, and bump into each other, until a passenger can, if so inlcined, ride from one end of the coast to another.

Granted, these systems would not be the same as riding one train CHI-LA, but then most people don't want to anyway. And granted, this means we would have to make do with much smaller systems for some time, as expansions would take decades to close the gap, but it would be much easier to gulp HSR costs in small bits than in one big lump.

I am safely stationed in the caboose, so you can now fire away. It's steel and they tell me bullets won't go through it, but I did buy it second hand.....

Alexander

[Anonymous]

Oh brother! I didn't propose a Chi-Portland train! I just used it as a hypothetical example.Read what is written.As far as the rest you've written I agree.When these kind of things are posed outside of the rail cummunity their recieved with little enthusiasm.Never be enough of an outcry here in Colo.

[Anonymous]

Alexander the non rep.from AZ. Finally a man who understands.I agree with you on a mental level but my heart is sad that long distance pass rail is a losing financial burden on we the tax payers.Distances to vast,crew maning to large(operating crews,dining car crews,sleeper attendants,coach attendants)ticket prices even if at a make even return would be so high no one would ride,at the wim of the fgt. RR's.Where the cities are large and close it does make sense and is a necessity.Do we as citizen tax payers want to fund a long distance system that will never run at a profit?Thats the question we all have to answer.

[Anonymous]

Well I'd love to see it make a profit. But I'd be content at seeing a system that just pays it's costs. Heck, think of those airline ticket online brokers- the train ticket could fluctuate based on the current costs of the system.

OK maybe not.

Either way, yeah, I'd love to go back and ride the CZ or the EB of the Superchief- the old pre Amtrak, 1940s and 50s trains.

Well at least we still have Via. Er, well, you know what I mean!