Helping Amtrak Survive

[Anonymous]

Those are good questions. I think I will ask my Senators the same Questions.
TIM A

[RudyRockvilleMD]

Tim:
I saw the same article by Don Phillips (akaThe Potomac Pundit) in the Washington Post. I have 2 questions for each of the Senators. 1.) When was the last time you took the train gbetween Washington, DC and your home state? 2)How many time have you taken a train between Washington, DC and your home state?

Does this sound like the old vaudeville question,"When did you stop beating your wife?"

[RudyRockvilleMD]

Tim:
I saw the same article by Don Phillips (akaThe Potomac Pundit) in the Washington Post. I have 2 questions for each of the Senators. 1.) When was the last time you took the train gbetween Washington, DC and your home state? 2)How many time have you taken a train between Washington, DC and your home state?

Does this sound like the old vaudeville question,"When did you stop beating your wife?"

[Anonymous]

Very interesting article in the Chicago Sun Times today. "Republicans demand more money for Amtrak." by Laurence Arnold. Four Senators on the Senate Commerce and Transportation commitee announced a 6 year plan to provide 60 BILLION dollars to help Amtrak. "The reason that Amtrak is always coming up short and running to congress to say "We need more money" is because we have starved them to death," said Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Tex) the bills author. "Amtrak has been a stepchild in the national transportation system" he added.
The 4 Republicans Senators Hutchison, Trent Lott of Mississippi, Conrad Burns of Montana and Olympia Snowe of Maine-represent states outside Amtraks busy corridors. They have adopted the motto "National or Nothing". Under there plan, for every one dollar spent on the busy corridors, 4 must be spent elsewhere. They hope to expand rail service through out the nation and not just in the busy corridors.
This may sound good to some people but if this bill goes through it would mean cut funds for high speed rail.
TIM A

Source: Chicago Sun Times news section pg.30 Thursday July 31 2003
Written by: Laurence Arnold from AP

[Anonymous]

Very interesting article in the Chicago Sun Times today. "Republicans demand more money for Amtrak." by Laurence Arnold. Four Senators on the Senate Commerce and Transportation commitee announced a 6 year plan to provide 60 BILLION dollars to help Amtrak. "The reason that Amtrak is always coming up short and running to congress to say "We need more money" is because we have starved them to death," said Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Tex) the bills author. "Amtrak has been a stepchild in the national transportation system" he added.
The 4 Republicans Senators Hutchison, Trent Lott of Mississippi, Conrad Burns of Montana and Olympia Snowe of Maine-represent states outside Amtraks busy corridors. They have adopted the motto "National or Nothing". Under there plan, for every one dollar spent on the busy corridors, 4 must be spent elsewhere. They hope to expand rail service through out the nation and not just in the busy corridors.
This may sound good to some people but if this bill goes through it would mean cut funds for high speed rail.
TIM A

Source: Chicago Sun Times news section pg.30 Thursday July 31 2003
Written by: Laurence Arnold from AP

[Anonymous]

"If you build it, will they come"

Yes. I'd tell you to look at a domestic airline schedule in France, except that I couldn't find you one. High-speed rail increases travel between cities at a nearly unbelievable level. The TGV stole half its customers from the airlines, pretty much eliminating intercity air travel between these cities, and created the other half. The Calais-Paris-Lyon route corresponds roughly to Chicago-St.Louis-Kansas City, except that Calais and Lyon are much smaller than Chicago and St. Louis, and thus more traffic will be expected on the American line. In addition to this, the railroad isn't burned into the French psyche as it is the American one. We are a nation of railfans and will ride the train whenever it is practical for us to do so. The Acela makes 5% on investment. It shouldn't. It shouldn't have the ridership it has with all its troubles.

Tim, if we build it, we'll come. Don't worry.





As for the Congressmen being concerned with re-election, we could start building the line in Milwaukee and start 117-MPH service to Chicago by the end of the year, and to St. Louis by election 2004 if we're allowed to pull the train with old "E" units until a new fast passenger diesel arrives.

[Anonymous]

"If you build it, will they come"

Yes. I'd tell you to look at a domestic airline schedule in France, except that I couldn't find you one. High-speed rail increases travel between cities at a nearly unbelievable level. The TGV stole half its customers from the airlines, pretty much eliminating intercity air travel between these cities, and created the other half. The Calais-Paris-Lyon route corresponds roughly to Chicago-St.Louis-Kansas City, except that Calais and Lyon are much smaller than Chicago and St. Louis, and thus more traffic will be expected on the American line. In addition to this, the railroad isn't burned into the French psyche as it is the American one. We are a nation of railfans and will ride the train whenever it is practical for us to do so. The Acela makes 5% on investment. It shouldn't. It shouldn't have the ridership it has with all its troubles.

Tim, if we build it, we'll come. Don't worry.





As for the Congressmen being concerned with re-election, we could start building the line in Milwaukee and start 117-MPH service to Chicago by the end of the year, and to St. Louis by election 2004 if we're allowed to pull the train with old "E" units until a new fast passenger diesel arrives.

[Anonymous]

Don, everything you have said so far makes good sense. And you have mentioned were funding can be sought. Have you thought about one other factor, TIME. A high speed rail network would take years to build. Do you really believe congressmen and Senators would commit to something that could not be finished before there time in office is up?? You are going to have to convince some very important people to make a very expencive investment into the future. And all these important people will be asking the same question: "If we build it, will they come".
TIM A
[ I hope I am not Annoying you ]

[Anonymous]

Don, everything you have said so far makes good sense. And you have mentioned were funding can be sought. Have you thought about one other factor, TIME. A high speed rail network would take years to build. Do you really believe congressmen and Senators would commit to something that could not be finished before there time in office is up?? You are going to have to convince some very important people to make a very expencive investment into the future. And all these important people will be asking the same question: "If we build it, will they come".
TIM A
[ I hope I am not Annoying you ]

[Anonymous]

The reason why driving your car is cheaper, is because you ain't paying a toll to drive along our fine interstate highways. When you have to pay a toll of $2 to go 50 miles, that 900 mile trip can get expensive, add another $38 in tolls besides the gasoline. And most of us can't drive that far without falling asleep, so add a motel/hotel room to the charge card. Plus dinner, lunch and breakfast. Then add the $20 to fill your gasoline tank three times to get there and three times to get back, and you could have riden Amtrak for less..... and you won't be tired when you get there....

With high speed rail, you would get there, 900 miles in 6 hours. How long does it take to drive at an average of 60 mph with stops, 900 miles? The answer, 15 hours..... Once the high speed train blows your doors off alongside the interstate, you might think like the Europeans, and ride the train.....

[Anonymous]

The reason why driving your car is cheaper, is because you ain't paying a toll to drive along our fine interstate highways. When you have to pay a toll of $2 to go 50 miles, that 900 mile trip can get expensive, add another $38 in tolls besides the gasoline. And most of us can't drive that far without falling asleep, so add a motel/hotel room to the charge card. Plus dinner, lunch and breakfast. Then add the $20 to fill your gasoline tank three times to get there and three times to get back, and you could have riden Amtrak for less..... and you won't be tired when you get there....

With high speed rail, you would get there, 900 miles in 6 hours. How long does it take to drive at an average of 60 mph with stops, 900 miles? The answer, 15 hours..... Once the high speed train blows your doors off alongside the interstate, you might think like the Europeans, and ride the train.....

[wabash1]

As long as gas prices are cheap and most every home has 2 cars or more and you can come and go as you please amtrac will never make it. when i get into my car and go when i want and do as i please i dont haft to amend my schedual to a railroad when gas goes to $5.00 a gal and i am going more than 500 miles then i might fly or take a train but until then travel by car is cheaper and people wont do anything that halts thier plans

[wabash1]

As long as gas prices are cheap and most every home has 2 cars or more and you can come and go as you please amtrac will never make it. when i get into my car and go when i want and do as i please i dont haft to amend my schedual to a railroad when gas goes to $5.00 a gal and i am going more than 500 miles then i might fly or take a train but until then travel by car is cheaper and people wont do anything that halts thier plans

[jamesedwbradley]

I wonder why, if long-distance service is "dead", the trains are still full ! I'd like to see the LDSs survive, but Amtrak probably should concentrate (1) 300- to 500- mile corridors like many in Midwest, Northeaset, and Southwest, plus Chicago-St. Louis-K.C.-Omaha, Omaha-Denver, Denver-Salt Lake, Salt Lake-Las Vegas-L.A.) and (2) more car-carrier (Auto)-Trains. I don't understand why these have not been extended nationwide; they had great success in Europe. A good case can be made for NY-Florida servic, too. ( I hope a special case can be made to continue Empire Builder due to the severe weather it encounters - yet look, it's on-time record is fourth in nation ! )
It looks like a single transcon line plus corridors and the NEC is about the best we can expect to settle for with the current national climate, deficits, hunger & shelter needs, elderly, etc.
James E. Bradley Hawk Mountain Chapter N.R.H.S.

[jamesedwbradley]

I wonder why, if long-distance service is "dead", the trains are still full ! I'd like to see the LDSs survive, but Amtrak probably should concentrate (1) 300- to 500- mile corridors like many in Midwest, Northeaset, and Southwest, plus Chicago-St. Louis-K.C.-Omaha, Omaha-Denver, Denver-Salt Lake, Salt Lake-Las Vegas-L.A.) and (2) more car-carrier (Auto)-Trains. I don't understand why these have not been extended nationwide; they had great success in Europe. A good case can be made for NY-Florida servic, too. ( I hope a special case can be made to continue Empire Builder due to the severe weather it encounters - yet look, it's on-time record is fourth in nation ! )
It looks like a single transcon line plus corridors and the NEC is about the best we can expect to settle for with the current national climate, deficits, hunger & shelter needs, elderly, etc.
James E. Bradley Hawk Mountain Chapter N.R.H.S.

[Anonymous]

I agree, travel distances is a problem. But how long is too long? The Northeast Corridor is 450 miles. Yet, very few ride it all the way....

Recently I flew to Chicago, for the first time in 11 years, to attend my son's wedding. Getting to the airport took an hour, I waited 2 hours before the flight departed, another 20 minutes wasted while the long que of airliners took off, a two hour flight, another 15 minutes wasted circling the airport to land with another long que of airliners, and worst of all, 15 minutes to debark the aircraft, another15 minutes for my luggage to arrive, and then an hour to my sons house. Total time was 7 hours and 5 minutes.

You will notice that it would take 6 hours to travel to Chicago by high speed train. Since the station is closer to my home and my son's home, add an hour to the 6 hours, and I will be there in the same time as I flew....7 hours or so. There is no need to get to a station 2 hours early. Usually I arrive around 10-15 minutes early to catch a train. So add another 30 minutes..... I can debark a train in 30 seconds...

So 900 miles begins to looks better.....

But as you said, many will be getting off in Oklahoma City, Kansas City, St. Louis, and possibly Springfield before the train gets to Chicago.... Unlike airliners, train routes are linear. And probably as many will get on in those cities as got off.....

[Anonymous]

I agree, travel distances is a problem. But how long is too long? The Northeast Corridor is 450 miles. Yet, very few ride it all the way....

Recently I flew to Chicago, for the first time in 11 years, to attend my son's wedding. Getting to the airport took an hour, I waited 2 hours before the flight departed, another 20 minutes wasted while the long que of airliners took off, a two hour flight, another 15 minutes wasted circling the airport to land with another long que of airliners, and worst of all, 15 minutes to debark the aircraft, another15 minutes for my luggage to arrive, and then an hour to my sons house. Total time was 7 hours and 5 minutes.

You will notice that it would take 6 hours to travel to Chicago by high speed train. Since the station is closer to my home and my son's home, add an hour to the 6 hours, and I will be there in the same time as I flew....7 hours or so. There is no need to get to a station 2 hours early. Usually I arrive around 10-15 minutes early to catch a train. So add another 30 minutes..... I can debark a train in 30 seconds...

So 900 miles begins to looks better.....

But as you said, many will be getting off in Oklahoma City, Kansas City, St. Louis, and possibly Springfield before the train gets to Chicago.... Unlike airliners, train routes are linear. And probably as many will get on in those cities as got off.....

[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

[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

[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

[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]

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]

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]

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