Helping Amtrak Survive

[kenneo]

We have had two topics lately about Amtrak and its costs. We have discussed a bit about the costs and why they are as they are.

Why not put together a thread about what Amtrak can do to help itself? I think we should focus on the positive revenue producing things, but cost savings should not be excluded. Important also would be things that can be done to encourage repeat ridership. And where they are doing good now, that should be emphasized where appropriate.

I would think that the rational behind our suggestions would be appropriate.

Nothing reasonable should be out of bounds and the inventive should be entertained. Where problems arise that are the result of Congress doings, legislative or other workable solutions should be provided.

If we can get a good enough collection of suggestions and rationals, perhaps we could forward them on to Mr. Gunn. I am sure that he will have heard about most, if not all, of our suggestions, but sometimes it's looking at the same old thing in a new way that brings a working solution.[^]

I will be gone until Aug 16, and look forward to seeing the results of my little grenade upon return! Keep those flanges between the rail heads! [8D]

[kenneo]

We have had two topics lately about Amtrak and its costs. We have discussed a bit about the costs and why they are as they are.

Why not put together a thread about what Amtrak can do to help itself? I think we should focus on the positive revenue producing things, but cost savings should not be excluded. Important also would be things that can be done to encourage repeat ridership. And where they are doing good now, that should be emphasized where appropriate.

I would think that the rational behind our suggestions would be appropriate.

Nothing reasonable should be out of bounds and the inventive should be entertained. Where problems arise that are the result of Congress doings, legislative or other workable solutions should be provided.

If we can get a good enough collection of suggestions and rationals, perhaps we could forward them on to Mr. Gunn. I am sure that he will have heard about most, if not all, of our suggestions, but sometimes it's looking at the same old thing in a new way that brings a working solution.[^]

I will be gone until Aug 16, and look forward to seeing the results of my little grenade upon return! Keep those flanges between the rail heads! [8D]

[ironhorseman]

See Canadian Cool-Aid thread which I started. Ads on Amtrak, just like NASCAR, would help. This isn't the cure-all solution, but think of the millions that pumped into the autoracing business. If it weren't for sponsors that sport wouldn't exisit.

I don't think public transportation needs to remain sterile, heck, city buses have all kinds of ads all over them all the time. Sponsors on trains: I think it's worth at least a try (but be cautious where Target stores advertise, that could be disastrous! [:0])

[ironhorseman]

See Canadian Cool-Aid thread which I started. Ads on Amtrak, just like NASCAR, would help. This isn't the cure-all solution, but think of the millions that pumped into the autoracing business. If it weren't for sponsors that sport wouldn't exisit.

I don't think public transportation needs to remain sterile, heck, city buses have all kinds of ads all over them all the time. Sponsors on trains: I think it's worth at least a try (but be cautious where Target stores advertise, that could be disastrous! [:0])

[Anonymous]

I don't know what will help. It seems to me that congress means to let Amtrak die, at least as far as long distance travel is concerned. They bend over backwards for the airlines, why not make them pay for all expenses concerning air travel like maintaining an running airports etc and the truckers, make them pay for the entire costs of maintaining the interstates. I just can't believe that passenger rail travel will be allowed to fade away {except in the northeast corridor maybe} and be lost forever.

[Anonymous]

I don't know what will help. It seems to me that congress means to let Amtrak die, at least as far as long distance travel is concerned. They bend over backwards for the airlines, why not make them pay for all expenses concerning air travel like maintaining an running airports etc and the truckers, make them pay for the entire costs of maintaining the interstates. I just can't believe that passenger rail travel will be allowed to fade away {except in the northeast corridor maybe} and be lost forever.

[Willy2]

Union Pacific has TV ads. I think that it may increase ridership if Amtrak also advertised on TV.

Willy

[Willy2]

Union Pacific has TV ads. I think that it may increase ridership if Amtrak also advertised on TV.

Willy

[Willy2]

Another thing that Amtrak could do is come in on time. The eastbound Amtrak train from Denver Colorado to Omaha Nebrska was supposed to come in at 5:35 AM this morning. It is 5:00 PM and the train has not yet arrived.

[Willy2]

Another thing that Amtrak could do is come in on time. The eastbound Amtrak train from Denver Colorado to Omaha Nebrska was supposed to come in at 5:35 AM this morning. It is 5:00 PM and the train has not yet arrived.

[Anonymous]

There is no profit in rail travel. Why take a train that could take 12 hours to get to your destination when flying will get you there in 4? The profit out look is far better for airlines then for rail. Rail travel is not convenent. The rails do not go to every city. The price for a train ticket is not cheaper then a air ticket. (Rail tickets can be more expensive and in most cases are.) I believe long distance rail travel is dieing and should be allowed to do so.
TIM A

[Anonymous]

There is no profit in rail travel. Why take a train that could take 12 hours to get to your destination when flying will get you there in 4? The profit out look is far better for airlines then for rail. Rail travel is not convenent. The rails do not go to every city. The price for a train ticket is not cheaper then a air ticket. (Rail tickets can be more expensive and in most cases are.) I believe long distance rail travel is dieing and should be allowed to do so.
TIM A

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Willy2

Union Pacific has TV ads. I think that it may increase ridership if Amtrak also advertised on TV.

Willy

I actually did once see a very short Amtrak commercial on TV several months ago, never seen it again since. I don't remeber what station. The airlines have plenty of commercials, why doesn't Amtrak? I agreee that congress should also be more supportive of rail passenger transport instead of giving so much ca***o the airlines. It's like a saying I once heard. If the opposite of pro is con, then is the opposite of progress congress?

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Willy2

Union Pacific has TV ads. I think that it may increase ridership if Amtrak also advertised on TV.

Willy

I actually did once see a very short Amtrak commercial on TV several months ago, never seen it again since. I don't remeber what station. The airlines have plenty of commercials, why doesn't Amtrak? I agreee that congress should also be more supportive of rail passenger transport instead of giving so much ca***o the airlines. It's like a saying I once heard. If the opposite of pro is con, then is the opposite of progress congress?

[Anonymous]

The problem with Amtrak is a lack of vision of and for the future. The Senate keeps bailing out Amtrak, at least for operational funds, but the House attempts to kill Amtrak every year. Why? Obviously, Amtrak does not provide the proper service in enough House districts. Why should Congressmen vote for Amtrak if Amtrak does not provide the proper service in their district?

Fortunately, Amtrak does provide service in enough states, but is the service proper? Along the northeast corridor, Amtrak's service is proper. However, in states like Texas, the service is not proper! Amtrak's attempts to run an improper service to most of the states with obsolete equipment is the reason why so many are opposed to Amtrak in the Congress and the reason why Amtrak does not turn an operational profit.

The sooner Amtrak gets the vision of high speed rail, the better Amtrak will be in relation to Congressional funding and operational profits. Americans do want to take the train when the train is fast and the service is proper. The northeast corridor ridership levels prove this point.

Amtrak needs to sell the Congress and the American people high speed rail. To do so will require a ten to twenty year plan of expanding high speed rail to all areas of the country, similar to the interstate highway system. The costs are insignificant to the costs of adding more lanes to interstates or building new interstate highways. The costs will be less than what the DOT spends on airports each year, much less highways. In fact, the costs of building a 7,000 mile network of high speed rail will decrease the costs of airports and highways significantly, so much that we will actually be cutting DOT's budget in the long run.

A half century ago, the Pennsylvania and Santa Fe railroads ran ads promoting transcontinental service in 48 hours. Notice it takes Amtrak three days to do the same today. Therefore, we have lost one days service in half a century. On the other hand, with high speed rail, we could have transcontinental service in one day! "That's right, from New York City to Los Angeles in one day." Imagine how long it would take to get to Chicago from New York City, or to Dallas from New York City.

While the airlines have the Congress baffooned today, frankly, the airlines are running out of air space, terminal gates, and runways at the major airports, not to mention the fact the airlines are having problems financing new aircraft. Eventually, the Congress will be forced to build high speed rail. Why not now?

[Anonymous]

The problem with Amtrak is a lack of vision of and for the future. The Senate keeps bailing out Amtrak, at least for operational funds, but the House attempts to kill Amtrak every year. Why? Obviously, Amtrak does not provide the proper service in enough House districts. Why should Congressmen vote for Amtrak if Amtrak does not provide the proper service in their district?

Fortunately, Amtrak does provide service in enough states, but is the service proper? Along the northeast corridor, Amtrak's service is proper. However, in states like Texas, the service is not proper! Amtrak's attempts to run an improper service to most of the states with obsolete equipment is the reason why so many are opposed to Amtrak in the Congress and the reason why Amtrak does not turn an operational profit.

The sooner Amtrak gets the vision of high speed rail, the better Amtrak will be in relation to Congressional funding and operational profits. Americans do want to take the train when the train is fast and the service is proper. The northeast corridor ridership levels prove this point.

Amtrak needs to sell the Congress and the American people high speed rail. To do so will require a ten to twenty year plan of expanding high speed rail to all areas of the country, similar to the interstate highway system. The costs are insignificant to the costs of adding more lanes to interstates or building new interstate highways. The costs will be less than what the DOT spends on airports each year, much less highways. In fact, the costs of building a 7,000 mile network of high speed rail will decrease the costs of airports and highways significantly, so much that we will actually be cutting DOT's budget in the long run.

A half century ago, the Pennsylvania and Santa Fe railroads ran ads promoting transcontinental service in 48 hours. Notice it takes Amtrak three days to do the same today. Therefore, we have lost one days service in half a century. On the other hand, with high speed rail, we could have transcontinental service in one day! "That's right, from New York City to Los Angeles in one day." Imagine how long it would take to get to Chicago from New York City, or to Dallas from New York City.

While the airlines have the Congress baffooned today, frankly, the airlines are running out of air space, terminal gates, and runways at the major airports, not to mention the fact the airlines are having problems financing new aircraft. Eventually, the Congress will be forced to build high speed rail. Why not now?

[Anonymous]

Who will ride it?? The businessmen will not. Time is money to them, even with high speed rail, trains are still slower. Businessmen do 60% of all the everyday travel. Without there support high speed rail will not make it. The airlines have the business traveler locked in. High speed rail is not going to attract them back. Long distant rail travel is dead. let it die and save us taxpayer's some money.
TIM ARGUBRIGHT

[Anonymous]

Who will ride it?? The businessmen will not. Time is money to them, even with high speed rail, trains are still slower. Businessmen do 60% of all the everyday travel. Without there support high speed rail will not make it. The airlines have the business traveler locked in. High speed rail is not going to attract them back. Long distant rail travel is dead. let it die and save us taxpayer's some money.
TIM ARGUBRIGHT

[Anonymous]

Yes, long distance service is probably dead. I doubt seriously a transcontinental high speed line would be built. But high speed rail can be built as I have said in the previous forums from New York City/Philadelphia to Chicago, Chicago to Dallas/Houston, Dallas/Houston to Atlanta/Jacksonville, Washington DC to Miami thru Atlanta, Chicago to Atlanta, and Los Angeles to Oakland. Total distance is less than 5,000 miles. This network connects the four major population areas of America in a parralegram, with a sla***hru the shortest points: Northeast, Midwest, Texas, and Florida/Georgia. Plus a line for the westcoast.

From this base, all of which could be built along interstate highway real estate, other short lines could be built from Toledo to Detroit, Chicago to Minneapolis thru Milwaukee, Kansas City to Denver, Pittsburgh to Washington DC, New York City to Toronto, and Montreal. Total distance is close to 2,000 miles. Every state east of the Mississippi River is involved, except for three small New England states. Most of the population east of the Mississippi River would live within a few hours bus ride from a high speed line. Several states west of the Mississippi river would be included, Minnesota, Missouri, Kansas, Colorado, Oklahoma, Texas, Louisiana, and California.

The average leg is 900 miles or less, meaning a high speed train averaging 150 mph with stops, a train traveling at a top speed of 186 mph, which TGV and ICE do, can travel the leg in 6 hours, or two legs of the parralegram in 12 hours. In other words, one can travel from a major city in these states and go anywhere in these states of the parralegram in 12 hours or less. More than likely one would travel less than a legs length, such as Dallas to Houston in less than 2 hours, or Chicago to St. Louis in less than 2 hours, or Cleveland to Philadelphia in less than 2 hours, or Charlotte to Washington DC in less than 2 hours....

But the key would be better service. Not just one daily train with the possibility of catching the train at midnight or 5 am, but actually having a choice of catching several trains each day all during the daylight hours. For example, Dallas to Chicago would take about 6 hours on that leg of the parralegram. One trainset could do the return run in 12 hours. Add a second trainset, and there could be a train leaving Dallas and Chicago evedry three hours. Add a third trainset, instead of having service every three hours there would be service every 2 hours.... It is the same with the other legs of the parralegram.... This is actually better service than what most of the airlines provide at DFW except for American Airlines, which has service to Chicago every hour. But I have a feeling American Airllines would not be providing hourly service after Amtrak gets into the high speed rail business. Delta is the next big airline out of DFW, and they provide currently service every three hours to Chicago. United only provides service of two flights.

Frankly, there would be no need to run trains at night..... No need to purchase sleepers..... Unless, after all of these former lines I mentioned were built and we decided to build the transcontinental line to Los Angles from Denver along the Santa Fe route. Then we might need a sleeper.....

Yes, indeed, this plan would work like a charm. Costs would be around twelve million dollars a mile, or a total of $84 billion for 7,000 miles of double high speed electrified track. We could lower our expectations and use the Jet train instead, saving $3 million a mile, bringing the total down to $63 billion and the top speed down to 150 mph.... The costs figures are from the state of Florida's DOT, and their high speed rail plan....

Guess what, that is approximately one year's worth of the federal DOT spending. I favor the adoption of a DOT moratorium of highway and airport spending for three years, so that this high speed rail plan could be built in three years instead of 20. Do we really need or can we delay in the next three years any new highway or airport construction? I say YES!

[Anonymous]

Yes, long distance service is probably dead. I doubt seriously a transcontinental high speed line would be built. But high speed rail can be built as I have said in the previous forums from New York City/Philadelphia to Chicago, Chicago to Dallas/Houston, Dallas/Houston to Atlanta/Jacksonville, Washington DC to Miami thru Atlanta, Chicago to Atlanta, and Los Angeles to Oakland. Total distance is less than 5,000 miles. This network connects the four major population areas of America in a parralegram, with a sla***hru the shortest points: Northeast, Midwest, Texas, and Florida/Georgia. Plus a line for the westcoast.

From this base, all of which could be built along interstate highway real estate, other short lines could be built from Toledo to Detroit, Chicago to Minneapolis thru Milwaukee, Kansas City to Denver, Pittsburgh to Washington DC, New York City to Toronto, and Montreal. Total distance is close to 2,000 miles. Every state east of the Mississippi River is involved, except for three small New England states. Most of the population east of the Mississippi River would live within a few hours bus ride from a high speed line. Several states west of the Mississippi river would be included, Minnesota, Missouri, Kansas, Colorado, Oklahoma, Texas, Louisiana, and California.

The average leg is 900 miles or less, meaning a high speed train averaging 150 mph with stops, a train traveling at a top speed of 186 mph, which TGV and ICE do, can travel the leg in 6 hours, or two legs of the parralegram in 12 hours. In other words, one can travel from a major city in these states and go anywhere in these states of the parralegram in 12 hours or less. More than likely one would travel less than a legs length, such as Dallas to Houston in less than 2 hours, or Chicago to St. Louis in less than 2 hours, or Cleveland to Philadelphia in less than 2 hours, or Charlotte to Washington DC in less than 2 hours....

But the key would be better service. Not just one daily train with the possibility of catching the train at midnight or 5 am, but actually having a choice of catching several trains each day all during the daylight hours. For example, Dallas to Chicago would take about 6 hours on that leg of the parralegram. One trainset could do the return run in 12 hours. Add a second trainset, and there could be a train leaving Dallas and Chicago evedry three hours. Add a third trainset, instead of having service every three hours there would be service every 2 hours.... It is the same with the other legs of the parralegram.... This is actually better service than what most of the airlines provide at DFW except for American Airlines, which has service to Chicago every hour. But I have a feeling American Airllines would not be providing hourly service after Amtrak gets into the high speed rail business. Delta is the next big airline out of DFW, and they provide currently service every three hours to Chicago. United only provides service of two flights.

Frankly, there would be no need to run trains at night..... No need to purchase sleepers..... Unless, after all of these former lines I mentioned were built and we decided to build the transcontinental line to Los Angles from Denver along the Santa Fe route. Then we might need a sleeper.....

Yes, indeed, this plan would work like a charm. Costs would be around twelve million dollars a mile, or a total of $84 billion for 7,000 miles of double high speed electrified track. We could lower our expectations and use the Jet train instead, saving $3 million a mile, bringing the total down to $63 billion and the top speed down to 150 mph.... The costs figures are from the state of Florida's DOT, and their high speed rail plan....

Guess what, that is approximately one year's worth of the federal DOT spending. I favor the adoption of a DOT moratorium of highway and airport spending for three years, so that this high speed rail plan could be built in three years instead of 20. Do we really need or can we delay in the next three years any new highway or airport construction? I say YES!

[Anonymous]

Mr. Clark, You have done your home work well. My hat off to you Sir, you make some very valid points. If this plan is to work, public opion towards rail travel is going to have to make a 180 degree turn. Most of the bad feelings toward rail service stem from the poor performance of Amtrac. I believe if high speed rail is to work, Amtrac must be desolved and something started from square one. The name Amtrac leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
TIM ARGUBRIGHT

[Anonymous]

Mr. Clark, You have done your home work well. My hat off to you Sir, you make some very valid points. If this plan is to work, public opion towards rail travel is going to have to make a 180 degree turn. Most of the bad feelings toward rail service stem from the poor performance of Amtrac. I believe if high speed rail is to work, Amtrac must be desolved and something started from square one. The name Amtrac leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
TIM ARGUBRIGHT

[Anonymous]

As someone said previously-make the airlines, truckers and yes, even the waterway users, pay what it costs to maintain their airway/airports, roads and rivers/canals (infrastructure). And-make the freight lines obey the mandate? that they give Amtrack priority, instead of the constant delays they impose on it. Maybe then the passenger trains could arrive on time?

[Anonymous]

As someone said previously-make the airlines, truckers and yes, even the waterway users, pay what it costs to maintain their airway/airports, roads and rivers/canals (infrastructure). And-make the freight lines obey the mandate? that they give Amtrack priority, instead of the constant delays they impose on it. Maybe then the passenger trains could arrive on time?

[Anonymous]

oklacnw, Valid point but to late!! Amtrac is to far gone to fix. If I were going to promote rail service the first thing to go would be the name Amtrac. If they would have done what you say 20 years ago, Amtrac would not have the reputation that it has now.
TIM A

[Anonymous]

oklacnw, Valid point but to late!! Amtrac is to far gone to fix. If I were going to promote rail service the first thing to go would be the name Amtrac. If they would have done what you say 20 years ago, Amtrac would not have the reputation that it has now.
TIM A

[Willy2]

In my opinion even 10 years ago would have worked better than it would now. Amtrak is continuing to decline rapidly as the years go on. By the way, Amtrak does not leave a bad taste in my mouth.

Willy

[Willy2]

In my opinion even 10 years ago would have worked better than it would now. Amtrak is continuing to decline rapidly as the years go on. By the way, Amtrak does not leave a bad taste in my mouth.

Willy

[RudyRockvilleMD]

QUOTE: Originally posted by donclark

Yes, long distance service is probably dead. I doubt seriously a transcontinental high speed line would be built. But high speed rail can be built as I have said in the previous forums from New York City/Philadelphia to Chicago, Chicago to Dallas/Houston, Dallas/Houston to Atlanta/Jacksonville, Washington DC to Miami thru Atlanta, Chicago to Atlanta, and Los Angeles to Oakland. Total distance is less than 5,000 miles. This network connects the four major population areas of America in a parralegram, with a sla***hru the shortest points: Northeast, Midwest, Texas, and Florida/Georgia. Plus a line for the westcoast.



But the key would be better service. Not just one daily train with the possibility of catching the train at midnight or 5 am, but actually having a choice of catching several trains each day all during the daylight hours. For example, Dallas to Chicago would take about 6 hours on that leg of the parralegram. One trainset could do the return run in 12 hours. Add a second trainset, and there could be a train leaving Dallas and Chicago evedry three hours. Add a third trainset, instead of having service every three hours there would be service every 2 hours.... It is the same with the other legs of the parralegram.... This is actually better service than what most of the airlines provide at DFW except for American Airlines, which has service to Chicago every hour. But I have a feeling American Airllines would not be providing hourly service after Amtrak gets into the high speed rail business. Delta is the next big airline out of DFW, and they provide currently service every three hours to Chicago. United only provides service of two flights.

Frankly, there would be no need to run trains at night..... No need to purchase sleepers..... Unless, after all of these former lines I mentioned were built and we decided to build the transcontinental line to Los Angles from Denver along the Santa Fe route. Then we might need a sleeper.....

Yes, indeed, this plan would work like a charm. Costs would be around twelve million dollars a mile, or a total of $84 billion for 7,000 miles of double high speed electrified track. We could lower our expectations and use the Jet train instead, saving $3 million a mile, bringing the total down to $63 billion and the top speed down to 150 mph.... The costs figures are from the state of Florida's DOT, and their high speed rail plan....

Guess what, that is approximately one year's worth of the federal DOT spending. I favor the adoption of a DOT moratorium of highway and airport spending for three years, so that this high speed rail plan could be built in three years instead of 20. Do we really need or can we delay in the next three years any new highway or airport construction? I say YES!


I agree with you, long distance rail passenger travel is dead, but many of your suggestions of high speed rail corridors are not feasible mostly because their distances and the travel times are too long to be competitive with a door-to-door travel time by air. At an average speed of 150 mph a door-to-door trip by train would only be competitive with air travel if the distance were no more than 400 to 500 miles. Certainly a Dallas/Ft Worth - Houston - San Antonio triangle high-speed rail corridor might be workable

[RudyRockvilleMD]

QUOTE: Originally posted by donclark

Yes, long distance service is probably dead. I doubt seriously a transcontinental high speed line would be built. But high speed rail can be built as I have said in the previous forums from New York City/Philadelphia to Chicago, Chicago to Dallas/Houston, Dallas/Houston to Atlanta/Jacksonville, Washington DC to Miami thru Atlanta, Chicago to Atlanta, and Los Angeles to Oakland. Total distance is less than 5,000 miles. This network connects the four major population areas of America in a parralegram, with a sla***hru the shortest points: Northeast, Midwest, Texas, and Florida/Georgia. Plus a line for the westcoast.



But the key would be better service. Not just one daily train with the possibility of catching the train at midnight or 5 am, but actually having a choice of catching several trains each day all during the daylight hours. For example, Dallas to Chicago would take about 6 hours on that leg of the parralegram. One trainset could do the return run in 12 hours. Add a second trainset, and there could be a train leaving Dallas and Chicago evedry three hours. Add a third trainset, instead of having service every three hours there would be service every 2 hours.... It is the same with the other legs of the parralegram.... This is actually better service than what most of the airlines provide at DFW except for American Airlines, which has service to Chicago every hour. But I have a feeling American Airllines would not be providing hourly service after Amtrak gets into the high speed rail business. Delta is the next big airline out of DFW, and they provide currently service every three hours to Chicago. United only provides service of two flights.

Frankly, there would be no need to run trains at night..... No need to purchase sleepers..... Unless, after all of these former lines I mentioned were built and we decided to build the transcontinental line to Los Angles from Denver along the Santa Fe route. Then we might need a sleeper.....

Yes, indeed, this plan would work like a charm. Costs would be around twelve million dollars a mile, or a total of $84 billion for 7,000 miles of double high speed electrified track. We could lower our expectations and use the Jet train instead, saving $3 million a mile, bringing the total down to $63 billion and the top speed down to 150 mph.... The costs figures are from the state of Florida's DOT, and their high speed rail plan....

Guess what, that is approximately one year's worth of the federal DOT spending. I favor the adoption of a DOT moratorium of highway and airport spending for three years, so that this high speed rail plan could be built in three years instead of 20. Do we really need or can we delay in the next three years any new highway or airport construction? I say YES!


I agree with you, long distance rail passenger travel is dead, but many of your suggestions of high speed rail corridors are not feasible mostly because their distances and the travel times are too long to be competitive with a door-to-door travel time by air. At an average speed of 150 mph a door-to-door trip by train would only be competitive with air travel if the distance were no more than 400 to 500 miles. Certainly a Dallas/Ft Worth - Houston - San Antonio triangle high-speed rail corridor might be workable