What does Bush and parts of the US not understand about Amtrak and the national passenger rail?

[Anonymous]

For those who believe gutting Amtrak will help corridors, short distance routes and mass transit...

These guys - supporters of light rail and the corridors - think Bush's wrong-headed plan is an attack on balanced transportation in general.

Corridors support needed LD trains. LD trains support and feed into corridors. What's needed is balance, with good regional air service and good highways as well. Passenger rail is far from outmoded. It does have a use in short and long distance travel Amtrak is at a record ridership level.

http://www.lightrailnow.org/features/f_amtrak_2005-03.htm

QUOTE.... "In its unprecedented proposal to shut down Amtrak intercity rail passenger service, the USA's Bush administration portrays its move as an effort to "save" corridor trains and bolster regional rail service. Certainly, regional corridors are a critical element in any program of intercity rail passenger service, but, as our various analyses of Bush's "zero funding" plan demonstrate, killing rail service to "preserve" or foster corridor service is at best an absurd oxymoron, and at worst a calculated deception to decimate regional and intercity rail public transport on a wide scale.

There is a veritable avalanche of evidence suggesting that long-distance passenger train services generate the greatest revenue per passenger, and that shorter-distance, purely "corridor" ridership is not the relatively ultra-remunerative traffic it's portrayed to be. Nevertheless, regional corridor ridership is certainly crucial, and a further essential interface with urban transit, both bus and rail. Yet there is a widespread misconception that decimating Amtrak's intercity operations will somehow bolster these corridor services and strengthen the financial performance of rail services (which, in the Bush proposal, include the fantasy of private-profit rail companies rushing to compete for supposedly lucrative, profitable rail passenger contracts).

But the evidence, and a thoughtful analysis of the Bush program, suggest that this vision of supposedly nurturing regional corridors by delivering a coup de grâce to Amtrak is nothing but a cruel hoax, designed to flummox the gullible. For those that naively buy into this flim-flam, what is particularly being misunderstood is that Amtrak already provides the basis for regional service – and, in fact, for a huge swath of the USA, Amtrak is the "regional rail service". In this respect, long-distance travel serves as "frosting on the cake" in terms of additional, lucrative revenue. "

[DSchmitt]

"Whatcha gonna do when the gas runs out?]"

Most Amtrak trains run on diesel fuel (oil).

If the number of trains were trippled, there l would not be triple the ridership which would decrease their energy efficiency energy. How many passengers does it take to make a train more efficient than an auto?


If we can get the wackos to allow nuclear power plants and get the distribution infrastructure set up autos can be made to run fine on hydrogen (we need electricity to get the hydrogen) and make the electric car viable for around town use even with
no improvement in range.

" I don't live where you live. Air France had no direct service to South Bend, 40 miles away. The airport itself was a hell to endure."

He couldn't catch a local flight from O'Hare? or catch a bus? As I said trips don't start and end at the airport or train station. If every rail line that existed in 1950 still existed and evey line had passenger service on it, the train still couldn't match the auto for speed and covenience in most of the country. In most of the county it couldn't match the airplane either. Time is money.



"Well, now you get my point about frequency and service. Two locals, one express."

Yeah, but the express doesn't stop and the locals schedule is all wrong for my needs. Besides they take at least 3- hour station to station. What is a 2-1/2 hour door to door auto trip then takes over 4 hours. My trip isn't station to station

More trains, even with increased ridership, would likely mean greater loses and thus the need for more taxpayer as opposed to user money to keep the trains running.



I do believe that communter rail is useful under the right circunstances of population distribution and density.

Regional rail such as being developed in California may have it's place too.

As I have posted in other threads, sourse Victoria Transportation Policy Institute www.vtpi.org (which by the way not a pro-automobile site), the subsidy per passenger mile for rail is higher than the cost per vehicle mile for the automobile.

[Anonymous]

]Originally posted by DSchmitt

"If a store is only open one hour a day, it won't sell enough product to make costs or profit. If it's open 3 hours a day it moves enough product to maybe break eevn. If it's open 24 hours it moves a lot of product."

False: If this was true every store would be open 24 hours a day. Longer hours mean higher costs. If the business is not there, the extra hours cost more money than they make. Even is business is good the aditional costs may exceed the aditional revenue.I didn't say you have to be open 24 hours to make a profit. Walmart is though. I think you get the drift in terms of service.

Even when trains were the best transportation alternative (the alternatives being stage coach, wagon, horse or walking) many routes did not have the ridership even close to justifingy the cost of running a train and even full trains were and are often overall money loosers. So we should have had Amtrak in 1930?

"As for America being too far flung in the wild west and there is no need for the service I must ask then why was an Interstate Highway run out there?"

While highways do cost money to build and maintain (as do railroads) the majority of the cost is paid by user fees (gas tax and other truck/auto related taxes and fees). The cost to the owner (government ) to operate highways is extremly low. There are no locomotives and cars to buy and maintain, no crew, no ticket sellers, , no dispatchers, no equipment cleaning and repair people, etc. to pay) The users pay for their own vehicles and operate them themselves.

The automobile provides much more flexible service to the user than any train system could.

Whatcha gonna do when the gas runs out?]

"I'm getting older, and I don't have the energy it takes to put in a 9 hour day driving the Interstate. I live far enough away from any airport to make air travel easy. Besides I don't think much of casting myself off into the blue yonder on a firey fusalage.
Everyone that I've ever spoken with on an Amtrak long distance train says the same thing. They wi***he service was a little better, and that there would be more trains. They weren't railfans. they think trains are a viable alternative."

I find it hard to believe that your brother couldn't have arranged to go to a closer airport.
By highway I can be to either of two different County airports in 10 minutes or less, a regional airport in 40 minutes, or an international airport in 2 hours. I don't live where you live. Air France had no direct service to South Bend, 40 miles away. The airport itself was a hell to endure.

Trips don' t start and end at the train station or the airport. Even in the pre-automoble days a road ststem was necessary to get to the train station. Thanks to good roads and the autmobile its easier than ever before.

I live two miles from a railroad line on which Amtrak runs but It's over 50 miles to the nearest train station.Well, now you get my point about frequency and service. Two locals, one express.

Mitch

[DSchmitt]

"If a store is only open one hour a day, it won't sell enough product to make costs or profit. If it's open 3 hours a day it moves enough product to maybe break eevn. If it's open 24 hours it moves a lot of product."

False: If this was true every store would be open 24 hours a day. Longer hours mean higher costs. If the business is not there, the extra hours cost more money than they make. Even is business is good the aditional costs may exceed the aditional revenue.

Even when trains were the best transportation alternative (the alternatives being stage coach, wagon, horse or walking) many routes did not have the ridership even close to justifingy the cost of running a train and even full trains were and are often overall money loosers.

"As for America being too far flung in the wild west and there is no need for the service I must ask then why was an Interstate Highway run out there?"

While highways do cost money to build and maintain (as do railroads) the majority of the cost is paid by user fees (gas tax and other truck/auto related taxes and fees). The cost to the owner (government ) to operate highways is extremly low. There are no locomotives and cars to buy and maintain, no crew, no ticket sellers, , no dispatchers, no equipment cleaning and repair people, etc. to pay) The users pay for their own vehicles and operate them themselves.

The automobile provides much more flexible service to the user than any train system could.

"I'm getting older, and I don't have the energy it takes to put in a 9 hour day driving the Interstate. I live far enough away from any airport to make air travel easy. Besides I don't think much of casting myself off into the blue yonder on a firey fusalage.
Everyone that I've ever spoken with on an Amtrak long distance train says the same thing. They wi***he service was a little better, and that there would be more trains. They weren't railfans. they think trains are a viable alternative."

I find it hard to believe that your brother couldn't have arranged to go to a closer airport.
By highway I can be to either of two different County airports in 10 minutes or less, a regional airport in 40 minutes, or an international airport in 2 hours.
Trips don' t start and end at the train station or the airport. Even in the pre-automoble days a road ststem was necessary to get to the train station. Thanks to good roads and the autmobile its easier than ever before.

I live two miles from a railroad line on which Amtrak runs but It's over 50 miles to the nearest train station.

[Anonymous]

I'm not saying "round-the-clock" service is the answer, but a logical frequency is.
I once said in frustration, in the seventies,"Instead of running an airline burlesque show, they (Amtrak) should get a few steam engines and paint the coches green and give a real train ride." It sure would get attention. Just think of 100mph trains between Milwaukee and Chicago behind MR 261. The tourism bureaus would love it.

Mitch

[Anonymous]

I'm not saying "round-the-clock" service is the answer, but a logical frequency is.
I once said in frustration, in the seventies,"Instead of running an airline burlesque show, they (Amtrak) should get a few steam engines and paint the coches green and give a real train ride." It sure would get attention. Just think of 100mph trains between Milwaukee and Chicago behind MR 261. The tourism bureaus would love it.

Mitch

[CopCarSS]

I don't know. While to you the idea of round the clock trains sounds modern, to me it just seems like trying to regain the 1940's. Converting Amtrak as it is now to a 24 hour a day operation would take a LOT of initial investment, and the end result that it would yield the kind of interest you say it would would be very risky.

If you were to propose it to a private corporation, I think you would have a very hard time selling it to potential investors. I don't see why the government would or should be the investor to take such a risk.

Maybe it should happen. The same kind of thing happened with Conrail, and look what a success that worked out to be. Conrail had deregulation on its side, though. I'm not sure what the hidden ace would be for a resurected Amtrak would be. Maybe there is a passenger base that would flock to it. I still think that the vast majority of American would much rather be in a plane, or in their cars, though.

And lets not forget Gomer the Motor Homer. Gomer is the #1 potential market, if you asked me. If Amtrak could offer the conveniences of a motor home at a decent rate to places like the national parks and other scenic wonders (and rails do travel near these oftentimes) I think Amtrak could potentially make a killing. Especially with gas prices as they are. I can't imagine what it costs to fuel one of those monsters right now. If Amtrak could sway those types away, and take away some of those noisy, ugly, big, pain in the neck RV's, and give me my campgrounds back, you would never hear me say a nasty word about them again! [;)][:P]

There's other markets that I think could flurish, too. The penultimate, that will never happen in today's world, but would still be really cool is a steam passenger train. Can you imagine traveling behind a real live steam locomotive across the country? Amtrak wouldn't be able to sell tickets fast enough. Of course, with insurance on steam excursions what they are, and the lack of supporting infrastructure for cross country steam, it would never be feasible, but oh how they could sell tickets!

Never the less, if Amtrak is to survive, it must change. I'm just still not sure I'd like to foot the bill.

Chris
Denver, CO

[Anonymous]

Chris,
If a store is only open one hour a day, it won't sell enough product to make costs or profit. If it's open 3 hours a day it moves enough product to maybe break eevn. If it's open 24 hours it moves a lot of product.
One train a day, 3/4 train of customers. 3 trains a day, 3 trains full of passengers. Hourly service, NEC. The place becomes a standard fixture of transportation.
Years ago there were 5 round trips by rail, Chicago to Seattle. Now there's only 1. But the population has increased. You can't tell me that a well run passenger service, with many departures won't start to cover its costs to a point. Add to that the fact that railroad work rules have changed creating better economies. A ticket agent open 8 hours for 2 trains is inefficient. Open for 3 trains is better.
There has been mention that the car has replaced the train, and which one is more modern. There were cars before passenger trains for centuries. We just called them wagons and pulled them with horses on lousey roads. That all got improved to where we are today iin the realm of automobiles. So do we say that an Amtrak train, not as refined as streamliners from the 50s is the state of the art, thereby halting all efforts to improve the product? They managed that overseas.
As for America being too far flung in the wild west and there is no need for the service I must ask then why was an Interstate Highway run out there? I don't think that was benevolence for the citizenry of Mandan, ND. No. It was so you could drive all the way to the coast.
I was just at Chicago's O'Hare Airport the other day to fetch my brother arriving from France. What a monster that airport is. I'm getting older, and I don't have the energy it takes to put in a 9 hour day driving the Interstate. I live far enough away from any airport to make air travel easy. Besides I don't think much of casting myself off into the blue yonder on a firey fusalage.
Everyone that I've ever spoken with on an Amtrak long distance train says the same thing. They wi***he service was a little better, and that there would be more trains. They weren't railfans. they think trains are a viable alternative.
When I worked Amtrak between Milwaukee and Chicago we had 7 departures a day and plenty of passengers. When the number of trains was cut by 1 round trip, the numbers decreased. then came the genius of having only 4 round trips one year account "funding." You could have carried the total nimber of passengers on a switch engine.

The store has to be open longer than one hour a day.

Mitch

[oltmannd]

If they do this "reform" thing even half-way right, we might wind up with a lot more for our money - and we might all agree it's better.

I'd hate to think that in 10 years we'd still have all the same routes, frequencies and equipment at roughly the same cost. That would be awful.

[CopCarSS]

QUOTE: Originally posted by artmark

One train a day doth not a passenger service make. Three trains a day, with a variety of services and stops does. And that's the whole problem. To fund the thing meakly with the status quo will not serve any purpose. Properly funded it could resume a position of importance.
The question in the first place is "What does President Bush not understand about Amtrak." My answer, as it has been in other threads, is that railroading, and passenger trains in particular, went out of fashion, more than neccesity. As things turned from the mid 60s when passenger trains were a known commodity, to the late 60s when they were fading, into the Brady Bunch Era of Amtrak, where interest acctually increased, the subject has never been given a realist view, of its potentials, to the American public.
Right now I'm afraid the uninitiated American's view of passenger railroading has to do with slow-rolling dinner trains, poorly done theme restaurants, and um-pah bands. So it's easy to label this medium of transportation as a "dinosaur." What would Bush know from a passenger train? He's probably never ridden or even seen one outside of the NEC. He really is your average American when it comes to this topic.

Mitch

How much would it cost, though to run three trains a day on all of the routes? Let's say it happened, and Amtrak got a blank check to become a national carrier like you are envisioning. There's a few problems.

1) How long would it take to convince the public to ride of these three trains a day? There's a reason why rail passenger service died in the 50's-60's. Now we're going to convince an American Public even more dependent on trains and planes that they should be riding trains? Save for Thanksgiving and Christmas, your three trains a day would be empty on all but a couple routes.

2) So why not ditch everything buth those routes? Since the blank check was given by the whole of the American tax-payer base, it's certainly not fair to deny potential passengers on the lesser traveled routes merely because its not profitable. They paid the bill, too.

3) The freight railroads already don't like Amtrak. By tripling their inconvenience, I can envision some big time lobbying against any increase in service.

The beauty of making Amtrak become profitable or die is that it kills most of these problems. If they cut service to the popular routes, maybe they coudl focus on better service, which would give Amtrak a better look to Joe American, which would cause an increase in demand, and routes could be expanded based on need, rather than political necessity. If the routes were proven to be successful, you'd see a return by the freight railroads to run their own passenger service, which would eliminate point #3.

I still think this is all a big pipe dream, and American travel relies heavily on the airplane, and the automobile. Could a well-funded, changed Amtrak comete? I'd doubt it, but it's possible.

Chris
Denver, CO

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by DSchmitt

QUOTE: Originally posted by up829
[ And if there were a tax-supported national high speed rail system, Montana wheat farmers would probably want the same frequency of service as the NEC.

If public transportation is a right and has to be subsidized, then the Montana wheat farmer has a right to the same quality of subsidized service as the New York stockbroker.

Not a right, but desired by the majority. Is that good enough? Of course, the majority could decide to rob the minority. Some would say that's what's been going on for years (not just the Amtrak subsidy)

[Anonymous]

The people who do know how important Amtrak service is is the elderly, especially those that have a hard time walking long distances...... Airports are a hassle, with very long concourses, one could drain the battery on their mover before reaching the plane.....and when they do get to the plane how do they store it?

This is where trains come in.... And as the average American is getting older, the trains will eventually win....... HSR trains are the future.......

[Anonymous]

$10 Billion for the Iraqi railroad......that's all I've got to say.

[Anonymous]

One train a day doth not a passenger service make. Three trains a day, with a variety of services and stops does. And that's the whole problem. To fund the thing meakly with the status quo will not serve any purpose. Properly funded it could resume a position of importance.
The question in the first place is "What does President Bush not understand about Amtrak." My answer, as it has been in other threads, is that railroading, and passenger trains in particular, went out of fashion, more than neccesity. As things turned from the mid 60s when passenger trains were a known commodity, to the late 60s when they were fading, into the Brady Bunch Era of Amtrak, where interest acctually increased, the subject has never been given a realist view, of its potentials, to the American public.
Right now I'm afraid the uninitiated American's view of passenger railroading has to do with slow-rolling dinner trains, poorly done theme restaurants, and um-pah bands. So it's easy to label this medium of transportation as a "dinosaur." What would Bush know from a passenger train? He's probably never ridden or even seen one outside of the NEC. He really is your average American when it comes to this topic.

Mitch

[CopCarSS]

QUOTE: Originally posted by conrailman

Well, Chris Stop spend on Airlines too 16 Billion a year and 35 Billion on Highways Too, Also 381 Billion on the Wars and aid to these other Country every costing Us 80 to 200 Billion in aid every Year, that a waste of are money, not Amtrak we need a fair transportion for Amtrak,Airplanes, and Highways. We More Amtrak not Less, Amtrak should bring Back Train like 25&26, 35&36, 60&61,and 40&41 that bring back another 4 millionpeople to Amtrak.[:D]

I won't touch war spending, because my comments are based around the transportation industry mainly. As for the billions being spent on the airline and highway portions of the transportation market, I still feel that its much more critical to the well being of the economy. If we lived in a true laissez-faire (sp?) capitalist country, there wouldn't be any government spending anywhere. Of course, we don't live in that hypothetical realm, so what do we have?

We have people that more or less want to either have speed, or freedom to their travels. Speed in North America means airline travel. So we need airlines. Freedom means automotive travel, so we need highways. Transcontinental Rail Service (Amtrak) is neither fast or personal. A cut to the spending here would yield little net effect to the economy. In fact, as has been pointed out, it could be beneficial to the railroads biggest concern, freight. And freight railroading is important to the economy. Freeing the freight railroads of the Amtrak albatross would be a good move in the overall economy picture, at least to me.

As always, its just my opinion. It's kind of an interesting discussion. It's an issue that I've struggled with myself for quite some time. I really enjoy traveling by train, and not just because I'm a railfan. To me, rail passengers are much more convivial. And the freedom to sleep, eat, talk, watch scenery go by in a comfortable environment can't be beat.

I don't enjoy the near strip searches of the TSA, or the sardine feeling I get on plane, so I only travel by plane when I have to be some where quick. I enjoy the freedom of driving, but sometimes it does get tiresome (I-80 in Nebraska is the being the prime example). While taking a break from I-80, and traveling US 30 is an option (and this is fun as a railfan), it does take up time. You couldn't pay me enough to go transcontinental on a bus. So I'm left with rail travel. If we could convince the rest of America that this is true, then maybe we'd be on the right track (pardon the pun) for Amtrak.

Chris
Denver, CO

[conrailman]

Well, Chris Stop spend on Airlines too 16 Billion a year and 35 Billion on Highways Too, Also 381 Billion on the Wars and aid to these other Country every costing Us 80 to 200 Billion in aid every Year, that a waste of are money, not Amtrak we need a fair transportion for Amtrak,Airplanes, and Highways. We need More Amtrak not Less, Amtrak should bring Back Train like 25&26, 35&36, 60&61,and 40&41 that bring back another 4 millionpeople to Amtrak.[:D]

[CopCarSS]

Additionally, thinking about it. If there is a profit to be made on Amtrak on routes like the CZ, this is Amtrak's golden oppurtunity to abandon the status quo, and focus on routes like that.

And should Amtrak fail to do so, and there is an oppurtunity for profit, there will be private interests that will see the oppurtunity. Maybe not as passenger rail as we know it today, but in some form, the Phoenix will arise out of its ashes.

Chris
Denver, CO

[CopCarSS]

QUOTE: Originally posted by artmark


Chris,
I ride the CZ to Grand Junction from time to time. Last time, last spring, the thing was packed. I was the only railfan aboard. No one was shaking their heads.

I worked Amtrak jobs a lot during the '70s. From Milwauke to Chicago or the Twin Cities. I was the only railfan aboard.

Mitch

I've had similar experiences on the CZ going east and west. But, in the grander picture, it still means very little to the transportation industry. 1 train a day each direction? How many flights take off and land at DIA every day? How many people travel on I-70? How many of those could you convince that Amtrak is not a waste of taxpayer money?

I still stand by my observation that Amtrak is a dinosaur, and while I would hate to see it go, I can't see spending the $1.8 Billion they requested to keep it alive.

Chris
Denver, CO

[Anonymous]

[DSchmitt]

QUOTE: Originally posted by up829
[ And if there were a tax-supported national high speed rail system, Montana wheat farmers would probably want the same frequency of service as the NEC.

If public transportation is a right and has to be subsidized, then the Montana wheat farmer has a right to the same quality of subsidized service as the New York stockbroker.

[oltmannd]

I think the whole hornets nest stirred up by the Bush Admin surrounding Amtrak is political. Here's why:

For what we get, Amtrak costs a lot.

There are some conservatives and others who think killing Amtrak would be wise and put an end to wasteful spending. They are a minority of those in power now. These same folk generally believe that a "free market" generally produces goods and services most efficiently. Amtrak is currently the antithesis of this.

The Bush admin knows that killing Amtrak is not politically feasible. The national network just has too many supporters in Congress whose want to keep their trains in order to keep voter support back home.

So, how do you make both sides happy? You "reform" Amtrak. If you can bake in some "free market" ideas and keep the national network supporters happy, you can declare victory and walk away - whether or not it the net subsidy is more or less in the end.

But, you say, "He zeroed out Amtrak in his budget!" Well, it appears to me that it was a way to get everyones attention. Then he sends Mineta out with a half-baked plan with the promise of funding if Amtrak is reformed and, voila, everyone IS paying attention. Even Amtrak's board has come out with a reform plan.

If Bush had put, say, $1.2 B in his budget, it is likely that it would have been passed and Amtrak status-quo would have limped along for another year.

What's really interesting now is that most of the budget proposals for Amtrak to surface from Congress have been for what Amtrak has asked for ($1.8B) or more ($2.0B) and the Bush admin hasn't said "boo" about it. If they were really intent on killing Amtrak and thought they could do it, they would be saying rather loudly that it's too much money - but they have been silent so far.

If they do this right, we could wind up with better train service and a more efficient Amtrak plus a reliable funding source for intercity rail expansion. It looks like the most palatable model will be federal matching funds for state supported corridor work, but that's a good place to start!

[CopCarSS]

QUOTE: Originally posted by ohlemeier

QUOTE: Originally posted by CopCarSS

I just think that in Europe, the people get a better transportation system,
Public transportation works well when you don't have states like Wyoming, Montana, North Dakota, etc. I.E. lots and lots of square miles with little or no market for public transportation.

I think the Bush administration realizes this, and this is the first push for a transportation system that would work (forcing Amtrak to become profitable or die is merely the first step in working towards high speed rail projects in corridors that need them).

So high speed projects would just spontaneously evolve? Funny how that scheme never worked when it came to building the Interstates or airports. The feds just poured BILLIONS into them without idiotically demanding they be profitable.

Bush's plan is like saying we'll improve the airways if we first bankrupt the FAA. All those free-marketers will come in and then run the highways, airports and trains. Right. He's living in a fantasy if he thinks anything remotely on that level would happen.

THe interstates weren't built only so the more densley populated states could have service. That's why Sterling, Colo., got the Interstate.
People drive back east like they do in the west. Dittos for train or bus travel.
You'd think someone from as geographically isolated as the Rocky Mountains would realize that. Denver is a popular Amtrak stop, even with only one train each direction.

The federal investment in infrastructure comes first - then the ridership. Neglecting Amtrak by both parties over its 30 plus years is what has caused its current troubles. Funny how highways and airways never have to beg for crumbs of funding like Amtrak.

I never said that it would be a spontaneous overnight evolution. I simply said this was the first step. As much as I like Amtrak, and I do ride the CZ between Denver and Chicago quite a bit, it doesn't make sense. It's as if we had a national conestoga wagon association begging for money to run wagon trains to the west.

Amtrak is the National Steel and Wire of the Rail Passenger world. For some reason, they're holding onto what worked a long time ago, and ignoring reality. The result is an operation that appeals to railfans, but basically makes everyone else shake their heads.

Bush would never be stupid enough to bankrupt the FAA. Because while bankrupting Amtrak would pretty much have no effect on the economy, a big shake up in the industry like that would be cataclysmic to the well being of the economy. And if it ever did happen, one of two things would occur: 1) The people of the US would vote for someone who realized that the airline passenger industry is an important one, or 2) Private industry would step in to the wake of an FAA collapse.

By the by, I think you'll find that I-76 wasn't created for Sterling, CO. I'm thinking it has a lot more to do with the fact that its an important link between two major E-W interstates, namely I-80, and I-76. The concept that I-76 was made for Sterling, CO is as silly as Denver being a "popular Amtrak stop." Come out to Denver some day, and I'll drive down to Union Station, and we can watch how many people get on and off of the CZ. Then, we can head out to DIA, and see how many people travel by air. I'd be willing to bet that the former wouldn't equal .01% of the latter.

Chris
Denver, CO

-Chris
West Chicago, IL
Christopher May Fine Art Photography

"In wisdom gathered over time I have found that every experience is a form of exploration." ~Ansel Adams

• Reply