Who cares if passenger rail disappears ?

[Anonymous]

I've read a lot on these forums about what could be done about Amtrak and I think I may have teed off a lot of people by my constant call that you write or e-mail your congressman or senator, if I have, I'm sorry. I can't help thinking if everyone who answered my ' When did your love for railroads start ' started e-mailing, it would be a start. How about all you guys in the industry, wouldn't you like to be a part of a train like, say; The Twentieth Century Limited. We, the ordinary people, are the only ones who can save passenger rail travel but bemoaning the demise on forums such as this will not help. Let congress know how you feel.
Pop

[Anonymous]

My belief is that if you give americans a good and cheap alternative to cars they will buy it. I do not know what to say about amtrak, cause i've never used it.
But i'm very dissapoited about the level of passenger services in Alaska. Alaska Railroad is providing passenger services, but 99.9% of those using our passenger trains are tourists from other states and countries. We are wasting millions on the facilities that most alaskans probably will never get to use.
But on the bright side we are receiving tons of money from them people.
God bless the tourists.
I'm quite pessimistic(did i spell the right?) about passenger trains in the US. It doesnt work the way we want it to.
Maybe we should discuss that problem with congress as suggested above?

[Anonymous]

My belief is that if you give americans a good and cheap alternative to cars they will buy it. I do not know what to say about amtrak, cause i've never used it.
But i'm very dissapoited about the level of passenger services in Alaska. Alaska Railroad is providing passenger services, but 99.9% of those using our passenger trains are tourists from other states and countries. We are wasting millions on the facilities that most alaskans probably will never get to use.
But on the bright side we are receiving tons of money from them people.
God bless the tourists.
I'm quite pessimistic(did i spell the right?) about passenger trains in the US. It doesnt work the way we want it to.
Maybe we should discuss that problem with congress as suggested above?

[edblysard]

First, I doubt your ordinary.
Ordinary people rarely take a stand, or really voice their opinion.
You have no trouble doing both, which sets you a cut above ordinary.
Yup, would love to be the conductor on the Limited, any of the Zeyphers.
And I speak with my vote, just ask Kay Hutchinson.
I agree, if we want passenger trains, real passenger trains, then the only way we will ever get them is to make our voices and opinions heard in Congress.
Find the e-mail or web site of your congressman, and go to town.
If they finally get the message we wont vote for them if they dont give us what we want, something may get started!
Keep the heat on...
Ed

[edblysard]

First, I doubt your ordinary.
Ordinary people rarely take a stand, or really voice their opinion.
You have no trouble doing both, which sets you a cut above ordinary.
Yup, would love to be the conductor on the Limited, any of the Zeyphers.
And I speak with my vote, just ask Kay Hutchinson.
I agree, if we want passenger trains, real passenger trains, then the only way we will ever get them is to make our voices and opinions heard in Congress.
Find the e-mail or web site of your congressman, and go to town.
If they finally get the message we wont vote for them if they dont give us what we want, something may get started!
Keep the heat on...
Ed

[cabforward]

analyzing this topic is like photographing a diamond from every facet.. a diamond can have hundreds of facets..

it's a catch-22: people stopped riding trains because cars & planes were more available and affordable, attracting customers from riding trains.. therefore, trains spent less to maintain levels of service.. service deteriorated and fewer people rode, causing more curbacks..

transit, although a loser in paying for itself, has attracted ridership where population has resulted in crowded hi-ways & parking conditions.. transit in the northeast corridor, atlanta, chicago, l.a., san diego and seattle will stay as it has maintained regular ridership..

hot-button issues receive immediate consideration.. inter-city rail is not a hot-button issue and will not be in the foreseeable future..

there is no interest in rehabilitating amtrak nation-wide because there is no interest in the medium.. why no interest?

people say if amtrak had its own r-o-w, it could move faster without freights to slow it down.. sure, if i had noone in front of my car, i wouldn't have to slow down.. who will build a hi-way just for me?

france, japan, etc. have hi-speed rail, why not us? beause there's no support for it.. why? amtrak is often slow to arrive, breakdowns and accidents are frequent.. it doesn't matter whose fault it was, any accident is a black mark against the train, in the public's eyes..

a large truck recently was stopped too close to the tracks at a guarded crossing.. [reportd in trains' newswire] it was struck by a lead amtrak engine.. why was the truck parked too close? i don't know, it doesn't matter.. point is, prohibitions against stopping too close to the tracks are not taken seriously enough in the u.s... in europe, it is rare to read of a crossing accident..

nothing about long-haul pass. rail service is taken seriously here.. local transit is serious as voters use the systems and will not tolerate impediments in their trips between work & home..

nation-wide, america has loads of room, and few people to fill up the open spaces, so far.. the thing is, if you're in a hurry, fly; if you're not, drive; if you're really not in a hurry, hitchhike..

europe has few unpopulated areas.. rail service is important as the population is spread evenly from the beaches of normandy to the russian border.. this is why the orient express was popular and lasted so long..

the only way to really put people back into long-haul service is to put the airlines out of business..

before the 50s, trains were common, planes and cars weren't.. now planes and cars are common, trains aren't.. the only way to change this equation is to ground the airlines.. trains would move faster than cars and have no competition from the air..

the public will never support trains as a curiosity, something we should have because we like it, or our parents did, or because it's part of our history..

the public is satisfied to remember trains with videos, books, museums, fan trips & clubs.. those people spend their money on trains because they connect with the idea..

taxpayers will not support long-haul service because they perceive that the money required is too great, the benefit too small and the budget can only grow, not shrink.. also, if the train doesn't stop in their town, they feel slighted and left out of the loop..

how would you re-start interest in the 20th century ltd? i know i couldn't..

how would you re-vitalize interest in the pony express and get people to send mail via horseback? how would you re-vitalize interest in riding a stagecoach from l.a. to denver? why not? this is history, right?

if you don't see the need to return those examples to their historical position, you can appreciate the impression people have about funding long-haul pass. service to the way it was, in whatever year you feel best represents the industry..

buggy whips, steam-powered cars, iceboxes that used an icecake in the top were familiar tools in america in the 20th cent.. they're gone now.. they were replaced.. those who miss them can read books, look for examples in antique shops and trade memories on the internet..

if you ask a hundred people about restoring those examples of americana to their former status in our country, you might get a fair portion of 'sure, why not?' responses..

then ask them if we should hand out tax money to make sure the restoration is done right..how many 'yeses' would you hear?

it isn't that rail serice does not serve an important function in our culture, what it is, is that the public's perception does not support spending great sums of money to make the dream happen for someone else..

if you can figure out a way to sell a number of citizens on the re-introduction of the pony express, buggy whips, old-fashioned ceboxes, etc., and to do it at taxpayer expense, you should not only be selling the idea about pass. trains, you should run for office..

[cabforward]

analyzing this topic is like photographing a diamond from every facet.. a diamond can have hundreds of facets..

it's a catch-22: people stopped riding trains because cars & planes were more available and affordable, attracting customers from riding trains.. therefore, trains spent less to maintain levels of service.. service deteriorated and fewer people rode, causing more curbacks..

transit, although a loser in paying for itself, has attracted ridership where population has resulted in crowded hi-ways & parking conditions.. transit in the northeast corridor, atlanta, chicago, l.a., san diego and seattle will stay as it has maintained regular ridership..

hot-button issues receive immediate consideration.. inter-city rail is not a hot-button issue and will not be in the foreseeable future..

there is no interest in rehabilitating amtrak nation-wide because there is no interest in the medium.. why no interest?

people say if amtrak had its own r-o-w, it could move faster without freights to slow it down.. sure, if i had noone in front of my car, i wouldn't have to slow down.. who will build a hi-way just for me?

france, japan, etc. have hi-speed rail, why not us? beause there's no support for it.. why? amtrak is often slow to arrive, breakdowns and accidents are frequent.. it doesn't matter whose fault it was, any accident is a black mark against the train, in the public's eyes..

a large truck recently was stopped too close to the tracks at a guarded crossing.. [reportd in trains' newswire] it was struck by a lead amtrak engine.. why was the truck parked too close? i don't know, it doesn't matter.. point is, prohibitions against stopping too close to the tracks are not taken seriously enough in the u.s... in europe, it is rare to read of a crossing accident..

nothing about long-haul pass. rail service is taken seriously here.. local transit is serious as voters use the systems and will not tolerate impediments in their trips between work & home..

nation-wide, america has loads of room, and few people to fill up the open spaces, so far.. the thing is, if you're in a hurry, fly; if you're not, drive; if you're really not in a hurry, hitchhike..

europe has few unpopulated areas.. rail service is important as the population is spread evenly from the beaches of normandy to the russian border.. this is why the orient express was popular and lasted so long..

the only way to really put people back into long-haul service is to put the airlines out of business..

before the 50s, trains were common, planes and cars weren't.. now planes and cars are common, trains aren't.. the only way to change this equation is to ground the airlines.. trains would move faster than cars and have no competition from the air..

the public will never support trains as a curiosity, something we should have because we like it, or our parents did, or because it's part of our history..

the public is satisfied to remember trains with videos, books, museums, fan trips & clubs.. those people spend their money on trains because they connect with the idea..

taxpayers will not support long-haul service because they perceive that the money required is too great, the benefit too small and the budget can only grow, not shrink.. also, if the train doesn't stop in their town, they feel slighted and left out of the loop..

how would you re-start interest in the 20th century ltd? i know i couldn't..

how would you re-vitalize interest in the pony express and get people to send mail via horseback? how would you re-vitalize interest in riding a stagecoach from l.a. to denver? why not? this is history, right?

if you don't see the need to return those examples to their historical position, you can appreciate the impression people have about funding long-haul pass. service to the way it was, in whatever year you feel best represents the industry..

buggy whips, steam-powered cars, iceboxes that used an icecake in the top were familiar tools in america in the 20th cent.. they're gone now.. they were replaced.. those who miss them can read books, look for examples in antique shops and trade memories on the internet..

if you ask a hundred people about restoring those examples of americana to their former status in our country, you might get a fair portion of 'sure, why not?' responses..

then ask them if we should hand out tax money to make sure the restoration is done right..how many 'yeses' would you hear?

it isn't that rail serice does not serve an important function in our culture, what it is, is that the public's perception does not support spending great sums of money to make the dream happen for someone else..

if you can figure out a way to sell a number of citizens on the re-introduction of the pony express, buggy whips, old-fashioned ceboxes, etc., and to do it at taxpayer expense, you should not only be selling the idea about pass. trains, you should run for office..

[ironhorseman]

Who cares? Lots of people, that's who.

If we didn't have passenger rail you'd notice it. What should we do? Just eliminate the overnight services? Or all the services?

PEOPLE GO ANYWHERE FOR PLANES
I don't think passenger rail is about getting from point A to point B. We here all know that passenger trains don't go everywhere. I can't get on a train in my hometown. I'd have to drive an hour away to meet a trains that come sometime between 2-8AM (yes, they're late a lot). But you know, people will drive anywhere to take a plane. I live in the Wichita area and everyone drives to Kansas City to get cheaper flights that go to more direct places without transfers and rerouting. Every plane out of Wichita goes to/comes from Dallas everytime. And speaking of driving anywhere, all the airports are located out of city limits, not downtown like train stations.

But despite the diffculties of getting the right flight at the right price, the hassle of getting to and from an airport that now has increased security, and regardless of overbooked flights of crowded planes and cramped seats and taking a chance of poor food meals people will, mostly, take a flight over a train, why?

FEAR OF...
Out of MOST PEOPLE I've talked to - non-train enthusiast - FEAR is why they fly and NOT ride the rails. They're afraid of all those trains crashing all the time and killing all those people. I'm like "what train crashes?" This is an irrational fear. A plane crash is highly more likely to kill everyone aboard and a train crash is more likely of killing only a couple of people at most. Now there are exceptions, but when was the last time a passenger train in the United States crashed and killed hundreds? I know there was one in the 1980s that was a disaster in the North East. But how about the time before that? There was horrific accident in D.C. in 1953. A Pennsy GG1 lead the Federal and crashed at Union Station. Miraculously no one was killed.

The rest of the people I talk to about passenger trains are initially surprised that passenger trains still exist. You should see their eyes light up when I "break this news." But, like most people, they'll forget about and never take a trip.

RR FATALITY FACTS
The worst of railroad passenger fatalities are behind us. You'd have to go back further in history to find them. Pre-WWII and even then pre-1900. Fewer accidents, however, can also be attributed to fewer passenger trains, but more so with increased safety standards. If we could out peak the highest passenger and freight RR traffic in US history we could still maintain safe rails.

I don't understand where people get this major fear of "crashing-all-the-time" passenger trains. Did you know if radar systems failed airplanes would be crashing into each other in the sky. Thank God this didn't happen during the blackout last weekend.

I surprised no one on this forum in any thread has said anything about this fear. If they have, I've missed it (probably because there are too many threads all about this topic).

CONCLUSION
I've said this before and I'll say it again. I'm not a financial wizard nor am I a brilliant strategist or businessman, but if done right the passenger railroads could be run successfully. Some entrepreneur out there could probably do this. The currant system could be done differntly. It's all about supply and demand and the economy of scale.

[ironhorseman]

Who cares? Lots of people, that's who.

If we didn't have passenger rail you'd notice it. What should we do? Just eliminate the overnight services? Or all the services?

PEOPLE GO ANYWHERE FOR PLANES
I don't think passenger rail is about getting from point A to point B. We here all know that passenger trains don't go everywhere. I can't get on a train in my hometown. I'd have to drive an hour away to meet a trains that come sometime between 2-8AM (yes, they're late a lot). But you know, people will drive anywhere to take a plane. I live in the Wichita area and everyone drives to Kansas City to get cheaper flights that go to more direct places without transfers and rerouting. Every plane out of Wichita goes to/comes from Dallas everytime. And speaking of driving anywhere, all the airports are located out of city limits, not downtown like train stations.

But despite the diffculties of getting the right flight at the right price, the hassle of getting to and from an airport that now has increased security, and regardless of overbooked flights of crowded planes and cramped seats and taking a chance of poor food meals people will, mostly, take a flight over a train, why?

FEAR OF...
Out of MOST PEOPLE I've talked to - non-train enthusiast - FEAR is why they fly and NOT ride the rails. They're afraid of all those trains crashing all the time and killing all those people. I'm like "what train crashes?" This is an irrational fear. A plane crash is highly more likely to kill everyone aboard and a train crash is more likely of killing only a couple of people at most. Now there are exceptions, but when was the last time a passenger train in the United States crashed and killed hundreds? I know there was one in the 1980s that was a disaster in the North East. But how about the time before that? There was horrific accident in D.C. in 1953. A Pennsy GG1 lead the Federal and crashed at Union Station. Miraculously no one was killed.

The rest of the people I talk to about passenger trains are initially surprised that passenger trains still exist. You should see their eyes light up when I "break this news." But, like most people, they'll forget about and never take a trip.

RR FATALITY FACTS
The worst of railroad passenger fatalities are behind us. You'd have to go back further in history to find them. Pre-WWII and even then pre-1900. Fewer accidents, however, can also be attributed to fewer passenger trains, but more so with increased safety standards. If we could out peak the highest passenger and freight RR traffic in US history we could still maintain safe rails.

I don't understand where people get this major fear of "crashing-all-the-time" passenger trains. Did you know if radar systems failed airplanes would be crashing into each other in the sky. Thank God this didn't happen during the blackout last weekend.

I surprised no one on this forum in any thread has said anything about this fear. If they have, I've missed it (probably because there are too many threads all about this topic).

CONCLUSION
I've said this before and I'll say it again. I'm not a financial wizard nor am I a brilliant strategist or businessman, but if done right the passenger railroads could be run successfully. Some entrepreneur out there could probably do this. The currant system could be done differntly. It's all about supply and demand and the economy of scale.

[Anonymous]

You will never have successful passenger service because of the fact that freight roads gave it up due to non-profitability, and to allow passenger service on their rails, which is now of great inconvenience, to the extent that would make it truly profitable, is improbable. During the 1960's and 1970's, the bean counters convinced railroads to remove double tracked mainlines, passing sidings, and yards for the sake of tax relief because railroads were in great decline. Now that freight has returned in greater strength, the decision they or their predicessors made some 30 years ago have come to bite them in the butt. What then cost 1 million to lay down rail and maintain, would now cost tens of millions to replace. The railroads simply do not want to lay that kind of cash down. They cry poverty, but have it. The lobby is to have the American people pay the burden with taxes. Don't believe me? Look into the Amtrak Richmond VA station project to return the Downtown Station back to active service, restore Brown Street Yard to a Amtrak facility, and double and triple mainline the RF&P again..Who was supposed to fit the bill? CSX? Hardly! American and Virginian tax payers..

That's why it still hasn't come to fruitition...

You will not see passenger service like it used to because of freight carrier concerns, automobiles, and established costs vs travel times.

Is this all to it? Hardly, but it speaks volumes!

The cold fact is pay the dough, put the rails back, add trains, lower the fares, decrease travel times, and you'll get the increase in ridership.

JMHO....

[Anonymous]

You will never have successful passenger service because of the fact that freight roads gave it up due to non-profitability, and to allow passenger service on their rails, which is now of great inconvenience, to the extent that would make it truly profitable, is improbable. During the 1960's and 1970's, the bean counters convinced railroads to remove double tracked mainlines, passing sidings, and yards for the sake of tax relief because railroads were in great decline. Now that freight has returned in greater strength, the decision they or their predicessors made some 30 years ago have come to bite them in the butt. What then cost 1 million to lay down rail and maintain, would now cost tens of millions to replace. The railroads simply do not want to lay that kind of cash down. They cry poverty, but have it. The lobby is to have the American people pay the burden with taxes. Don't believe me? Look into the Amtrak Richmond VA station project to return the Downtown Station back to active service, restore Brown Street Yard to a Amtrak facility, and double and triple mainline the RF&P again..Who was supposed to fit the bill? CSX? Hardly! American and Virginian tax payers..

That's why it still hasn't come to fruitition...

You will not see passenger service like it used to because of freight carrier concerns, automobiles, and established costs vs travel times.

Is this all to it? Hardly, but it speaks volumes!

The cold fact is pay the dough, put the rails back, add trains, lower the fares, decrease travel times, and you'll get the increase in ridership.

JMHO....

[Anonymous]

Thanks for the compliment Ed. Cabforward how do you know what the taxpayer will or will not stand for? For years we, the taxpayers, have had our hard earned money to the tune of 4 billion dollars a year sent to Israel and a like amount to Egypt and God knows how much more to God knows where, I don't hear any outcry over that. If any of the monuments in D.C. started falling into disrepair there would be a tremendous hue and cry to get them fixed. To my mind, passenger rail service is just as great a monument to the building of this country as any other. O.K. so maybe passenger rail would only be a break even concept at best but how else can you give the travelling public and alternative to planes and cars. After this blackout in the Northeast, you watch the airlines go screaming back to congress because they have lost money. To travel by car on the highways any great distance nowadays produces stress that negates the convenience. I"ll keep on with my writing Washington and I hope some of you will do the same.
Stay safe.
Pop

[Anonymous]

Thanks for the compliment Ed. Cabforward how do you know what the taxpayer will or will not stand for? For years we, the taxpayers, have had our hard earned money to the tune of 4 billion dollars a year sent to Israel and a like amount to Egypt and God knows how much more to God knows where, I don't hear any outcry over that. If any of the monuments in D.C. started falling into disrepair there would be a tremendous hue and cry to get them fixed. To my mind, passenger rail service is just as great a monument to the building of this country as any other. O.K. so maybe passenger rail would only be a break even concept at best but how else can you give the travelling public and alternative to planes and cars. After this blackout in the Northeast, you watch the airlines go screaming back to congress because they have lost money. To travel by car on the highways any great distance nowadays produces stress that negates the convenience. I"ll keep on with my writing Washington and I hope some of you will do the same.
Stay safe.
Pop

[cabforward]

mr scott,

how do i know what the taxpayer will stand for? i sure know what i stand for..

i watch the news (broadcast & cable), i read newspapers and newsmagazines.. unless the media is pulling a really BIG joke on the public, the overwhelming opinion is 'i don't appreciate the taxes i'm paying and don't appreciate being hit on to pay higher taxes or new taxes..'

where have you been? were you held hostage on an island somewhere between shangri-la and the land of oz?

who have you spoken to who supported higher taxes for any purpose? 'oh, gee, scotty, i'm just doing so well, uncle sam should take a bigger share of my hard-earned wages..'

who have you spoken to who supports doubling amtrak's budget? have you talked with anyone who is not on a r.r. line used by amtrak? have you talked to anyone who believes amtrak is doing a bang-up job and certainly deserves more than the share of $$ they are getting?

you're talking to the wrong guy.. you admonished members who post messages here but do nothing more to raise the issue of amtrak funding or public support, yet you have posted several messages here in 1 week..

what are you doing, if you don't object to my asking, to promote long-haul pass. service, especially to those who oppose it?

how many minds have you changed this year who were anti-amtrak, but now support funding as requested by mr. gunn?

confronting me or anyone else on this forum is not a prudent way of bringing the situation to america's conscience.. everybody posting here probably supports amtrak in some manner.. why are you wasting time preaching to the choir?

you may be participating in an organization that is actively raising the cry to support amtrak, but you have not mentioned any activities so far..

what groups or clubs are writing letters, visiting politicians, soliciting support from people in the vicinity of r.r. stations?

i've said it before: add up the people who have ridden a train in the last 30 years, every person who has worked on an amtrak train in the last 30 years, every person in every r.r. forum (doesn't matter what kind), every r.r. modeler, every family member of everyone described in all of the categories above, and you still wouldn't have public opinion strong enough to persuade anyone in congress or the white house..

you are hoping for a white knight to ride up and say, 'yes, i'll save amtrak with my sword excalibur and the prayers of all good people who hunger for the thrill of riding the 20th century ltd. or the super chief or the chattanooga choo-choo again..'

get ready for a shock: it ain't gonna happen.. not this year, not this decade or the next..

you can go on believing amtrak will shape-up, turn a profit and put smiles on everyone's faces.. but it won't help..

you either passed over the my comments about buggy-whips and the pony express or did not think them relevant.. i'll ask again: would you support taxpayer-funding to return the pony express to service? if you hope to stimulate support for your project you (and others who support amtrak funding) need to state your position on reinstating the pony express to active use today..

if you agree, please explain what the pony express can do today that would help the mail service..

if you disagree, please explain why amtrak should receive tax dollars but the pony express shouldn't..

both the express and amtrak have historical backgrounds, both provided a vital service, both stimulated a lot of interest in how they did their job (books, pictures, etc.)..

i don't understand the big deal about helping amtrak.. i think horses that worked on the pony express were much better-looking, the riders showed much more courage riding across indian territories..

but, maybe that's just me..

[cabforward]

mr scott,

how do i know what the taxpayer will stand for? i sure know what i stand for..

i watch the news (broadcast & cable), i read newspapers and newsmagazines.. unless the media is pulling a really BIG joke on the public, the overwhelming opinion is 'i don't appreciate the taxes i'm paying and don't appreciate being hit on to pay higher taxes or new taxes..'

where have you been? were you held hostage on an island somewhere between shangri-la and the land of oz?

who have you spoken to who supported higher taxes for any purpose? 'oh, gee, scotty, i'm just doing so well, uncle sam should take a bigger share of my hard-earned wages..'

who have you spoken to who supports doubling amtrak's budget? have you talked with anyone who is not on a r.r. line used by amtrak? have you talked to anyone who believes amtrak is doing a bang-up job and certainly deserves more than the share of $$ they are getting?

you're talking to the wrong guy.. you admonished members who post messages here but do nothing more to raise the issue of amtrak funding or public support, yet you have posted several messages here in 1 week..

what are you doing, if you don't object to my asking, to promote long-haul pass. service, especially to those who oppose it?

how many minds have you changed this year who were anti-amtrak, but now support funding as requested by mr. gunn?

confronting me or anyone else on this forum is not a prudent way of bringing the situation to america's conscience.. everybody posting here probably supports amtrak in some manner.. why are you wasting time preaching to the choir?

you may be participating in an organization that is actively raising the cry to support amtrak, but you have not mentioned any activities so far..

what groups or clubs are writing letters, visiting politicians, soliciting support from people in the vicinity of r.r. stations?

i've said it before: add up the people who have ridden a train in the last 30 years, every person who has worked on an amtrak train in the last 30 years, every person in every r.r. forum (doesn't matter what kind), every r.r. modeler, every family member of everyone described in all of the categories above, and you still wouldn't have public opinion strong enough to persuade anyone in congress or the white house..

you are hoping for a white knight to ride up and say, 'yes, i'll save amtrak with my sword excalibur and the prayers of all good people who hunger for the thrill of riding the 20th century ltd. or the super chief or the chattanooga choo-choo again..'

get ready for a shock: it ain't gonna happen.. not this year, not this decade or the next..

you can go on believing amtrak will shape-up, turn a profit and put smiles on everyone's faces.. but it won't help..

you either passed over the my comments about buggy-whips and the pony express or did not think them relevant.. i'll ask again: would you support taxpayer-funding to return the pony express to service? if you hope to stimulate support for your project you (and others who support amtrak funding) need to state your position on reinstating the pony express to active use today..

if you agree, please explain what the pony express can do today that would help the mail service..

if you disagree, please explain why amtrak should receive tax dollars but the pony express shouldn't..

both the express and amtrak have historical backgrounds, both provided a vital service, both stimulated a lot of interest in how they did their job (books, pictures, etc.)..

i don't understand the big deal about helping amtrak.. i think horses that worked on the pony express were much better-looking, the riders showed much more courage riding across indian territories..

but, maybe that's just me..

[Anonymous]

Almost everyone I know cares. When faced with the facts that the federal government spends annually $35 billion on interstates that have already been built, $12 billion on airports that have already been built, $7 billion on buses that have already been built, what is a billion for Amtrak? Crumbs.....

When asked what they wanted government to do? All said they were for more infrastructure. For those that wanted less government, they wanted less taxes and regulations, but most of those wanted more infrastructure....

When asked whether America should have a high speed rail network similar to Europe, most agree. In the polls I have seen, more people support high speed rail than they do Amtrak. Many people think Amtrak has been mismanaged. And why not?

Insisting on the daily transcontinentals running through some of the most barren areas of America is not bright. Having no plans to implement high speed rail in America to the major population centers is not bright. The people want other alternatives than the airlines and their car. They want passsenger trains, but they want them to go fast!!!!

When will this government give the people want they want?

[Anonymous]

Almost everyone I know cares. When faced with the facts that the federal government spends annually $35 billion on interstates that have already been built, $12 billion on airports that have already been built, $7 billion on buses that have already been built, what is a billion for Amtrak? Crumbs.....

When asked what they wanted government to do? All said they were for more infrastructure. For those that wanted less government, they wanted less taxes and regulations, but most of those wanted more infrastructure....

When asked whether America should have a high speed rail network similar to Europe, most agree. In the polls I have seen, more people support high speed rail than they do Amtrak. Many people think Amtrak has been mismanaged. And why not?

Insisting on the daily transcontinentals running through some of the most barren areas of America is not bright. Having no plans to implement high speed rail in America to the major population centers is not bright. The people want other alternatives than the airlines and their car. They want passsenger trains, but they want them to go fast!!!!

When will this government give the people want they want?

[Anonymous]

I wouldn't compare USA with Europe. Two completely different stories. More people in Europe rely on trains to get them from point A to point B than here.
As for high speed network in this country- if there is money i say build it. But i won't be surprised if only few people will use it. Cars are simply more affordable and convinient.

[Anonymous]

I wouldn't compare USA with Europe. Two completely different stories. More people in Europe rely on trains to get them from point A to point B than here.
As for high speed network in this country- if there is money i say build it. But i won't be surprised if only few people will use it. Cars are simply more affordable and convinient.

[Anonymous]

1. Long distance rail travel in this country is dead!! Let the dead lie dead!!
2. I would rather see the money being spent on Amtrak today, be used for expanding AIRPORTS!!
3. I have taken trips on Amtrak 4 times in 2 year, everytime I get off the train I say the same thing, NEVER AGAIN!!
4. Bigger airports boost the economy in there area. Railroads do not!! (Example: The new U.P. yard at Rochelle was turned down by two other communities.)
5. A train takes twice as long to get from point A to point B. To a businessman time is money.
6. A train ticket costs the same as a plane ticket.
TIM A

[Anonymous]

1. Long distance rail travel in this country is dead!! Let the dead lie dead!!
2. I would rather see the money being spent on Amtrak today, be used for expanding AIRPORTS!!
3. I have taken trips on Amtrak 4 times in 2 year, everytime I get off the train I say the same thing, NEVER AGAIN!!
4. Bigger airports boost the economy in there area. Railroads do not!! (Example: The new U.P. yard at Rochelle was turned down by two other communities.)
5. A train takes twice as long to get from point A to point B. To a businessman time is money.
6. A train ticket costs the same as a plane ticket.
TIM A

[RudyRockvilleMD]

It depends. If it is commuter rail service quite a few would care if passenger rail service disappears; but, if it is long distance very few would care. According to statistics gathered by the Department of Transportation's Bureau of Transportation Statistics only 0.5% of all trips in the U.S. longer than 100 miles are by train.

Let's face it motorists pay user fees in the form of state or federal gasoline taxes, and sometimes tolls, to drive. Airline passengers pay user fees in the form of a 10% taxe on airline tickets, security fees, and airport passenger facility fees to fly. How much and what kind of user fees do railroad passengers pay?

I doubt of any congressman/congresswoman or senator would be turned out of office for failing to support passenger rail service.

After World War II the railroads spent plenty of money upgrading passenger trains even to the point of doing much more to make train travel attractive to the coach passenger, and people flocked to the trains. But, when air travel became more widespread and more comfortable it was only inevitable that people would travel by air.

There is a need for some long distance passengerail service, but mostly in the more crowded and densely populated corridors where building more highways is not the answer. Supporting all passenger rail service makes asmuch sense as bringing back the Pony Express and river steamers, or ocean liners from the U.S. to Europe, Hawaii, or the Far East.

[RudyRockvilleMD]

It depends. If it is commuter rail service quite a few would care if passenger rail service disappears; but, if it is long distance very few would care. According to statistics gathered by the Department of Transportation's Bureau of Transportation Statistics only 0.5% of all trips in the U.S. longer than 100 miles are by train.

Let's face it motorists pay user fees in the form of state or federal gasoline taxes, and sometimes tolls, to drive. Airline passengers pay user fees in the form of a 10% taxe on airline tickets, security fees, and airport passenger facility fees to fly. How much and what kind of user fees do railroad passengers pay?

I doubt of any congressman/congresswoman or senator would be turned out of office for failing to support passenger rail service.

After World War II the railroads spent plenty of money upgrading passenger trains even to the point of doing much more to make train travel attractive to the coach passenger, and people flocked to the trains. But, when air travel became more widespread and more comfortable it was only inevitable that people would travel by air.

There is a need for some long distance passengerail service, but mostly in the more crowded and densely populated corridors where building more highways is not the answer. Supporting all passenger rail service makes asmuch sense as bringing back the Pony Express and river steamers, or ocean liners from the U.S. to Europe, Hawaii, or the Far East.

[Anonymous]

One reason why passenger rail has suffered in this country is because the maintenance on the infrastructure of the competing modes (air and highway) are paid for by taxes while the freight lines are responsible for maintaining the rail lines. The freight lines maintain the tracks well enough so their trains can go over them at the rates they usually travel at which is not nearly good enough for passenger rail that could compete with cars and planes. According to two pieces in the current issue of "Trains" this is true, in part, because the men who own the railroads have always been afraid to let the government maintain the tracks because of the regulations that would certainly accompany such involvement. Also, the auto makers, truckers and the airlines have fought tooth and nail to prevent increased subsidies for rail service. Apparently, things are changing of late. On the one hand, trucking companies are beginning to work with railroads ("Beltway Insider") and the railroad CEOs are also seeing advantages in working with the government ("From the Editor").

Also, a study done for the National Association of Railroad Passengers, suggests that passenger rail would be competitive with air and highway transportation over medium distances (e. g. Chicago-Detroit) if it was subsidized on the same level.

Here in Chicago, we are fighting over how to deal with our over-crowded airports. At present, most plans propose updating existing airports or building a new one. But there is a small but growing minority that is advocating rail as the solution. Jet engines are terribly inefficient at low altitudes. On short flights, planes spend very little time at an altitude that is best for their engines. Diesel/Electric locomotives are already more efficient and with the improvements that are going to have to be done to reduce emissions, they'll do better yet. We just need to have roads build with welded rails, concrete ties and no level crossings so that the trains can go 150+ mph like they do on the Northeast Corridor.

[Anonymous]

One reason why passenger rail has suffered in this country is because the maintenance on the infrastructure of the competing modes (air and highway) are paid for by taxes while the freight lines are responsible for maintaining the rail lines. The freight lines maintain the tracks well enough so their trains can go over them at the rates they usually travel at which is not nearly good enough for passenger rail that could compete with cars and planes. According to two pieces in the current issue of "Trains" this is true, in part, because the men who own the railroads have always been afraid to let the government maintain the tracks because of the regulations that would certainly accompany such involvement. Also, the auto makers, truckers and the airlines have fought tooth and nail to prevent increased subsidies for rail service. Apparently, things are changing of late. On the one hand, trucking companies are beginning to work with railroads ("Beltway Insider") and the railroad CEOs are also seeing advantages in working with the government ("From the Editor").

Also, a study done for the National Association of Railroad Passengers, suggests that passenger rail would be competitive with air and highway transportation over medium distances (e. g. Chicago-Detroit) if it was subsidized on the same level.

Here in Chicago, we are fighting over how to deal with our over-crowded airports. At present, most plans propose updating existing airports or building a new one. But there is a small but growing minority that is advocating rail as the solution. Jet engines are terribly inefficient at low altitudes. On short flights, planes spend very little time at an altitude that is best for their engines. Diesel/Electric locomotives are already more efficient and with the improvements that are going to have to be done to reduce emissions, they'll do better yet. We just need to have roads build with welded rails, concrete ties and no level crossings so that the trains can go 150+ mph like they do on the Northeast Corridor.

[jsanchez]

I think its interesting that even countries like Korea, Taiwan, China, Russia, Spain are pulling ahead of the USA with highspeed rail, even India is working towards it. It seems every part of the world realizes the efficiency, ecconomic benefits, increased mobilty and minimal environmental impact of highspeed rail. One rail track is equal to seventeen lanes of interstate. Does anyone in the Bush administration realize that? Building high speed rail would greatly cut our dependence on foriegn oil, this should be a national priority. Air travel is a horrible fuel guzzling mode of transport, as is most highway oriented transport.
With airlines not wanting to deal with trips under 400 miles in distance , there is a huge need for highspeed rail transportation in this country. Think about it next time your stuck in traffic whether it is Atlanta, Orlando, Des Moines Houston, L.A., etc. The USA needs more trains not less. Due to the high population growth of this country it is only going to get worse. Interstate highways no matter how many lanes you add will never match the potential efficiency and capacity to move people and goods as rail can. It is also a relative cheap to build rail compared to airport runaways or interstate highways through urban/suburban areas. The French TGV proved this. I wi***he leadership of the USA Democrat and Republican had some vision, instead just apeasing those who contribute to their campaigns every two to four years. We need a highspeed interstate rail system equivelant to Eisenhower's Interstate highway vision of the 1950's which is our reality now, for good or bad.

James
www.parail.com

[jsanchez]

I think its interesting that even countries like Korea, Taiwan, China, Russia, Spain are pulling ahead of the USA with highspeed rail, even India is working towards it. It seems every part of the world realizes the efficiency, ecconomic benefits, increased mobilty and minimal environmental impact of highspeed rail. One rail track is equal to seventeen lanes of interstate. Does anyone in the Bush administration realize that? Building high speed rail would greatly cut our dependence on foriegn oil, this should be a national priority. Air travel is a horrible fuel guzzling mode of transport, as is most highway oriented transport.
With airlines not wanting to deal with trips under 400 miles in distance , there is a huge need for highspeed rail transportation in this country. Think about it next time your stuck in traffic whether it is Atlanta, Orlando, Des Moines Houston, L.A., etc. The USA needs more trains not less. Due to the high population growth of this country it is only going to get worse. Interstate highways no matter how many lanes you add will never match the potential efficiency and capacity to move people and goods as rail can. It is also a relative cheap to build rail compared to airport runaways or interstate highways through urban/suburban areas. The French TGV proved this. I wi***he leadership of the USA Democrat and Republican had some vision, instead just apeasing those who contribute to their campaigns every two to four years. We need a highspeed interstate rail system equivelant to Eisenhower's Interstate highway vision of the 1950's which is our reality now, for good or bad.

James
www.parail.com

[Anonymous]

Why is Cunard building the new Queen Mary 2, twice the displacement of the Queen Elizabeth 2? Why did Norwegian Cruise Lines buy and save the S.S. United States, yes the Big U, the pride of the American merchant marine and holder of the Blue Ribband? No one I know likes to fly, no one I know likes to drive more than 3 hours. However, everyone I know don't mind riding fast trains as they have in Europe for several hours....

Vision is the word. Insight into the future. While our population is not as dense as Europe's, the United States is still growing, whereas Europe isn't. In twenty to thirty years, most of America east of the Mississippi River will be as dense as Europe is today, plus the eastern half of Texas. In the 2000 census, Texas has a population of over 22 million, ten of it in two large metropolitan areas of Houston and Dallas. In the next twenty years, that number is expected to double....

Practically all of the states east of the Mississippi River is dense enough for high speed rail, as is California. There is no need to wait twenty years, we need to get started NOW!

High speed rail lines can be built alongside interstate highways, and alongside current railroad right of ways. When the lines close upon a large city, small distances can be purchased to connect the stations in existence already to the new main lines (probably less than a mile). High speed rail lines can also be built under the huge transmission power lines too. Available CHEAP real estate exists.

THE BEST OF WHAT HIGH SPEED RAIL LINES BRING TO THE TABLE IS MORE FREQUENCY! For example, a train averaging 150 mph can travel the 900 miles distances of most of the legs I proposed in 6 hours, not 24 hours. Therefore two trains operating on any leg can provide service every 3 hours, three trains can provide service every 2 hours. THIS IS AIRLINE SERVICE FREQUENCY!

No need to run trains at night. If one is late, wait 2 hours for the next train. All of this during daylight hours. Unfortunately, Amtrak can't provide that service today except on the northeast corridor. After high speed rail is built, that service frequency would be everywhere....

And like the Europeans, once Americans get their door blown off by a high speed train, they might consider riding the train the next time.....

[Anonymous]

Why is Cunard building the new Queen Mary 2, twice the displacement of the Queen Elizabeth 2? Why did Norwegian Cruise Lines buy and save the S.S. United States, yes the Big U, the pride of the American merchant marine and holder of the Blue Ribband? No one I know likes to fly, no one I know likes to drive more than 3 hours. However, everyone I know don't mind riding fast trains as they have in Europe for several hours....

Vision is the word. Insight into the future. While our population is not as dense as Europe's, the United States is still growing, whereas Europe isn't. In twenty to thirty years, most of America east of the Mississippi River will be as dense as Europe is today, plus the eastern half of Texas. In the 2000 census, Texas has a population of over 22 million, ten of it in two large metropolitan areas of Houston and Dallas. In the next twenty years, that number is expected to double....

Practically all of the states east of the Mississippi River is dense enough for high speed rail, as is California. There is no need to wait twenty years, we need to get started NOW!

High speed rail lines can be built alongside interstate highways, and alongside current railroad right of ways. When the lines close upon a large city, small distances can be purchased to connect the stations in existence already to the new main lines (probably less than a mile). High speed rail lines can also be built under the huge transmission power lines too. Available CHEAP real estate exists.

THE BEST OF WHAT HIGH SPEED RAIL LINES BRING TO THE TABLE IS MORE FREQUENCY! For example, a train averaging 150 mph can travel the 900 miles distances of most of the legs I proposed in 6 hours, not 24 hours. Therefore two trains operating on any leg can provide service every 3 hours, three trains can provide service every 2 hours. THIS IS AIRLINE SERVICE FREQUENCY!

No need to run trains at night. If one is late, wait 2 hours for the next train. All of this during daylight hours. Unfortunately, Amtrak can't provide that service today except on the northeast corridor. After high speed rail is built, that service frequency would be everywhere....

And like the Europeans, once Americans get their door blown off by a high speed train, they might consider riding the train the next time.....

[cabforward]

if long-haul pass. service appeals to taxpayers, politicians, etc., why hasn't construction started? if hi-speed rail is important to our transportation infrastructure, why hasn't construction started?

is the vision in this area confined to railfans? is there noone else who can understand the importance of pouring concrete to begin this leap forward?

the answer is market appeal.. it sells everything anyone ever purchased.. we all use soap, right? does it matter what brand we buy? not really.. why do we buy certain brands and not others? market appeal.. the price, the color, the shape all contribute to the appeal of the product..

this applies to presidential elections, tv sets, and mass transit..

people have to want to use a product before they spend their money..

people do not care to use long-haul pass. service because it doesn't appeal to them.. i have already discussed the reasons for r.rs. lack of appeal.. and there are hundreds more.. unless/until an idea is presented to its audience in an appealing manner, it will not sell, period..

promises of better this-and-that will not motivate people to demand better rail service.. the govt. promising to do something carries no weight with the public.. there is no trust, no credibility in the govt..

a promise to build a better rail system will not impress anyone except bidding contractors and politicians in areas where work would take place..

a promise to make america as well-connected as the nec would carry no weight with 90% of voters.. voters do not care about improving conditions in another part of the country.. and they really don't care to pay taxes to provide better rail service between chicago and omaha..

due to planes and cars, railroads have become a local issue, or 500 miles of where you are..

someday, 500-mile links of rapid rail systems may be a reality.. but a mere plan that would be agreeable to everyone concerned won't happen this year or this decade or the next..

americans will not travel in large numbers unless they believe there is a substantial payoff.. airlines serve this need with speed.. cars serve this need with privacy and luxury..

how do trains serve this need? well, railfans like them, retired r.r. workers like them, kids like them.. gee, how can we improve those numbers? maybe if every supporter would persuade 2 people to write their congressman and we offer a special prayer to the 'super chief', we will get our wish, in less than 100 years!!

in the meantime, if you want to know what pass. trains were like in the old days, find someone who rode them.. if you want to ride a luxury train, buy a ticket on the orient express.. it leaves paris every day..

that's the only way you, your children and your grandchildren will get close to a terrific (though expensive) ride..

everyone discussing pass. trains should realize they are talking about pie-in-the-sky.. it's a dream, and that's all it its..

if it's fun to discuss pass. trains and how they could be better, that's one thing.. don't fool yourself into believing it might really happen.. that is a practical joke on yourself..

if govt. would spend the money, if politicians would see the need, if people would understand, if designers of hi-speed rail would explain to skeptics how it improved their transportation..

many years ago, i read a saying that sums it up..

if we had some ham, we could ham and eggs, if we had some eggs..

if amtrak had the money, it could present a case for a transit plan, if it had a plan..

[cabforward]

if long-haul pass. service appeals to taxpayers, politicians, etc., why hasn't construction started? if hi-speed rail is important to our transportation infrastructure, why hasn't construction started?

is the vision in this area confined to railfans? is there noone else who can understand the importance of pouring concrete to begin this leap forward?

the answer is market appeal.. it sells everything anyone ever purchased.. we all use soap, right? does it matter what brand we buy? not really.. why do we buy certain brands and not others? market appeal.. the price, the color, the shape all contribute to the appeal of the product..

this applies to presidential elections, tv sets, and mass transit..

people have to want to use a product before they spend their money..

people do not care to use long-haul pass. service because it doesn't appeal to them.. i have already discussed the reasons for r.rs. lack of appeal.. and there are hundreds more.. unless/until an idea is presented to its audience in an appealing manner, it will not sell, period..

promises of better this-and-that will not motivate people to demand better rail service.. the govt. promising to do something carries no weight with the public.. there is no trust, no credibility in the govt..

a promise to build a better rail system will not impress anyone except bidding contractors and politicians in areas where work would take place..

a promise to make america as well-connected as the nec would carry no weight with 90% of voters.. voters do not care about improving conditions in another part of the country.. and they really don't care to pay taxes to provide better rail service between chicago and omaha..

due to planes and cars, railroads have become a local issue, or 500 miles of where you are..

someday, 500-mile links of rapid rail systems may be a reality.. but a mere plan that would be agreeable to everyone concerned won't happen this year or this decade or the next..

americans will not travel in large numbers unless they believe there is a substantial payoff.. airlines serve this need with speed.. cars serve this need with privacy and luxury..

how do trains serve this need? well, railfans like them, retired r.r. workers like them, kids like them.. gee, how can we improve those numbers? maybe if every supporter would persuade 2 people to write their congressman and we offer a special prayer to the 'super chief', we will get our wish, in less than 100 years!!

in the meantime, if you want to know what pass. trains were like in the old days, find someone who rode them.. if you want to ride a luxury train, buy a ticket on the orient express.. it leaves paris every day..

that's the only way you, your children and your grandchildren will get close to a terrific (though expensive) ride..

everyone discussing pass. trains should realize they are talking about pie-in-the-sky.. it's a dream, and that's all it its..

if it's fun to discuss pass. trains and how they could be better, that's one thing.. don't fool yourself into believing it might really happen.. that is a practical joke on yourself..

if govt. would spend the money, if politicians would see the need, if people would understand, if designers of hi-speed rail would explain to skeptics how it improved their transportation..

many years ago, i read a saying that sums it up..

if we had some ham, we could ham and eggs, if we had some eggs..

if amtrak had the money, it could present a case for a transit plan, if it had a plan..

[Anonymous]

Frankly, I am not that much of a supporter for Amtrak. I would prefer to have private industry build the high speed railroad tracks, and operate them. But I do know this, the government will have to get involved to remove the obstacles: such as the nimby organizations, to force people to sell real estate at a reasonable price, and sell and back the bonds.

Ten years ago, TGV wanted to build the Texas triangle high speed trains, but they needed the help of the state government to back and sell the bonds. NO ONE HAS FIVE BILLION DOLLARS BURNING A HOLE IN THEIR POCKETS! Approximately 400 miles of double track electrified high speed rail would have been built at $12 million a mile is 4.8 billion dollars. The route was Dallas to San Antonio alongside I-35, with a branch from Temple to Houston alongside State Highway 6.

The only problem is by Texas law the selling of bonds must be approved by the electorate. At that time the state DOT was prohibited to sell bonds. Texas' turnpikes at that time were built by the North Texas Turnpike Authority, a commission brought about by a state constitutional amendment, which was passed by the voters in the early 1950s. Even today it is limited to selling only $1 billon worth of bonds, or debt. As we speak, the North Texas Turnpike Authority is building the new George Bu***urnpike around the northern suburbs of Dallas. However, since it is limited to a certain amount of debt, it has taken over 10 years just to get from State Highway 78 to I-35E. It is being built several miles at a time, which generate revenue to pay off some bonds, so that they can sell more bonds to build more of the turnpike. Eventually, in thirty years time, this turnpike might surround Dallas.

It is the same with DART. DART after selling its limit of bonds, again $1billion, was able to build a short starter line. As a few years went by, DART was able to build some more of the line to Plano. With federal appropriations the line to Garland was extended. SO IF THE FEDS CAN FUND INTRACITY LINES, WHY NOT INTERCITY LINES TOO?

So, do you see the picture? Either Amtrak or some other federal government funds the construction through appropriations, or the state sells and backs bonds to fund the construction. NO NEW CORPORATION WILL BE ABLE TO SELL THE BONDS BECAUSE NOBODY WILL BUY THEM!

A year ago you could purchase a airline ticket from Paris to Marsailles, but not today. TGV has finally reached Marsailles, and the airlines have abandoned the Paris to Marsailles fllights. Why?

PEOPLE ENJOY RIDING TRAINS, ESPECIALLY FAST TRAINS! The seats are wider, with much more leg room. One can get up and buy a snack or a drink at the time when one is hungry or thirsty, not when the airlline stewardess gets to you. And what is best about the train is the large number of doors, usually two per car in each both directions, the getting on and getting off of a train is so much faster than an airliner, which have only one door. Unless you are flying first class, it can take up to 20 minutes to embard and disembark a jet. Not so with a train, you will be off in less than a minute. On top of this luxury, one can stand up on a train and walk the train at any given time to stretch their legs and sit without seat belts. Unfortunately, airlines still have the stay seated and seat belt signs.

Oh yes, when the fast trains are here, you will have to make a decision whether to fly to Chicago from Dallas one day, or somewhere else of 900 miles. Six train hours will look good in the future when the airlines expect you to arrive three hours early to get through security instead of the two hours today. AND JUST WHO DO YOU THINK IS PAYING FOR THE AIRPORT SECURITY? Yep, the feds. The feds took this service over after the airlines FAILED to do the job properly.

The problem with fast trains is there comes a point of no return, long distances. Yes, the airllines will always win the long distances wars with trains. But trains easily win the 300 mile distances, compete well with the airlines at 500 miles, and lately, with the increased time at airports screening through security, in the future trains can compete well with the airllines up to 1000 miles.

And it is easy to catch the train. Carry your one piece of luggage and catch a commuter train or bus to the station, and catch a train. No need to park a car. If the bus isn't handy, call a cab. The price will be far less to take a cab to the station for most people than to ride a cab to the airport in the hicks.

However, I will agree with you on one thing. Slow trains are a thing of the past, and no one really wants to support the slow trains much more. We want to go fast, just like they do in Europe. And we don't like to fly, the airlines have treated us so poorly in the past packing us in their airlines like sardines...not to mention that a rain storm often leads to delays and other missed flights. It takes a flood or a mountain of snow to stop the train.

[Anonymous]

Frankly, I am not that much of a supporter for Amtrak. I would prefer to have private industry build the high speed railroad tracks, and operate them. But I do know this, the government will have to get involved to remove the obstacles: such as the nimby organizations, to force people to sell real estate at a reasonable price, and sell and back the bonds.

Ten years ago, TGV wanted to build the Texas triangle high speed trains, but they needed the help of the state government to back and sell the bonds. NO ONE HAS FIVE BILLION DOLLARS BURNING A HOLE IN THEIR POCKETS! Approximately 400 miles of double track electrified high speed rail would have been built at $12 million a mile is 4.8 billion dollars. The route was Dallas to San Antonio alongside I-35, with a branch from Temple to Houston alongside State Highway 6.

The only problem is by Texas law the selling of bonds must be approved by the electorate. At that time the state DOT was prohibited to sell bonds. Texas' turnpikes at that time were built by the North Texas Turnpike Authority, a commission brought about by a state constitutional amendment, which was passed by the voters in the early 1950s. Even today it is limited to selling only $1 billon worth of bonds, or debt. As we speak, the North Texas Turnpike Authority is building the new George Bu***urnpike around the northern suburbs of Dallas. However, since it is limited to a certain amount of debt, it has taken over 10 years just to get from State Highway 78 to I-35E. It is being built several miles at a time, which generate revenue to pay off some bonds, so that they can sell more bonds to build more of the turnpike. Eventually, in thirty years time, this turnpike might surround Dallas.

It is the same with DART. DART after selling its limit of bonds, again $1billion, was able to build a short starter line. As a few years went by, DART was able to build some more of the line to Plano. With federal appropriations the line to Garland was extended. SO IF THE FEDS CAN FUND INTRACITY LINES, WHY NOT INTERCITY LINES TOO?

So, do you see the picture? Either Amtrak or some other federal government funds the construction through appropriations, or the state sells and backs bonds to fund the construction. NO NEW CORPORATION WILL BE ABLE TO SELL THE BONDS BECAUSE NOBODY WILL BUY THEM!

A year ago you could purchase a airline ticket from Paris to Marsailles, but not today. TGV has finally reached Marsailles, and the airlines have abandoned the Paris to Marsailles fllights. Why?

PEOPLE ENJOY RIDING TRAINS, ESPECIALLY FAST TRAINS! The seats are wider, with much more leg room. One can get up and buy a snack or a drink at the time when one is hungry or thirsty, not when the airlline stewardess gets to you. And what is best about the train is the large number of doors, usually two per car in each both directions, the getting on and getting off of a train is so much faster than an airliner, which have only one door. Unless you are flying first class, it can take up to 20 minutes to embard and disembark a jet. Not so with a train, you will be off in less than a minute. On top of this luxury, one can stand up on a train and walk the train at any given time to stretch their legs and sit without seat belts. Unfortunately, airlines still have the stay seated and seat belt signs.

Oh yes, when the fast trains are here, you will have to make a decision whether to fly to Chicago from Dallas one day, or somewhere else of 900 miles. Six train hours will look good in the future when the airlines expect you to arrive three hours early to get through security instead of the two hours today. AND JUST WHO DO YOU THINK IS PAYING FOR THE AIRPORT SECURITY? Yep, the feds. The feds took this service over after the airlines FAILED to do the job properly.

The problem with fast trains is there comes a point of no return, long distances. Yes, the airllines will always win the long distances wars with trains. But trains easily win the 300 mile distances, compete well with the airlines at 500 miles, and lately, with the increased time at airports screening through security, in the future trains can compete well with the airllines up to 1000 miles.

And it is easy to catch the train. Carry your one piece of luggage and catch a commuter train or bus to the station, and catch a train. No need to park a car. If the bus isn't handy, call a cab. The price will be far less to take a cab to the station for most people than to ride a cab to the airport in the hicks.

However, I will agree with you on one thing. Slow trains are a thing of the past, and no one really wants to support the slow trains much more. We want to go fast, just like they do in Europe. And we don't like to fly, the airlines have treated us so poorly in the past packing us in their airlines like sardines...not to mention that a rain storm often leads to delays and other missed flights. It takes a flood or a mountain of snow to stop the train.

[cabforward]

when a govt. runs the r.r., they spend all the money they want.. tgv in france, and whatever they call it in japan, are govt. operations..

they can do whatever they want, they are in charge.. they own the bank, they print the money..

here, not true, o.k.? private r.rs. run freights, govt. runs pass.. they share freight's r-o-w, o.k.?

private r.rs. will not sell another pass. ticket in the present universe..

that leaves just the govt.. not csx or bnsf, not a group of r.rs., not a whiz-bang co. from mexico city..

the only way long-haul pass. will work here is if it is handled by the govt., just like in other countries, o.k.?

the problem is, other countries have always handled their r.rs.. here, private r.rs. handle freight, will never give it up, and resent the presence of amtrak on their r-o-w, o.k.?

the only r-o-w amtrak can use is private freights', because they used to run pass. trains on the same tracks they use for freight service now..

american taxpayers & politicians will never support building r-o-w just for amtrak, read my previous posts..

texas' secret behind their building of transit lines is just that, they are transit lines.. the feds support transit lines because crowded cities want them, the product is pre-sold.. noone will draw a supportive crowd arguing against transit, o.k.?

rail pass. service in america is dead for service over 500 miles.. amtrak will not be running the cross-country trains in 10 more years, the inflationary cost is too great, the benefits are too small, o.k.?

europe and other areas of the world can operate cross-country rail because they are in charge.. their word trumps anything the opposition can say..

the golden rule: 'he who has the gold, makes the rules'.. o.k.?

here the gold is split between the govt. and private freights, o.k.?

public sentiment, brainstorming of ideas and lists of advantages enjoyed if we would go with someone's plan don't count..

we will never have hi-speed rail as other countries do because we aren't like other countries.. their govts. have always run all their trains, their govts. can spend whatever they want, their govts. don't have to fight the hundreds of state, city, county govts. & govt. agencies to get permission to acquire r-o-w as we do, o.k.?

our govt. is not like any other, our legal structure is not like any other, our division of freight & pass. service is not like any other..

that means we can have no expectation of modeling pass. r.r. like any other, o.k.?

[cabforward]

when a govt. runs the r.r., they spend all the money they want.. tgv in france, and whatever they call it in japan, are govt. operations..

they can do whatever they want, they are in charge.. they own the bank, they print the money..

here, not true, o.k.? private r.rs. run freights, govt. runs pass.. they share freight's r-o-w, o.k.?

private r.rs. will not sell another pass. ticket in the present universe..

that leaves just the govt.. not csx or bnsf, not a group of r.rs., not a whiz-bang co. from mexico city..

the only way long-haul pass. will work here is if it is handled by the govt., just like in other countries, o.k.?

the problem is, other countries have always handled their r.rs.. here, private r.rs. handle freight, will never give it up, and resent the presence of amtrak on their r-o-w, o.k.?

the only r-o-w amtrak can use is private freights', because they used to run pass. trains on the same tracks they use for freight service now..

american taxpayers & politicians will never support building r-o-w just for amtrak, read my previous posts..

texas' secret behind their building of transit lines is just that, they are transit lines.. the feds support transit lines because crowded cities want them, the product is pre-sold.. noone will draw a supportive crowd arguing against transit, o.k.?

rail pass. service in america is dead for service over 500 miles.. amtrak will not be running the cross-country trains in 10 more years, the inflationary cost is too great, the benefits are too small, o.k.?

europe and other areas of the world can operate cross-country rail because they are in charge.. their word trumps anything the opposition can say..

the golden rule: 'he who has the gold, makes the rules'.. o.k.?

here the gold is split between the govt. and private freights, o.k.?

public sentiment, brainstorming of ideas and lists of advantages enjoyed if we would go with someone's plan don't count..

we will never have hi-speed rail as other countries do because we aren't like other countries.. their govts. have always run all their trains, their govts. can spend whatever they want, their govts. don't have to fight the hundreds of state, city, county govts. & govt. agencies to get permission to acquire r-o-w as we do, o.k.?

our govt. is not like any other, our legal structure is not like any other, our division of freight & pass. service is not like any other..

that means we can have no expectation of modeling pass. r.r. like any other, o.k.?

[f14aplusfl]

I'm no expert... but trains make a lot less noise than airports. And people complain about the noise from the airports (why they chose to live by one is beyond me). The government is willing to give billions to aid airlines and security that should have been considered in the first place and not a dime to Amtrak. The airport terminals some of you glorified owe their design (well nature of it) to the great tra9ins stations of America, namely Grand Central Station in NYC. Yeah, we won't have passenger trains like the ICE, TGV, and the Acela trainsets are a joke (now the HHP-8 locomotives are better). If anything, the US should invest in cars and locomotives and updrading and expanding the infrastructure to make the high speed rail possible. Not just for passengers, but also frieght. Think about it. A container ship loaded with bannas docks and they put it on some hotshot intermodal frieght from LA to Chicago, it'll get there in two days....but what about one day, half a day, etc..... the same we can do with passengers... it oughta be both. Remeber LCD (lasss than a carload) consists and passenger trains from my understanding were the priority trains of any railroad. Like the NY Central's Pacemaker (I might thave that one wrong) LCD service, for priority/perishable cargoes. Als we need to have pride in having passenger trains, like the Pennsyslavaina RR had for their blue ribbon fleet of trains. I doubt many Americans have pride in Amtrack, muchless the trains themselves or know if it exists. Like I asked my class of 32 fellow students, i'm the only one that has ridden a train beyond toursit trains, commutter rail, and rapid transit. And that was on Amtrack.

Also I think (but won't happen) that if there was competition between two RRs like the New York Central and Pennyslavainia did with their 20th Century Limit and the Broadway Limit, respectively, over practically the "same" route; service would be better, and the same for speed, competition can be very much a motivator in doing something, whatever it is.

[f14aplusfl]

I'm no expert... but trains make a lot less noise than airports. And people complain about the noise from the airports (why they chose to live by one is beyond me). The government is willing to give billions to aid airlines and security that should have been considered in the first place and not a dime to Amtrak. The airport terminals some of you glorified owe their design (well nature of it) to the great tra9ins stations of America, namely Grand Central Station in NYC. Yeah, we won't have passenger trains like the ICE, TGV, and the Acela trainsets are a joke (now the HHP-8 locomotives are better). If anything, the US should invest in cars and locomotives and updrading and expanding the infrastructure to make the high speed rail possible. Not just for passengers, but also frieght. Think about it. A container ship loaded with bannas docks and they put it on some hotshot intermodal frieght from LA to Chicago, it'll get there in two days....but what about one day, half a day, etc..... the same we can do with passengers... it oughta be both. Remeber LCD (lasss than a carload) consists and passenger trains from my understanding were the priority trains of any railroad. Like the NY Central's Pacemaker (I might thave that one wrong) LCD service, for priority/perishable cargoes. Als we need to have pride in having passenger trains, like the Pennsyslavaina RR had for their blue ribbon fleet of trains. I doubt many Americans have pride in Amtrack, muchless the trains themselves or know if it exists. Like I asked my class of 32 fellow students, i'm the only one that has ridden a train beyond toursit trains, commutter rail, and rapid transit. And that was on Amtrack.

Also I think (but won't happen) that if there was competition between two RRs like the New York Central and Pennyslavainia did with their 20th Century Limit and the Broadway Limit, respectively, over practically the "same" route; service would be better, and the same for speed, competition can be very much a motivator in doing something, whatever it is.

[cabforward]

you are living in a dream world.. why would two r.rs. compete for pass. traffic? what's the incentive? the admiration of the public? what could possibly make it worth their while to put in pass. trains when they could make 4x the money with freight?

you make it sound like, if we just ask them, they would fight to get in the doorway to ask us to allow them to run pass. trains just to make us happy..

really, what is that?

i'd really like for someone to respond to the arguments i have posted..

why would r.rs. run pass. trains instead of freight? they cut engineers off from loco cabs.. they're working conductors @ twice the responsibility as engineers and don't pay them a dime extra.. why would they spend $$ on pass. service?

r.rs. lost money on nearly all pass. runs when service was at its peak, but the freight side paid for it, so it balanced out, and they still made money..

the world is different in 2003.. and you're saying, golly, i bet the same r.rs. who couldn't wait to drop pass. service would now compete to return pass. service to the way it was..

have you read any news bulletins about the r.rs. being interested in running pass. trains? why is that?

you are failing to consider the 'cause-and-effect' aspect of the issue.. for a business to do something, there has to be a reason, a motivation, a payoff concept..

r.rs. make good money hauling reight, and they bend over backwards to do it.. this impresses customers and hopefully attracts interest from those who have not shipped by rail..

the motivation for pass. service is what? to provide adequate service, lose only a little money, so they can attract more people who want to ride and help the r.r. lose a little more money? are there many people who believe that?

[cabforward]

you are living in a dream world.. why would two r.rs. compete for pass. traffic? what's the incentive? the admiration of the public? what could possibly make it worth their while to put in pass. trains when they could make 4x the money with freight?

you make it sound like, if we just ask them, they would fight to get in the doorway to ask us to allow them to run pass. trains just to make us happy..

really, what is that?

i'd really like for someone to respond to the arguments i have posted..

why would r.rs. run pass. trains instead of freight? they cut engineers off from loco cabs.. they're working conductors @ twice the responsibility as engineers and don't pay them a dime extra.. why would they spend $$ on pass. service?

r.rs. lost money on nearly all pass. runs when service was at its peak, but the freight side paid for it, so it balanced out, and they still made money..

the world is different in 2003.. and you're saying, golly, i bet the same r.rs. who couldn't wait to drop pass. service would now compete to return pass. service to the way it was..

have you read any news bulletins about the r.rs. being interested in running pass. trains? why is that?

you are failing to consider the 'cause-and-effect' aspect of the issue.. for a business to do something, there has to be a reason, a motivation, a payoff concept..

r.rs. make good money hauling reight, and they bend over backwards to do it.. this impresses customers and hopefully attracts interest from those who have not shipped by rail..

the motivation for pass. service is what? to provide adequate service, lose only a little money, so they can attract more people who want to ride and help the r.r. lose a little more money? are there many people who believe that?

[joho2486]

As many have noted, you want high speed trains in the U.S. I just went on a trip to Europe that included a high speed TGV ride from Lyon to Paris. There are quite a few hinderances that keep high speed rail from becoming a reality. Here are some that really keep the high speed rail from becoming a reality:

1. Bush Administration - With a Texas man comes cattle and oil. While one doesn't factor in much, the other probably was a minor assurance of taking Iraq. With this administration also means more towards airplanes and cars, and not to trains (Not to mention trying to split up Amtrak).

2. Politicians - With so many politicians being paid by the oil companies to support bills that keep mpg standards low, many don't want to anger the source that normally keeps them in office.

3. Amtrak - With David Gunn in the house, the order at Amtrak is much better. However, is there someone like him that could run Amtrak, and is much younger? Once Gunn leaves, Amtrak will return to the "Warrington" days.

4. Northeast Corridor - While there is a grade-separated line for the most part between Washington and Boston, the cities in between are too close to achieving high speed (Washington to Baltimore; about 50 miles, every other city pair from Baltimore to Philly, and from Philly to NY, and even NY to Beantown less than 300 miles at best). Everyone is saying that the NEC is the best place for high speed trains. The NEC is best for about 110 mph trains that are very frequent (one every 30 minutes) and reliable. That will draw more riders, because the top speed of 150 is hardly even achieved. The best area to try to get high speed rail is in California, between LA and SF, and between LA and Sacramento. The next best area to try is in Texas, as someone has already mentioned, from Dallas to Houston, and from Dallas to San Antonio. Other city pairs include Vancouver-Seattle-Portland, Chicago-St. Louis, Chicago-Detroit, Chicago-Indianapolis-Cincinnati, and Philadelphia-Pittsburgh.

5. (and final one) FRA buff standards - I hate to say it, but the European style trains are much lighter than our trains. Part of that is due to the fact that buff standards aren't as stringent as ours are. True, one can say that our buff standards still allow our trains to go higher speed, but the realization that going high speed means safety will always be compromised, even when the signaling system is the best (PTC). I remember going about 85 mph (130 kph) in suburban Paris and Lyon where there is no cab control; just lineside signals. You can't do that in the U.S., where the fastest you could go is 79 mph on CTC. Yes, lives will be lost, but when PTC makes a train stop when it exceeds its authority, the rails will be ultra safe, meaning that the buff standards can be relaxed somewhat.

I think I've said enough; how about your word?

[joho2486]

As many have noted, you want high speed trains in the U.S. I just went on a trip to Europe that included a high speed TGV ride from Lyon to Paris. There are quite a few hinderances that keep high speed rail from becoming a reality. Here are some that really keep the high speed rail from becoming a reality:

1. Bush Administration - With a Texas man comes cattle and oil. While one doesn't factor in much, the other probably was a minor assurance of taking Iraq. With this administration also means more towards airplanes and cars, and not to trains (Not to mention trying to split up Amtrak).

2. Politicians - With so many politicians being paid by the oil companies to support bills that keep mpg standards low, many don't want to anger the source that normally keeps them in office.

3. Amtrak - With David Gunn in the house, the order at Amtrak is much better. However, is there someone like him that could run Amtrak, and is much younger? Once Gunn leaves, Amtrak will return to the "Warrington" days.

4. Northeast Corridor - While there is a grade-separated line for the most part between Washington and Boston, the cities in between are too close to achieving high speed (Washington to Baltimore; about 50 miles, every other city pair from Baltimore to Philly, and from Philly to NY, and even NY to Beantown less than 300 miles at best). Everyone is saying that the NEC is the best place for high speed trains. The NEC is best for about 110 mph trains that are very frequent (one every 30 minutes) and reliable. That will draw more riders, because the top speed of 150 is hardly even achieved. The best area to try to get high speed rail is in California, between LA and SF, and between LA and Sacramento. The next best area to try is in Texas, as someone has already mentioned, from Dallas to Houston, and from Dallas to San Antonio. Other city pairs include Vancouver-Seattle-Portland, Chicago-St. Louis, Chicago-Detroit, Chicago-Indianapolis-Cincinnati, and Philadelphia-Pittsburgh.

5. (and final one) FRA buff standards - I hate to say it, but the European style trains are much lighter than our trains. Part of that is due to the fact that buff standards aren't as stringent as ours are. True, one can say that our buff standards still allow our trains to go higher speed, but the realization that going high speed means safety will always be compromised, even when the signaling system is the best (PTC). I remember going about 85 mph (130 kph) in suburban Paris and Lyon where there is no cab control; just lineside signals. You can't do that in the U.S., where the fastest you could go is 79 mph on CTC. Yes, lives will be lost, but when PTC makes a train stop when it exceeds its authority, the rails will be ultra safe, meaning that the buff standards can be relaxed somewhat.

I think I've said enough; how about your word?

[cabforward]

mr joho,

some references in your post i cannot follow..

your first sentence says, you want hi-speed trains in the u.s.. are you speaking of people generally, or me in particular?

me, i couldn't care less either way.. i am just arguing a position based on what i have seen in the media and what i have understood from history..

whatever happens to amtrak, r.rs. in general, or any aspect of trans., means nothing to me, except that it proves me right or wrong..

you are wrong about the bush presidency being indifferent to r.rs.. he is no better or worse than many pres. before him..

the last prseident who made any significant decisions about amtrak, as far as i'm concerned, was nixon.. he signed the bill authorizing the installation of amtrak..

you talk of oil interests keeping r.rs. from becoming more important as a means of trans.. maybe you're right, but it seems there is always a need for a product that can be made from oil.. the market is there, and will be there for the foreseeable future..

the media have recently reported the development of hydrogen autos.. hydrogen gas is injected into a pressurized tank.. range is approx. 200 miles.. the predicted cost of a new hydrogen car today, is approx. $40-60,000..

seems to me exxon would have a lot to say about losing a piece of the market to a hydrogen-based fuel, whose only 'exhaust' is water.. how did 'big oil' miss that one?

you talk of the nec and cities out west having connections.. o.k., that's supports what i said.. pass. service under 500 miles is a probable development.. this distance is 'local' in terms of transportation discussions.. i have written positively of transit lines in each post..

fra buff standards- what is that? never saw it before..
you say theirs are lighter than ours, o.k.. you're way past me here..need clarification..

european-style trains- what is that? are you referring to trains in europe, or trains that are designed to look like european trains?

i lived in germany in the 60s as a military dependent, and rode trains often.. the economy of europe has changed in 40 years, but european rail has changed very little..

that there have been few negative changes in pass. service is an outstanding testament to european commitment to providing train service everywhere in their domain..

service is on time, r-o-w & rolling stock is maintained, service is frequent to the point of being convenient and the standardization of rules, fares and mutual assistance is remarkable, considering the differnces in culture, language, etc.. this true everywhere except in spain.. spanish gauge is 5 ft.. there is no interchange of eqpt.. the people are extremely friendly, however, and the interruption of changing trains is aminor issue..

[cabforward]

mr joho,

some references in your post i cannot follow..

your first sentence says, you want hi-speed trains in the u.s.. are you speaking of people generally, or me in particular?

me, i couldn't care less either way.. i am just arguing a position based on what i have seen in the media and what i have understood from history..

whatever happens to amtrak, r.rs. in general, or any aspect of trans., means nothing to me, except that it proves me right or wrong..

you are wrong about the bush presidency being indifferent to r.rs.. he is no better or worse than many pres. before him..

the last prseident who made any significant decisions about amtrak, as far as i'm concerned, was nixon.. he signed the bill authorizing the installation of amtrak..

you talk of oil interests keeping r.rs. from becoming more important as a means of trans.. maybe you're right, but it seems there is always a need for a product that can be made from oil.. the market is there, and will be there for the foreseeable future..

the media have recently reported the development of hydrogen autos.. hydrogen gas is injected into a pressurized tank.. range is approx. 200 miles.. the predicted cost of a new hydrogen car today, is approx. $40-60,000..

seems to me exxon would have a lot to say about losing a piece of the market to a hydrogen-based fuel, whose only 'exhaust' is water.. how did 'big oil' miss that one?

you talk of the nec and cities out west having connections.. o.k., that's supports what i said.. pass. service under 500 miles is a probable development.. this distance is 'local' in terms of transportation discussions.. i have written positively of transit lines in each post..

fra buff standards- what is that? never saw it before..
you say theirs are lighter than ours, o.k.. you're way past me here..need clarification..

european-style trains- what is that? are you referring to trains in europe, or trains that are designed to look like european trains?

i lived in germany in the 60s as a military dependent, and rode trains often.. the economy of europe has changed in 40 years, but european rail has changed very little..

that there have been few negative changes in pass. service is an outstanding testament to european commitment to providing train service everywhere in their domain..

service is on time, r-o-w & rolling stock is maintained, service is frequent to the point of being convenient and the standardization of rules, fares and mutual assistance is remarkable, considering the differnces in culture, language, etc.. this true everywhere except in spain.. spanish gauge is 5 ft.. there is no interchange of eqpt.. the people are extremely friendly, however, and the interruption of changing trains is aminor issue..

[Anonymous]

Let's not get too small about distances. While the original TGV line went from Paris to Lyons, that line has been extended to Marsailles, with plans to expand from Marsailes to Barcelona, where Spain is building and built a line to Madrid and Seville. Italy has built a line from Rome to Milan, and is building with the French a line west of Milan to Lyons through the Alps. France, Belgium, and the Netherlands have built a line north of Paris to Amsterdam, and a line from Lille to the chunnel to London, well the British are building from the chunnel to London. France has started construction of a line east of Paris to Strastbourg, where the Germans are building a line from Frankfurt too. Germany has already built a line from Frankfurt to the Ruhr, from the Ruhr to Amsterdam, from the Ruhr to Hannover, from Hannover to Hamburg, and are building a line from Hannover to Berlin. Germany has plans to build south from Frankfurt to Munich, and down to Venice eventually. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT SEVERAL THOUSAND MILES OF HIGH SPEED RAIL CONNECTIVITY IN EUROPE EVENTUALLY. The Paris to Lyons line is now tripled what it once was. TRIPLED! So the 300 mile line, with its advantages of air travel, is and has been extended in Europe.

Any high speed rail plan in America that will have any support in the Congress and among the American people will have to AT LEAST connect the northeast corridor to Chicago (the midwest), to Florida (the southeast), and to Texas, not to mention a line on the west coast in California. It is approximately 450 miles from Boston to Washington DC. It is approximately the same distance from Washington DC to Atlanta, and the same farther south to Miami. Yes, the east coast line will be long. Its about 800 miles from Philadelphia to Chicago along the !-76, I-80 route. It is less than 100 miles from Toledo to Detroit. Its around 900 miles from Dallas to Chicago along I-35, I-44, and I-55. Its another 250 miles to Houston and 300 miles to San Antonio. Its around 800 miles along I-20 from Dallas to Atlanta, and about the same from Houston to Jacksonville. One of these routes should be built, not both in the South, but which one is preferreable I will leave to the engineers and the politicians. What Amtrak is missing in its routes today is a line from the Midwest to Florida, Its only 650 miles from Chicago to Atlanta. There are two possible routes for the west coast, a shorter 450 mile line following I-5, or a longer 600 mile route following the former US Hwy 99 through Fresno and Bakersville. The same here, let's let the engineers and politicans choose which route is best. The Portland to Vancouver route already have Talgo trains, but some money could be spent to make these trains go faster.

The major population centers would be connected. Here are some of the cities included on this 7,000 mile network. Boston, New York City, Philadelphis, Pittsburg, Cleveland, Detroit, Chicago, St. Louis, Dallas, Houston; New Orleans, Mobile, Tallahasse, or Shreveport, Jackson, Birmingham; Jacksonville, Orlando, Miami, Tampa, Atlanta, Charlotte, Raleigh, Richmond, Washington DC, Baltimore, Indianapolis, Lousiville, Nashville, plus Kansas City, Milwaukee, Minneapolis, possibly Albany, Bufallo, Toronto, Montreal, not to mention San Diego, Los Angeles, San Jose, Oakland, even as far as Sacramento, plus Portland, Seattle, and Vancouver. What large towns are missing, such as Norfolk, Memphis, Columbus, Cincinnatti , Denver, and Phoenix could be eventually be built at a later time. These added cities would be about another 1,500 miles to build.
EVERY STATE EAST OF THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER IS INCLUDED, EXCEPT FOR VERMONT, NEW HAMPSHIRE, AND MAINE, AND DEPENDING WHETHER A LINE IS BUILT TO DC FROM PITTSBURG, WEST VIRGINIA COULD OR COULD NOT BE INCLUDED!

I see no need to build high speed rail over the Rockies, but either the former UP line in Wyoming or the Santa Fe line would be best for costs. I see no need to maintain daily service on the transcontinentals; once, or even twice a week service would do, possibly by private firms. The best scenery is already being served by the Colorado Ski Train west of Denver already. The same could be said of the service between Sacramento and Portland.

Recently I have seen a lot of satellite photos of the Northeast blackout, and photos at night of the llights before the blackout. There is no doubt that America has the population density enough for high speed rail between the Northeast to the Midwest to Texas to Florida, and from the Midwest to Florida, and in California. I have compared these lights to the Europeans satellite photos lights too. No doubt in my mind. The satellite photos showed the lights....the density....

Costs. The 7,000 mile plans can be built for the costs of two years of DOT spending, i.e., subsidies to highways and airports. I call for a moratorium on federal subsidies to highways and airports for two years. We won't miss it in the long run, and we would surely enjoy the new high speed rail network built instead.

No doubt about it. Vision and insight is needed, along with a proper sense of priorities.

Who will ride the fast trains? You will, once the fast train blows your doors off your car on the interstate.

[Anonymous]

Let's not get too small about distances. While the original TGV line went from Paris to Lyons, that line has been extended to Marsailles, with plans to expand from Marsailes to Barcelona, where Spain is building and built a line to Madrid and Seville. Italy has built a line from Rome to Milan, and is building with the French a line west of Milan to Lyons through the Alps. France, Belgium, and the Netherlands have built a line north of Paris to Amsterdam, and a line from Lille to the chunnel to London, well the British are building from the chunnel to London. France has started construction of a line east of Paris to Strastbourg, where the Germans are building a line from Frankfurt too. Germany has already built a line from Frankfurt to the Ruhr, from the Ruhr to Amsterdam, from the Ruhr to Hannover, from Hannover to Hamburg, and are building a line from Hannover to Berlin. Germany has plans to build south from Frankfurt to Munich, and down to Venice eventually. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT SEVERAL THOUSAND MILES OF HIGH SPEED RAIL CONNECTIVITY IN EUROPE EVENTUALLY. The Paris to Lyons line is now tripled what it once was. TRIPLED! So the 300 mile line, with its advantages of air travel, is and has been extended in Europe.

Any high speed rail plan in America that will have any support in the Congress and among the American people will have to AT LEAST connect the northeast corridor to Chicago (the midwest), to Florida (the southeast), and to Texas, not to mention a line on the west coast in California. It is approximately 450 miles from Boston to Washington DC. It is approximately the same distance from Washington DC to Atlanta, and the same farther south to Miami. Yes, the east coast line will be long. Its about 800 miles from Philadelphia to Chicago along the !-76, I-80 route. It is less than 100 miles from Toledo to Detroit. Its around 900 miles from Dallas to Chicago along I-35, I-44, and I-55. Its another 250 miles to Houston and 300 miles to San Antonio. Its around 800 miles along I-20 from Dallas to Atlanta, and about the same from Houston to Jacksonville. One of these routes should be built, not both in the South, but which one is preferreable I will leave to the engineers and the politicians. What Amtrak is missing in its routes today is a line from the Midwest to Florida, Its only 650 miles from Chicago to Atlanta. There are two possible routes for the west coast, a shorter 450 mile line following I-5, or a longer 600 mile route following the former US Hwy 99 through Fresno and Bakersville. The same here, let's let the engineers and politicans choose which route is best. The Portland to Vancouver route already have Talgo trains, but some money could be spent to make these trains go faster.

The major population centers would be connected. Here are some of the cities included on this 7,000 mile network. Boston, New York City, Philadelphis, Pittsburg, Cleveland, Detroit, Chicago, St. Louis, Dallas, Houston; New Orleans, Mobile, Tallahasse, or Shreveport, Jackson, Birmingham; Jacksonville, Orlando, Miami, Tampa, Atlanta, Charlotte, Raleigh, Richmond, Washington DC, Baltimore, Indianapolis, Lousiville, Nashville, plus Kansas City, Milwaukee, Minneapolis, possibly Albany, Bufallo, Toronto, Montreal, not to mention San Diego, Los Angeles, San Jose, Oakland, even as far as Sacramento, plus Portland, Seattle, and Vancouver. What large towns are missing, such as Norfolk, Memphis, Columbus, Cincinnatti , Denver, and Phoenix could be eventually be built at a later time. These added cities would be about another 1,500 miles to build.
EVERY STATE EAST OF THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER IS INCLUDED, EXCEPT FOR VERMONT, NEW HAMPSHIRE, AND MAINE, AND DEPENDING WHETHER A LINE IS BUILT TO DC FROM PITTSBURG, WEST VIRGINIA COULD OR COULD NOT BE INCLUDED!

I see no need to build high speed rail over the Rockies, but either the former UP line in Wyoming or the Santa Fe line would be best for costs. I see no need to maintain daily service on the transcontinentals; once, or even twice a week service would do, possibly by private firms. The best scenery is already being served by the Colorado Ski Train west of Denver already. The same could be said of the service between Sacramento and Portland.

Recently I have seen a lot of satellite photos of the Northeast blackout, and photos at night of the llights before the blackout. There is no doubt that America has the population density enough for high speed rail between the Northeast to the Midwest to Texas to Florida, and from the Midwest to Florida, and in California. I have compared these lights to the Europeans satellite photos lights too. No doubt in my mind. The satellite photos showed the lights....the density....

Costs. The 7,000 mile plans can be built for the costs of two years of DOT spending, i.e., subsidies to highways and airports. I call for a moratorium on federal subsidies to highways and airports for two years. We won't miss it in the long run, and we would surely enjoy the new high speed rail network built instead.

No doubt about it. Vision and insight is needed, along with a proper sense of priorities.

Who will ride the fast trains? You will, once the fast train blows your doors off your car on the interstate.

[Anonymous]

Number of trainsets to provide around 2 hour service along high speed routes listed above averaging 150 mph.
450 miles, three trainsets, one and a half in each direction.
600 miles, four trainsets two in each direction.
900 miles, six trainsets three in each direction.

To keep this in perspective, Amtak operates six trainsets on each of its transcontinental lines today, and has four trainscontinental routes (joining the Texas Eagle with the Sunset Limited. This provides due to the slow speed once daily service in each direction, sometimes in the middle of the night. Whereas with high speed rail there could be up to six daily stops in each direction on the 900 mile routes every two hours.....

You tell me if this is enough service. Not quite the 30 minute service of the northeast corridor, but far better for the rest of the nation....

[Anonymous]

Number of trainsets to provide around 2 hour service along high speed routes listed above averaging 150 mph.
450 miles, three trainsets, one and a half in each direction.
600 miles, four trainsets two in each direction.
900 miles, six trainsets three in each direction.

To keep this in perspective, Amtak operates six trainsets on each of its transcontinental lines today, and has four trainscontinental routes (joining the Texas Eagle with the Sunset Limited. This provides due to the slow speed once daily service in each direction, sometimes in the middle of the night. Whereas with high speed rail there could be up to six daily stops in each direction on the 900 mile routes every two hours.....

You tell me if this is enough service. Not quite the 30 minute service of the northeast corridor, but far better for the rest of the nation....

[Anonymous]

Don,
I think it is wrong to compare Europe rail travel to our situation here in the States. Lets not forget fuel for automobiles in European countries it very expensive as compared to what we pay in our country.
I believe the big question concerning rail travel in our Country is, IF YOU BUILD IT, WILL THEY COME.
TIM A

[Anonymous]

Don,
I think it is wrong to compare Europe rail travel to our situation here in the States. Lets not forget fuel for automobiles in European countries it very expensive as compared to what we pay in our country.
I believe the big question concerning rail travel in our Country is, IF YOU BUILD IT, WILL THEY COME.
TIM A

[Modelcar]

....Yes they would it we could build and maintain a system like Don lays out. I wi***he discribed system could be built but getting a consensus among politicans and all other necessary people to provide the money seems unsurmountable. It is just a fact we spend most of our available tax money on war making machines and trying to police and nation build the world that the money pot is always dry. Europe is [spending money] modernizing and we spend money to protect their interests. We're not even keeping up our Interstate Highway system as we should.

[Modelcar]

....Yes they would it we could build and maintain a system like Don lays out. I wi***he discribed system could be built but getting a consensus among politicans and all other necessary people to provide the money seems unsurmountable. It is just a fact we spend most of our available tax money on war making machines and trying to police and nation build the world that the money pot is always dry. Europe is [spending money] modernizing and we spend money to protect their interests. We're not even keeping up our Interstate Highway system as we should.

[joho2486]

Dear cabforward,

To clarify some points (and probably unclarify other points), the high-speed trains are for everyone. Once you ride a high-speed train (TGV, Eurostar, ICE, Shinkhausen, AVE, etc.), you'll agree that there is much more legroom than any coach seat on an airplane. As I have mentioned, I rode the TGV this summer between Lyon and Paris.

The remark about the presidency is somewhat correct. Reagan didn't want Amtrak, but he never tried to split the company up. However, the idea of splitting up Amtrak into a train-operating company and an infrastructure idea is very flawed. Britain tried it already, and it failed miserably; with on-time performance plummeting, deterioration of equipment, and disagreement over MOW windows and capacity improvements. Keep Amtrak the way it is; remember, when you don't own the tracks, you can't provide flexibility in train scheduling.

Buff standards are the minimum requirements that a train car must take in a collision without failing structurally, and basically what keeps train cars from crumbling up like a paper ball in a crash. Recently, there was a debate between the FRA and Amtrak over buff standards with the Talgo trainsets that operate in the Pacific Northwest. The FRA grandfathered those trainsets. The buff standard, I believe, is around 800,000 pounds, or the weight of about two SD40-2s. Also, when VIA, the national passenger service in Canada, bought the Nightstar equipment from Britain, the big story was that the buff standards were too light compared to Canada and the U.S., and that the cars would have to be reinforced structually. You do remember that the freight trains are much lighter over in Europe, right? When I visited Germany, I saw a lot of trains, but most were only about 20-30 cars long with one electric engine. That's the reason the buff-standards are lower in Europe; the trains are lighter in metric tonnes.

Finally, what I meant from European-style trains is more of the articulated trainsets, electrified rail-lines strictly for passenger trains, and more frequent and reliable service. Right now, two of those parts exist in the NEC (electrified lines and frequent service), though the frequent service depends on which section of the NEC is in discussion.

[joho2486]

Dear cabforward,

To clarify some points (and probably unclarify other points), the high-speed trains are for everyone. Once you ride a high-speed train (TGV, Eurostar, ICE, Shinkhausen, AVE, etc.), you'll agree that there is much more legroom than any coach seat on an airplane. As I have mentioned, I rode the TGV this summer between Lyon and Paris.

The remark about the presidency is somewhat correct. Reagan didn't want Amtrak, but he never tried to split the company up. However, the idea of splitting up Amtrak into a train-operating company and an infrastructure idea is very flawed. Britain tried it already, and it failed miserably; with on-time performance plummeting, deterioration of equipment, and disagreement over MOW windows and capacity improvements. Keep Amtrak the way it is; remember, when you don't own the tracks, you can't provide flexibility in train scheduling.

Buff standards are the minimum requirements that a train car must take in a collision without failing structurally, and basically what keeps train cars from crumbling up like a paper ball in a crash. Recently, there was a debate between the FRA and Amtrak over buff standards with the Talgo trainsets that operate in the Pacific Northwest. The FRA grandfathered those trainsets. The buff standard, I believe, is around 800,000 pounds, or the weight of about two SD40-2s. Also, when VIA, the national passenger service in Canada, bought the Nightstar equipment from Britain, the big story was that the buff standards were too light compared to Canada and the U.S., and that the cars would have to be reinforced structually. You do remember that the freight trains are much lighter over in Europe, right? When I visited Germany, I saw a lot of trains, but most were only about 20-30 cars long with one electric engine. That's the reason the buff-standards are lower in Europe; the trains are lighter in metric tonnes.

Finally, what I meant from European-style trains is more of the articulated trainsets, electrified rail-lines strictly for passenger trains, and more frequent and reliable service. Right now, two of those parts exist in the NEC (electrified lines and frequent service), though the frequent service depends on which section of the NEC is in discussion.

[PNWRMNM]

I care and I want them gone.

Since 1901 the US Government has been totaly anti-railroad, despite the fact that the economy was then totaly dependent upon them.

The Govt bleed the carriers dry with rate regulation and empowred the unions to strangle them with high wages and restrictive work rules. That is why the Govt. took the railroads over during WWI. Note the first thing they did was increase rates 25%, which that had forbade the owners from doing.

Amtrak cut half the service the day they took over. Kill the beast. Let the states take over the NEC, they are the big useres of it anyway.

No one is going to build high speed lines in this country for decades. The only way is to start from scratch. That means no Amtrak.

Mac

[PNWRMNM]

I care and I want them gone.

Since 1901 the US Government has been totaly anti-railroad, despite the fact that the economy was then totaly dependent upon them.

The Govt bleed the carriers dry with rate regulation and empowred the unions to strangle them with high wages and restrictive work rules. That is why the Govt. took the railroads over during WWI. Note the first thing they did was increase rates 25%, which that had forbade the owners from doing.

Amtrak cut half the service the day they took over. Kill the beast. Let the states take over the NEC, they are the big useres of it anyway.

No one is going to build high speed lines in this country for decades. The only way is to start from scratch. That means no Amtrak.

Mac

[Anonymous]

There is a very good article in the Sunday Chicago Tribune today. (24 AUG 03). There is a sentence in it, that I found very surprising." Americans are taking to rails in record numbers." Amtrak carried 2.2 million passengers in July the busiest month ever. (About 35,000 passengers a day. Mostly in the Northeast Corridor.)
In that article Mr. Gunn say's "Lets not indulge in this fantasy of self-sufficiency. This is a public service. Let's get on with it."
Maybe Amtrak has someone in charge who is not a dreamer, but a do'er.
TIM A

[Anonymous]

There is a very good article in the Sunday Chicago Tribune today. (24 AUG 03). There is a sentence in it, that I found very surprising." Americans are taking to rails in record numbers." Amtrak carried 2.2 million passengers in July the busiest month ever. (About 35,000 passengers a day. Mostly in the Northeast Corridor.)
In that article Mr. Gunn say's "Lets not indulge in this fantasy of self-sufficiency. This is a public service. Let's get on with it."
Maybe Amtrak has someone in charge who is not a dreamer, but a do'er.
TIM A

[edblysard]

Thats what I have said all along.
Forget trying to make money at it, its a public service, or a public utillity.
The frieght roads were right when they shed themselves of it, it dosnt make money, hasnt since the twenties, never will.

But here a thought.
How often has the price of gasoline jumped up and down in the last three months?
Did you really notice?
Most didnt, they just filled up and went on with things.
Add a penny or two the the gas tax, which most folks would never even notice, and all the funding for a nationalized passenger service is there.

I ride the train, not because I am a railroader, nor for the "romance" involved.
I ride because the flight between Houston and Dallas/Fort Worth used to take about 2 hours total on Southwest, but now takes almost 8, and I can drive both ways in that time.

Because if something goes wrong, the most the train can fall is around 18 feet, instead of 10000 feet.
But mostly because it gets me there in the time frame I need it to, with out the hassle.

Unless the federal goverment takes over the entire airline industry, and runs it like a military operation, what you get now is a good as it will ever be!
And what we have now is worst than bad.
Options are running out, along with time.
Our national population is growing much faster than anyone had plannned, we are running out of time and space at a alarming rate.
Choices?
Build more, wider interstates?
You already know that would take so long that by the time it ever got finished, it would be obsolete.
Bigger airplanes,?
We are out of space to land the ones we have now!

You couldnt pay me to fly into JFK, or LAX.

So how do you sell railroad travel to the general public?
Well, Ike did a great job with the interstate as a national defense project!
Stay Frosty,
Ed

[edblysard]

Thats what I have said all along.
Forget trying to make money at it, its a public service, or a public utillity.
The frieght roads were right when they shed themselves of it, it dosnt make money, hasnt since the twenties, never will.

But here a thought.
How often has the price of gasoline jumped up and down in the last three months?
Did you really notice?
Most didnt, they just filled up and went on with things.
Add a penny or two the the gas tax, which most folks would never even notice, and all the funding for a nationalized passenger service is there.

I ride the train, not because I am a railroader, nor for the "romance" involved.
I ride because the flight between Houston and Dallas/Fort Worth used to take about 2 hours total on Southwest, but now takes almost 8, and I can drive both ways in that time.

Because if something goes wrong, the most the train can fall is around 18 feet, instead of 10000 feet.
But mostly because it gets me there in the time frame I need it to, with out the hassle.

Unless the federal goverment takes over the entire airline industry, and runs it like a military operation, what you get now is a good as it will ever be!
And what we have now is worst than bad.
Options are running out, along with time.
Our national population is growing much faster than anyone had plannned, we are running out of time and space at a alarming rate.
Choices?
Build more, wider interstates?
You already know that would take so long that by the time it ever got finished, it would be obsolete.
Bigger airplanes,?
We are out of space to land the ones we have now!

You couldnt pay me to fly into JFK, or LAX.

So how do you sell railroad travel to the general public?
Well, Ike did a great job with the interstate as a national defense project!
Stay Frosty,
Ed

[Anonymous]

Uhm I care if passenger trains dissapear.. because.. there goes my JOB!

And no quite frankly, i wouldn't care if my taxes were raised 10 cents in supposrt of passenger trains... if we raised everyones taxes by 10 cents up here.. the passenger industry would be fine...

how many of you complain about the charge that goes to 911 from your cell phone bill.. theres 25 to 49 cents a month!

AS far as i'm concerned "Uncle sam" can have 10 cents from me in order to save passenger trains..

QUOTE:
quoted from the one-and-only, most intelligent man alive (HA!) cabforward
where have you been? were you held hostage on an island somewhere between shangri-la and the land of oz?

No i was there... i got a discount at the Emerald Inn, via Hotelnetworks.com.. they got nice stuff there, except theres a spooky man!

[Anonymous]

Uhm I care if passenger trains dissapear.. because.. there goes my JOB!

And no quite frankly, i wouldn't care if my taxes were raised 10 cents in supposrt of passenger trains... if we raised everyones taxes by 10 cents up here.. the passenger industry would be fine...

how many of you complain about the charge that goes to 911 from your cell phone bill.. theres 25 to 49 cents a month!

AS far as i'm concerned "Uncle sam" can have 10 cents from me in order to save passenger trains..

QUOTE:
quoted from the one-and-only, most intelligent man alive (HA!) cabforward
where have you been? were you held hostage on an island somewhere between shangri-la and the land of oz?

No i was there... i got a discount at the Emerald Inn, via Hotelnetworks.com.. they got nice stuff there, except theres a spooky man!

[cabforward]

a so-called 'member' has quoted from a post of mine on this topic and replied as if the comment were directed at him.. not true, it was directed to another member..

apparently, this member is not deriving adequate satisfaction from his posts and feels driven to quote mine as if i were speaking to him.. poor man.. should we all form a circle and cheer him up?

he is from canada, does it matter?

notice: to preserve peace of mind and rationality, follow the DETOUR signs around the next post..

[cabforward]

a so-called 'member' has quoted from a post of mine on this topic and replied as if the comment were directed at him.. not true, it was directed to another member..

apparently, this member is not deriving adequate satisfaction from his posts and feels driven to quote mine as if i were speaking to him.. poor man.. should we all form a circle and cheer him up?

he is from canada, does it matter?

notice: to preserve peace of mind and rationality, follow the DETOUR signs around the next post..

[Anonymous]

Hey Cabforward i have one last lecture to say to you...

All of us at some point, are forced to look at ourselves in the mirror and see who we really are. When that day comes for you Cabforward, you will be confronted with a live lived without Virtue and without Principal.

And for that I pitty you.


Everyone who is reading this, cabforward jsut wants you all to Detour the Truth, but over time you will get to see what a scheming, meniacal, self centered excuse for a human being he is. It is ashame he tries to get people to detour around the truth

Hey CABBIE! the truth can hurt can't it bro?

[Anonymous]

Hey Cabforward i have one last lecture to say to you...

All of us at some point, are forced to look at ourselves in the mirror and see who we really are. When that day comes for you Cabforward, you will be confronted with a live lived without Virtue and without Principal.

And for that I pitty you.


Everyone who is reading this, cabforward jsut wants you all to Detour the Truth, but over time you will get to see what a scheming, meniacal, self centered excuse for a human being he is. It is ashame he tries to get people to detour around the truth

Hey CABBIE! the truth can hurt can't it bro?

[cabforward]

notice: the DETOUR picks up here.. continue with normal viewing..

[cabforward]

notice: the DETOUR picks up here.. continue with normal viewing..

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by joho2486

Yes, lives will be lost, but when PTC makes a train stop when it exceeds its authority, the rails will be ultra safe, meaning that the buff standards can be relaxed somewhat.

Many, many good points.

As long as most routes are dominated by 100 US freight trains, I think the buff standard need to stay as they are. They are helpful in derailments as well as collisions. And, even with PTC, there a no guarantee that a train can't move beyond it's authority. (there will have to be provision for moving PTC disabled trains, much as with cab signal disabled trains now.)

Gunn may be the last of the breed, but I'll bet lurking somewhere within the bowels of one of the frt class ones there's a worthy successor.

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by joho2486

Yes, lives will be lost, but when PTC makes a train stop when it exceeds its authority, the rails will be ultra safe, meaning that the buff standards can be relaxed somewhat.

Many, many good points.

As long as most routes are dominated by 100 US freight trains, I think the buff standard need to stay as they are. They are helpful in derailments as well as collisions. And, even with PTC, there a no guarantee that a train can't move beyond it's authority. (there will have to be provision for moving PTC disabled trains, much as with cab signal disabled trains now.)

Gunn may be the last of the breed, but I'll bet lurking somewhere within the bowels of one of the frt class ones there's a worthy successor.

[Anonymous]

Mr KevinstheRRman be careful about taking on cabforward after all, he is on a mission from God put here to, quote, POINT OUT THE ERRONEOUS WAYS OF OTHERS. and he doesn't care how he does it. Probably thinks sarcsam proves his point.

[Anonymous]

Mr KevinstheRRman be careful about taking on cabforward after all, he is on a mission from God put here to, quote, POINT OUT THE ERRONEOUS WAYS OF OTHERS. and he doesn't care how he does it. Probably thinks sarcsam proves his point.

[Anonymous]

you know scottydog, you are right.
however i would just like to add one more thing to him, I don't know how much of you know ancient litterature, but it's a word of warning to him as the great Aristophanes said and it is roughly translated and I quote:

QUOTE:
quoted from Aristophanes, 600 BC
Youth Ages, Immaturety is outgrown, ignorance can be educated and drunkenness sobbered, BUT STUPID lasts FOREVER.

and I think that has become evident that this idiom, which has survived the test of time, still applies to certain idiots of todays society, Even more so in our friend Cabforward.

[Anonymous]

you know scottydog, you are right.
however i would just like to add one more thing to him, I don't know how much of you know ancient litterature, but it's a word of warning to him as the great Aristophanes said and it is roughly translated and I quote:

QUOTE:
quoted from Aristophanes, 600 BC
Youth Ages, Immaturety is outgrown, ignorance can be educated and drunkenness sobbered, BUT STUPID lasts FOREVER.

and I think that has become evident that this idiom, which has survived the test of time, still applies to certain idiots of todays society, Even more so in our friend Cabforward.

[CG9602]

Let me chime in . . .
I live in a part of the uS where the only rail option for me is to drive 25 - 30 miles or so and then get on the single Empire builder, the single service that we have here in Western WI. having written that, let me draw the following analogy; would you choose to go to the ice cream store that has only 2 flavors, or would you go to the store that has more choice? If you're like most folks I know, you would want more choice in the marketplace, not less. Even though I don't ride the train every day, I at least want the option of riding it to MKE or FTL or other places to visit the relatives.

[CG9602]

Let me chime in . . .
I live in a part of the uS where the only rail option for me is to drive 25 - 30 miles or so and then get on the single Empire builder, the single service that we have here in Western WI. having written that, let me draw the following analogy; would you choose to go to the ice cream store that has only 2 flavors, or would you go to the store that has more choice? If you're like most folks I know, you would want more choice in the marketplace, not less. Even though I don't ride the train every day, I at least want the option of riding it to MKE or FTL or other places to visit the relatives.

[Anonymous]

There is another alternative, the bus. The little town I live in, Granbury, once had a daily bus service in both directions from Fort Worth to San Antonio along Hwys 377 and 281. Lately, this daily service has become a once a week service. Now we get the news that in September we will lose even this inadequate service.

The only busses earning any money are the charters. Similar to the airline industry, the only airlines earning any money are the short hop airlines, who pick and choose their cherry picked routes. The large airlines that have a hub system and fly into major and minor cities, plus international flights, are all losing money.

The citizens of rural America need to realize that any Scheduled bus service will soon be a thing of the past.... such as Granbury's scheduled bus service.....

[Anonymous]

There is another alternative, the bus. The little town I live in, Granbury, once had a daily bus service in both directions from Fort Worth to San Antonio along Hwys 377 and 281. Lately, this daily service has become a once a week service. Now we get the news that in September we will lose even this inadequate service.

The only busses earning any money are the charters. Similar to the airline industry, the only airlines earning any money are the short hop airlines, who pick and choose their cherry picked routes. The large airlines that have a hub system and fly into major and minor cities, plus international flights, are all losing money.

The citizens of rural America need to realize that any Scheduled bus service will soon be a thing of the past.... such as Granbury's scheduled bus service.....

[Anonymous]

We definitely need the resurgence of passenger railroading. Contrary to the skeptics whose purported expertise claims that there is positively no chance for profitability in the passenger sector, I suggest otherwise. Just because it didn't work in the recent past, doesn't mean it can't work in the future. The main competition to passenger rail traffic - the airlines, currently find themselves in a most unenviable position. Security costs and regulations have impacted the airlines exponentially. With the right leadership and entrepreneurial spirit, passenger railroading can come back - and in the private sector. Competition in America has always fueled the ingenuity in the business world. This great nation has always been predicated on this belief. Yes, I strongly agree, contact your representatives and let them know how you feel.

Cystokid
.

[Anonymous]

We definitely need the resurgence of passenger railroading. Contrary to the skeptics whose purported expertise claims that there is positively no chance for profitability in the passenger sector, I suggest otherwise. Just because it didn't work in the recent past, doesn't mean it can't work in the future. The main competition to passenger rail traffic - the airlines, currently find themselves in a most unenviable position. Security costs and regulations have impacted the airlines exponentially. With the right leadership and entrepreneurial spirit, passenger railroading can come back - and in the private sector. Competition in America has always fueled the ingenuity in the business world. This great nation has always been predicated on this belief. Yes, I strongly agree, contact your representatives and let them know how you feel.

Cystokid
.

[Anonymous]

We definitely need the resurgence of passenger railroading in America. Despite the skeptics whose purported expertise claims that profitability is not a viable concept, I disagree. Given the current state of affairs with the airlines who have been severely hampered by strict governmental security regulations and the escalated costs associated with them, timing couldn't be better for passenger traffic to return to the rails. This could even be possible in the private sector where competition would fuel ingenuity. This great nation has always been predicated on the concept of healthy competition in the private sector. Recently some very unethical corporate misdealings have muddied the waters, but not to the avail of diminishing the great American spirit. Yes, I strongly agree, by all means contact your representative and let them know how you feel. Giving up on an issue never got it resolved.

Cystokid[;)]

[Anonymous]

We definitely need the resurgence of passenger railroading in America. Despite the skeptics whose purported expertise claims that profitability is not a viable concept, I disagree. Given the current state of affairs with the airlines who have been severely hampered by strict governmental security regulations and the escalated costs associated with them, timing couldn't be better for passenger traffic to return to the rails. This could even be possible in the private sector where competition would fuel ingenuity. This great nation has always been predicated on the concept of healthy competition in the private sector. Recently some very unethical corporate misdealings have muddied the waters, but not to the avail of diminishing the great American spirit. Yes, I strongly agree, by all means contact your representative and let them know how you feel. Giving up on an issue never got it resolved.

Cystokid[;)]

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by cystokid

The main competition to passenger rail traffic - the airlines,
.

The main competitor of passenger rail traffic AND the airlines is the automobile. Fuel is still at historically low prices and highway construction and maintenance is still subsidized. Much of cost of driving is sunk cost - depreciation - so train/fly/drive decision is usually based on time and out-of-pocket costs.

Now, here's a thought. Why not create a subsidy pool for rail projects equal to the property tax that's NOT collected on the interstate highway right of way? That would even the playing field a bit.

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by cystokid

The main competition to passenger rail traffic - the airlines,
.

The main competitor of passenger rail traffic AND the airlines is the automobile. Fuel is still at historically low prices and highway construction and maintenance is still subsidized. Much of cost of driving is sunk cost - depreciation - so train/fly/drive decision is usually based on time and out-of-pocket costs.

Now, here's a thought. Why not create a subsidy pool for rail projects equal to the property tax that's NOT collected on the interstate highway right of way? That would even the playing field a bit.

[brilondon]

I believe that there is still a place for passenger train service in Norh America and not just as a tourist trains which out side the corridors in Canada are all we really have. I think if Amtrak is serious about keeping the trains running they will have to find out what the public wants in train travel and how much they are willing to pay for the service. If the governments of both Canada and the US are going to have to pick up the cost of the trains then I believe it is in their best interests to do a study of needs and desires of the people riding the trains and determin the feasibility of passenger trains.[:)][8D]

[brilondon]

I believe that there is still a place for passenger train service in Norh America and not just as a tourist trains which out side the corridors in Canada are all we really have. I think if Amtrak is serious about keeping the trains running they will have to find out what the public wants in train travel and how much they are willing to pay for the service. If the governments of both Canada and the US are going to have to pick up the cost of the trains then I believe it is in their best interests to do a study of needs and desires of the people riding the trains and determin the feasibility of passenger trains.[:)][8D]

[jsanchez]

Most Railroads in Japan have been privitized over ten years now, the bullet trains are very profitable and are being expanded to serve even more of the country.

QUOTE: Originally posted by cabforward

when a govt. runs the r.r., they spend all the money they want.. tgv in france, and whatever they call it in japan, are govt. operations..

they can do whatever they want, they are in charge.. they own the bank, they print the money..

here, not true, o.k.? private r.rs. run freights, govt. runs pass.. they share freight's r-o-w, o.k.?

private r.rs. will not sell another pass. ticket in the present universe..

that leaves just the govt.. not csx or bnsf, not a group of r.rs., not a whiz-bang co. from mexico city..

the only way long-haul pass. will work here is if it is handled by the govt., just like in other countries, o.k.?

the problem is, other countries have always handled their r.rs.. here, private r.rs. handle freight, will never give it up, and resent the presence of amtrak on their r-o-w, o.k.?

the only r-o-w amtrak can use is private freights', because they used to run pass. trains on the same tracks they use for freight service now..

american taxpayers & politicians will never support building r-o-w just for amtrak, read my previous posts..

texas' secret behind their building of transit lines is just that, they are transit lines.. the feds support transit lines because crowded cities want them, the product is pre-sold.. noone will draw a supportive crowd arguing against transit, o.k.?

rail pass. service in america is dead for service over 500 miles.. amtrak will not be running the cross-country trains in 10 more years, the inflationary cost is too great, the benefits are too small, o.k.?

europe and other areas of the world can operate cross-country rail because they are in charge.. their word trumps anything the opposition can say..

the golden rule: 'he who has the gold, makes the rules'.. o.k.?

here the gold is split between the govt. and private freights, o.k.?

public sentiment, brainstorming of ideas and lists of advantages enjoyed if we would go with someone's plan don't count..

we will never have hi-speed rail as other countries do because we aren't like other countries.. their govts. have always run all their trains, their govts. can spend whatever they want, their govts. don't have to fight the hundreds of state, city, county govts. & govt. agencies to get permission to acquire r-o-w as we do, o.k.?

our govt. is not like any other, our legal structure is not like any other, our division of freight & pass. service is not like any other..

that means we can have no expectation of modeling pass. r.r. like any other, o.k.?

[jsanchez]

Most Railroads in Japan have been privitized over ten years now, the bullet trains are very profitable and are being expanded to serve even more of the country.

QUOTE: Originally posted by cabforward

when a govt. runs the r.r., they spend all the money they want.. tgv in france, and whatever they call it in japan, are govt. operations..

they can do whatever they want, they are in charge.. they own the bank, they print the money..

here, not true, o.k.? private r.rs. run freights, govt. runs pass.. they share freight's r-o-w, o.k.?

private r.rs. will not sell another pass. ticket in the present universe..

that leaves just the govt.. not csx or bnsf, not a group of r.rs., not a whiz-bang co. from mexico city..

the only way long-haul pass. will work here is if it is handled by the govt., just like in other countries, o.k.?

the problem is, other countries have always handled their r.rs.. here, private r.rs. handle freight, will never give it up, and resent the presence of amtrak on their r-o-w, o.k.?

the only r-o-w amtrak can use is private freights', because they used to run pass. trains on the same tracks they use for freight service now..

american taxpayers & politicians will never support building r-o-w just for amtrak, read my previous posts..

texas' secret behind their building of transit lines is just that, they are transit lines.. the feds support transit lines because crowded cities want them, the product is pre-sold.. noone will draw a supportive crowd arguing against transit, o.k.?

rail pass. service in america is dead for service over 500 miles.. amtrak will not be running the cross-country trains in 10 more years, the inflationary cost is too great, the benefits are too small, o.k.?

europe and other areas of the world can operate cross-country rail because they are in charge.. their word trumps anything the opposition can say..

the golden rule: 'he who has the gold, makes the rules'.. o.k.?

here the gold is split between the govt. and private freights, o.k.?

public sentiment, brainstorming of ideas and lists of advantages enjoyed if we would go with someone's plan don't count..

we will never have hi-speed rail as other countries do because we aren't like other countries.. their govts. have always run all their trains, their govts. can spend whatever they want, their govts. don't have to fight the hundreds of state, city, county govts. & govt. agencies to get permission to acquire r-o-w as we do, o.k.?

our govt. is not like any other, our legal structure is not like any other, our division of freight & pass. service is not like any other..

that means we can have no expectation of modeling pass. r.r. like any other, o.k.?

[brilondon]

You must realize though that in Europe and Japan that the distances they travel are much less and that they have a very condensed population base and thus making rail transport economicaly viable. Also they have very heavy cogestion[:(] on their highways and secondary roads in and around their major cities making the car less desirable method of travel. Then once at your destination you have to pay a fortune[:(] to park your vehicle if you can find a spot to park it.[8D]

[brilondon]

You must realize though that in Europe and Japan that the distances they travel are much less and that they have a very condensed population base and thus making rail transport economicaly viable. Also they have very heavy cogestion[:(] on their highways and secondary roads in and around their major cities making the car less desirable method of travel. Then once at your destination you have to pay a fortune[:(] to park your vehicle if you can find a spot to park it.[8D]

[Anonymous]

The Europeans don't have free interstate highways, they have what we call turnpikes. Therefore they pay to drive down a controlled access highway. In most of America, we don't.

As far as density is concerned, America east of the Mississippi River will catch up to the density in Europe in twenty to thirty years. America is still growing in population, whereas there isn't much of an increase in population in Europe.

[Anonymous]

The Europeans don't have free interstate highways, they have what we call turnpikes. Therefore they pay to drive down a controlled access highway. In most of America, we don't.

As far as density is concerned, America east of the Mississippi River will catch up to the density in Europe in twenty to thirty years. America is still growing in population, whereas there isn't much of an increase in population in Europe.

[Anonymous]

Since the federal government hasn't a clue, it looks as if the state's will have to get high speed rail rolling. It appears that California, Florida, Texas will move first with brand new tracks for 150 mph high speed rail, whereas Illinois is moving ahead improving the condition of their old freight tracks to 100 mph. Eventually, when the feds does get involved, the first projects will be to connect the northeast corridor to Florida, Texas, and Illinois.... That is why I proposed my parralegram.....

[Anonymous]

Since the federal government hasn't a clue, it looks as if the state's will have to get high speed rail rolling. It appears that California, Florida, Texas will move first with brand new tracks for 150 mph high speed rail, whereas Illinois is moving ahead improving the condition of their old freight tracks to 100 mph. Eventually, when the feds does get involved, the first projects will be to connect the northeast corridor to Florida, Texas, and Illinois.... That is why I proposed my parralegram.....

[Anonymous]

Regarding buff standards, I think i have to say some things.

1. In Europe, both freight and passenger trains are built on lower standards. So, if two trains crash, no train gets demolished by the other one.

2. The european screw coupler is only capable to withstand about 66,000 pounds, so a 440,000 pounds buff standard is safe enough for european operations. But many american locomotive consists are capable to pull more, and the AAR coupler is a lot stronger, therefore locomotive force is high enough to break many european trains.

3. When passenger trains are physically segregated from freights, no "equalizing" standard is needed. So there is no problem on running lighter trainsets on lighter-train-only lines. But despite its great look and being passenger-designed, an F59PHI (or GE Genesis, though ugly) is still a threat for lighter trains, and should not be run between them.

So, there is no easy solution.

[Anonymous]

Regarding buff standards, I think i have to say some things.

1. In Europe, both freight and passenger trains are built on lower standards. So, if two trains crash, no train gets demolished by the other one.

2. The european screw coupler is only capable to withstand about 66,000 pounds, so a 440,000 pounds buff standard is safe enough for european operations. But many american locomotive consists are capable to pull more, and the AAR coupler is a lot stronger, therefore locomotive force is high enough to break many european trains.

3. When passenger trains are physically segregated from freights, no "equalizing" standard is needed. So there is no problem on running lighter trainsets on lighter-train-only lines. But despite its great look and being passenger-designed, an F59PHI (or GE Genesis, though ugly) is still a threat for lighter trains, and should not be run between them.

So, there is no easy solution.

[Anonymous]

I feel really out of place here cause im only 14 but why not start up individual passenger service again? I mean it seems like railroads are disappearing every day less line traffic more room for trains....right? Im probobly not the first oneto notice but trucks are poluting the air every day. If they're dependability was lowered and less were in the US wouldnt gas prices be lowered? Anyway as far as I know Airlines and trucks make up at least 70% of the equation while trains make up less than 30% at least to me even lower maybe..... This comes as a plea because I want to see more trains frieght and passenger (other than Amtrak). Im sorry if some of these comments were ignorrant.
P.S. I mourn the loss of the Wisconson Central that was swalloed up by the CN? Im not sure but I do know the W.C. is no more. Please keep the paint scheme for a while Please........[:(]

[Anonymous]

I feel really out of place here cause im only 14 but why not start up individual passenger service again? I mean it seems like railroads are disappearing every day less line traffic more room for trains....right? Im probobly not the first oneto notice but trucks are poluting the air every day. If they're dependability was lowered and less were in the US wouldnt gas prices be lowered? Anyway as far as I know Airlines and trucks make up at least 70% of the equation while trains make up less than 30% at least to me even lower maybe..... This comes as a plea because I want to see more trains frieght and passenger (other than Amtrak). Im sorry if some of these comments were ignorrant.
P.S. I mourn the loss of the Wisconson Central that was swalloed up by the CN? Im not sure but I do know the W.C. is no more. Please keep the paint scheme for a while Please........[:(]

[Anonymous]

Sorry to post so quickly but think about how many times you adults have been stuck in traffic or have had "road rage". Drunk Drivers, suspended licenses, or just madmen behind the wheel. Think about how many lives are lost.....What can be done to improve this? I say get more people of these roads. Well what do we do with these people? Thats your disicion. You can risk your life on an airplane in this uncertain world, take a bus, just more congestion, put them on a boat, that wouldn't work in most cases, walk, people are to darn lazy and fat to walk, well put them on a train, ok that might work....... What I'm saying is that don't totaly eliminate Air and Road Travel but make them less dependant for people. As far as I know no pepole put themselves in danger when riding a train(I know about derailments.....) People might complain about it being slow but isn't that better than cursing at someone because they cut you off or being killed by some of these idiots? Stress isn't healthy (DUH!) I don't like the fact that airlines suggest that they expand O'Hare airport. More noise, more traffic to get there and back, more tourists, but we cant stop it. I know Piolits are very qualified at what there doing but there are some who dont like there job and don't take it seriously. Would you like someone like that pioloting a huge vanurable object 1,000 to 40,000 feet in the sky or near a city?!! I dont! Like I said before Im not saying down with airways or down with roads! Im just saying give railways a fighting chance! Its not fair! It has never been fair even before the 1950's and you know it! As I said before I am 14 and I am strictly posting by logic. I have no buisness backround or stuff like that so I am sorry If these suggestions are iggnorant. Anyone please tell me why this won't work

[Anonymous]

Sorry to post so quickly but think about how many times you adults have been stuck in traffic or have had "road rage". Drunk Drivers, suspended licenses, or just madmen behind the wheel. Think about how many lives are lost.....What can be done to improve this? I say get more people of these roads. Well what do we do with these people? Thats your disicion. You can risk your life on an airplane in this uncertain world, take a bus, just more congestion, put them on a boat, that wouldn't work in most cases, walk, people are to darn lazy and fat to walk, well put them on a train, ok that might work....... What I'm saying is that don't totaly eliminate Air and Road Travel but make them less dependant for people. As far as I know no pepole put themselves in danger when riding a train(I know about derailments.....) People might complain about it being slow but isn't that better than cursing at someone because they cut you off or being killed by some of these idiots? Stress isn't healthy (DUH!) I don't like the fact that airlines suggest that they expand O'Hare airport. More noise, more traffic to get there and back, more tourists, but we cant stop it. I know Piolits are very qualified at what there doing but there are some who dont like there job and don't take it seriously. Would you like someone like that pioloting a huge vanurable object 1,000 to 40,000 feet in the sky or near a city?!! I dont! Like I said before Im not saying down with airways or down with roads! Im just saying give railways a fighting chance! Its not fair! It has never been fair even before the 1950's and you know it! As I said before I am 14 and I am strictly posting by logic. I have no buisness backround or stuff like that so I am sorry If these suggestions are iggnorant. Anyone please tell me why this won't work

[brilondon]

[8D]LagrangeIII[8D] You have the right idea but the cost of setting up a passenger network and running it are [:(!]incredibly expensive[:(!]. In fact the reason most of the railroads got out of the passenger business is because of the expense of passenger side of its operation. Even today the passenger railroads ( Amtrak and VIA ) could not run without being subsidized by their respective governments. They would not exist now if the passenger roads had to create their own trackage right-of-ways. The vast majority of the trackage Via and Amtrak uses are owned by the freight railroads, who maintain the track and the signaling equiptment, not to mention the dispatchers and other personal needed to run a railroad.[:D][:D]

[brilondon]

[8D]LagrangeIII[8D] You have the right idea but the cost of setting up a passenger network and running it are [:(!]incredibly expensive[:(!]. In fact the reason most of the railroads got out of the passenger business is because of the expense of passenger side of its operation. Even today the passenger railroads ( Amtrak and VIA ) could not run without being subsidized by their respective governments. They would not exist now if the passenger roads had to create their own trackage right-of-ways. The vast majority of the trackage Via and Amtrak uses are owned by the freight railroads, who maintain the track and the signaling equiptment, not to mention the dispatchers and other personal needed to run a railroad.[:D][:D]

[Anonymous]

What is expensive is the building of the passenger only railroads. Once built, the entity running the railroad should be able to turn a profit on operations. What many of us are saying is why is the government building airports and terminals and not building passenger only rail?

The feds last year spend $33 billion on highways, $12 billion on airports (not including the $29 billion bailout out the FAA), $7 billion on intracity transportation (commuter rail, light rail, and buses), and $900 million on Amtrak, when Amtrak needs $5 billion just to maintain the northeast corridor infrastructure.

And any business I know that is running at capacity increases capacity! Every train I have ridden lately in the past few years have been full. And Amtrak is doing this in some cities with lously service times in the middle of the night. Which leads you to the conclusion that Amtrak should lease more sleepers and coaches..... if not more trainsets. Increasing frequency would likely result in even more ridership numbers especially in the cities being serviced in the middle of the night.

Why doesn't Amtrak increase capacity?

[Anonymous]

What is expensive is the building of the passenger only railroads. Once built, the entity running the railroad should be able to turn a profit on operations. What many of us are saying is why is the government building airports and terminals and not building passenger only rail?

The feds last year spend $33 billion on highways, $12 billion on airports (not including the $29 billion bailout out the FAA), $7 billion on intracity transportation (commuter rail, light rail, and buses), and $900 million on Amtrak, when Amtrak needs $5 billion just to maintain the northeast corridor infrastructure.

And any business I know that is running at capacity increases capacity! Every train I have ridden lately in the past few years have been full. And Amtrak is doing this in some cities with lously service times in the middle of the night. Which leads you to the conclusion that Amtrak should lease more sleepers and coaches..... if not more trainsets. Increasing frequency would likely result in even more ridership numbers especially in the cities being serviced in the middle of the night.

Why doesn't Amtrak increase capacity?

[Anonymous]

You are right! I ride Amtrak twice a year to D.C. and it is always full including the sleepers. Every stop along that route is practically in the middle of the night, Pittsburgh, Toledo, etc, and there is plenty getting off and on. I wi***hey had a daytime service on that route.

[Anonymous]

You are right! I ride Amtrak twice a year to D.C. and it is always full including the sleepers. Every stop along that route is practically in the middle of the night, Pittsburgh, Toledo, etc, and there is plenty getting off and on. I wi***hey had a daytime service on that route.

[Anonymous]

Strangely enough the UP, SantaFe and the Great Northern had a real hard time finding suficient cause to present to the ICC to get them out of the passenger business and It wasn't until AmTrak was created and demanded they hand over the business that they actually did get rid of the long distance trains. The Rio Grande continued to run the Zepher into the 1980's until AmTrak took over the central corridor route and today the ski train still runs every week end year arround from Denver to Winter Park. The Denver Regional Transportation District wants to run heavy rail commuter trains from Cheyenne down into New Mexico but the 30+ freight/coal trains a day that they would have to share the right of way with make that impossible so they are going to see if they can get the UP/BNSF to move the coal traffic to lines farther east. There initial contact apparently had the BNSF management rolling arround on the floor holding their stomachs shouting "You want to do What ??". On a snowy day it is possible to have a 40 mile long parking lot on I25 ( on a good day its only about 10 miles long). Tthe RTD light rail system in metro Denver has received over whelming support and is being extended and proposed Heavy rail commuter trains will probably be running as far South as Castle Rock by 2005.

The secret to having a passenger rail network may lie in tieing Regional commutter systems together. In the west most of these systems would run north to south in so much as the cities are to far apart east to west They would use existing surplus railroad right of way and would most likely contract with the freight railroads for maintence but do their own dispatching.

[Anonymous]

Strangely enough the UP, SantaFe and the Great Northern had a real hard time finding suficient cause to present to the ICC to get them out of the passenger business and It wasn't until AmTrak was created and demanded they hand over the business that they actually did get rid of the long distance trains. The Rio Grande continued to run the Zepher into the 1980's until AmTrak took over the central corridor route and today the ski train still runs every week end year arround from Denver to Winter Park. The Denver Regional Transportation District wants to run heavy rail commuter trains from Cheyenne down into New Mexico but the 30+ freight/coal trains a day that they would have to share the right of way with make that impossible so they are going to see if they can get the UP/BNSF to move the coal traffic to lines farther east. There initial contact apparently had the BNSF management rolling arround on the floor holding their stomachs shouting "You want to do What ??". On a snowy day it is possible to have a 40 mile long parking lot on I25 ( on a good day its only about 10 miles long). Tthe RTD light rail system in metro Denver has received over whelming support and is being extended and proposed Heavy rail commuter trains will probably be running as far South as Castle Rock by 2005.

The secret to having a passenger rail network may lie in tieing Regional commutter systems together. In the west most of these systems would run north to south in so much as the cities are to far apart east to west They would use existing surplus railroad right of way and would most likely contract with the freight railroads for maintence but do their own dispatching.

[Anonymous]

I care if passenger rail dissapears. if railroads no longer carried passengers it would be a total lose both from a travel perspective and a historical one also.

[Anonymous]

I care if passenger rail dissapears. if railroads no longer carried passengers it would be a total lose both from a travel perspective and a historical one also.

[Anonymous]

I love passenger trains!
If they dissappeared...then there would be a total of 2 trains per week that go through Ottawa.

[Anonymous]

I love passenger trains!
If they dissappeared...then there would be a total of 2 trains per week that go through Ottawa.

[Anonymous]

SEE?!?! Up with passenger trains!!!

[Anonymous]

SEE?!?! Up with passenger trains!!!

[mudchicken]

jGoose:

(1) Santa Fe wasn't into train-off issues and almost did not surrender their trains to Amthrax . Pride couldn't ease the damage caused by the loss of postal biz to trucks. (like D&RGW, we were good at running short, fast trains / passenger or freight.)

(2) The front range bypass issue (get yor facts straight and ditch the conjecture & heresay) - both are wrong. It's not a new issue - been around since at least the early 1980's.

(3) Somebody forgot about the 1975 singletracking between Kelker/Crews and Palmer Lake to accomodate Colorado Springs. The Powder River coal boom had not hit yet & the side agreement to doubletrack thru the "Springs" was welched-on by the next bunch of political hacks in Colorado Springs...Ever wonder why the railroads and El Paso County barely speak to each other to this day?

(4) The railroads will listen to CDOT's proposal on the Front Range ByPass (they won't laugh at it), but CDOT will never fund it in the current economic times.

(5) Castle Rock in 2005? Fairy Tale, try 2015-2020 at the current rate and only if Douglas County buys-in (questionable if they will).

(6) RTD overwhelming support? Wanna buy the Brooklyn Bridge? 50-50 is overwhelming? I guess you don't read either local paper or know who John Caldera is....(and the rest of the state is not going to support spending the money[?] when they have local issues CDOT pushed back in order to throw more $$$$ at Colorado Springs and the Denver metroplex)

You want rail transit by tying the existing political transit factions together? (they are purely political...CDOT has ZERO railroaders on board, RTD less than your total number of fingers on one hand and the rest? -Zilch except in a historical context (And he is doing more with less resources than any of the rest) -Doomed!

How is ANY of the existing front range R/W surplus between Denver and Pueblo? This sounds like "urban planner speak" from the same clowns that studied Colorado Springs congestion and proposed the solution of having the railroads build a bypass to the east of the Springs, at railroad expense of course, not taking into effect the grade problem or the experience of Colorado & Southern.

I very much would like to see rail transit happen here on the front range, but bad information and an irrational view of how things work in a railroad sense is not helping the cause. Take a time out, leave the dreamers to their own devices and start looking at the practical side of the issue. Should be an eye opener based on your initial post.

Welcome to the real world and keep supporting the basic idea.

Crusty 'ol Iron Feathers
(alternate point of view)

[mudchicken]

jGoose:

(1) Santa Fe wasn't into train-off issues and almost did not surrender their trains to Amthrax . Pride couldn't ease the damage caused by the loss of postal biz to trucks. (like D&RGW, we were good at running short, fast trains / passenger or freight.)

(2) The front range bypass issue (get yor facts straight and ditch the conjecture & heresay) - both are wrong. It's not a new issue - been around since at least the early 1980's.

(3) Somebody forgot about the 1975 singletracking between Kelker/Crews and Palmer Lake to accomodate Colorado Springs. The Powder River coal boom had not hit yet & the side agreement to doubletrack thru the "Springs" was welched-on by the next bunch of political hacks in Colorado Springs...Ever wonder why the railroads and El Paso County barely speak to each other to this day?

(4) The railroads will listen to CDOT's proposal on the Front Range ByPass (they won't laugh at it), but CDOT will never fund it in the current economic times.

(5) Castle Rock in 2005? Fairy Tale, try 2015-2020 at the current rate and only if Douglas County buys-in (questionable if they will).

(6) RTD overwhelming support? Wanna buy the Brooklyn Bridge? 50-50 is overwhelming? I guess you don't read either local paper or know who John Caldera is....(and the rest of the state is not going to support spending the money[?] when they have local issues CDOT pushed back in order to throw more $$$$ at Colorado Springs and the Denver metroplex)

You want rail transit by tying the existing political transit factions together? (they are purely political...CDOT has ZERO railroaders on board, RTD less than your total number of fingers on one hand and the rest? -Zilch except in a historical context (And he is doing more with less resources than any of the rest) -Doomed!

How is ANY of the existing front range R/W surplus between Denver and Pueblo? This sounds like "urban planner speak" from the same clowns that studied Colorado Springs congestion and proposed the solution of having the railroads build a bypass to the east of the Springs, at railroad expense of course, not taking into effect the grade problem or the experience of Colorado & Southern.

I very much would like to see rail transit happen here on the front range, but bad information and an irrational view of how things work in a railroad sense is not helping the cause. Take a time out, leave the dreamers to their own devices and start looking at the practical side of the issue. Should be an eye opener based on your initial post.

Welcome to the real world and keep supporting the basic idea.

Crusty 'ol Iron Feathers
(alternate point of view)

[dehusman]

One thing that people don't address when they talk Amtrak and heavy rail transit, is in most of the US there is no public transit infastructure at the end of the rail trip. You ride the passenger train the 100 miles between two cities. But when you get off the train, how do you get to your actual destination? The success of heavy rail in the Northeast (and Europe) is that in the cities that are the major stops, there is mass transit to take the passengers to their final destinations. If you wan to make heavy rail popular in the US, there is a lot of work to do establishing feeder systems to the heavy rail.

[dehusman]

One thing that people don't address when they talk Amtrak and heavy rail transit, is in most of the US there is no public transit infastructure at the end of the rail trip. You ride the passenger train the 100 miles between two cities. But when you get off the train, how do you get to your actual destination? The success of heavy rail in the Northeast (and Europe) is that in the cities that are the major stops, there is mass transit to take the passengers to their final destinations. If you wan to make heavy rail popular in the US, there is a lot of work to do establishing feeder systems to the heavy rail.

[Anonymous]

I was talking about Amtrak over dinner with a friend who works in management at a railroad and this occurred to me - I don't think there's much of anyone in middle management at Amtrak who really loves passenger rail. Many of them came over from the Pensy when Amtrak was created. Believe me there has been little love lost on passenger service since the '50s. So my guess is that the managers that the Amtrak enheirited from the Pensy had already been working for years in an environment where passenger service was ignored. Since Amtrak was set up from the beginning to fail, they probably have seen things as business as usual. I think that might change under Mr. Gunn though. He seems determined to kick *** and take names if people don't get with the program.

It can be a real disadvantage to love trains in railroading in general. I'm trying to get a job as a conductor (freight or passenger) and my friend advised me to downplay my love of trains in the interview. He said that a lot of managers (maybe train staff as well) refer to rail fans as FTNs (*** Train Nuts). I think that's sad. Maybe if railroads had more people who loved trains, things would be better. Hard to tell from the outside.

Also, I think that Amtrak would do well to focus more on customer service, like VIA does. My last train trip was less than delightful I must say. The conductor in my car wasn't unfriendly exactly. He just seemed kind of indifferent. The train stopped at some tank town for 20 minutes to put a rowdy drunk off the train. That wouldn't have been so bad except that they didn't tell anyone who didn't ask. It would've been less annoying if they had gotten on the PA and told us what was happening prefaced by an apology for the delay. Also, although I was going to Des Moines, the train closed station was at least 50 miles away. So my sister and her husband had to drive to the sticks to get me. I'll probably ride the train again in the future when I go to visit her. Its better than driving in some ways. But I keep thinking that it could've been a delightful experience. The seats are bigger and have more leg room than you get on a plane these days.

FWIW

[Anonymous]

I was talking about Amtrak over dinner with a friend who works in management at a railroad and this occurred to me - I don't think there's much of anyone in middle management at Amtrak who really loves passenger rail. Many of them came over from the Pensy when Amtrak was created. Believe me there has been little love lost on passenger service since the '50s. So my guess is that the managers that the Amtrak enheirited from the Pensy had already been working for years in an environment where passenger service was ignored. Since Amtrak was set up from the beginning to fail, they probably have seen things as business as usual. I think that might change under Mr. Gunn though. He seems determined to kick *** and take names if people don't get with the program.

It can be a real disadvantage to love trains in railroading in general. I'm trying to get a job as a conductor (freight or passenger) and my friend advised me to downplay my love of trains in the interview. He said that a lot of managers (maybe train staff as well) refer to rail fans as FTNs (*** Train Nuts). I think that's sad. Maybe if railroads had more people who loved trains, things would be better. Hard to tell from the outside.

Also, I think that Amtrak would do well to focus more on customer service, like VIA does. My last train trip was less than delightful I must say. The conductor in my car wasn't unfriendly exactly. He just seemed kind of indifferent. The train stopped at some tank town for 20 minutes to put a rowdy drunk off the train. That wouldn't have been so bad except that they didn't tell anyone who didn't ask. It would've been less annoying if they had gotten on the PA and told us what was happening prefaced by an apology for the delay. Also, although I was going to Des Moines, the train closed station was at least 50 miles away. So my sister and her husband had to drive to the sticks to get me. I'll probably ride the train again in the future when I go to visit her. Its better than driving in some ways. But I keep thinking that it could've been a delightful experience. The seats are bigger and have more leg room than you get on a plane these days.

FWIW

[Anonymous]

Trains can't go everywhere, and neither do airliners. You are complaining that someone had to pick you up 50 miles away from Des Moines? The nearest airport with scheduled flights closest to me is 75 miles away. I am sure there are many with longer distances, possibly up to half of America's population.

Last week I rode Amtrak to Washington DC from Cleburn, Texas. Cleburne is about 20 miles from where I live in Granbury. Here are some of my pictures of the trip:

http://homepage.mac.com/donclark/PhotoAlbum18.html


I can't drive that far in two days. I was able to see the Empire State Building and the Sears Tower. When I returned, I was rested. A wonderful vacation.

However, I would like to get there in one day. I have posted in the past how and how much it would cost. The solution is HSR.

[Anonymous]

Trains can't go everywhere, and neither do airliners. You are complaining that someone had to pick you up 50 miles away from Des Moines? The nearest airport with scheduled flights closest to me is 75 miles away. I am sure there are many with longer distances, possibly up to half of America's population.

Last week I rode Amtrak to Washington DC from Cleburn, Texas. Cleburne is about 20 miles from where I live in Granbury. Here are some of my pictures of the trip:

http://homepage.mac.com/donclark/PhotoAlbum18.html


I can't drive that far in two days. I was able to see the Empire State Building and the Sears Tower. When I returned, I was rested. A wonderful vacation.

However, I would like to get there in one day. I have posted in the past how and how much it would cost. The solution is HSR.

[Anonymous]

I don't... It should be left to individual states to determine whether local passenger rail is a benefit or not.

I'm from Seymour, Indiana and we recently lost the Amtrak Cardinal train to Louisville, KY (or whatever it was called). No one cares that train is gone.

No one traveled on that train, as you'd had to drive down to Louisville or Indy to even get on it. Once you did get on it, it went about 30 miles per hour. By the time where you got where you wanted to go, you'd have a beard, gray hair, or maybe both.

I also live in NYC. I can't imagine life in New York City without the subway train system. I use Amtrak all the time to travel to D.C. or to Philly.

So let the chips fall where they may, but realistically passenger train travel only belongs where there is sufficient population to make it economical to offer such service.

[Anonymous]

I don't... It should be left to individual states to determine whether local passenger rail is a benefit or not.

I'm from Seymour, Indiana and we recently lost the Amtrak Cardinal train to Louisville, KY (or whatever it was called). No one cares that train is gone.

No one traveled on that train, as you'd had to drive down to Louisville or Indy to even get on it. Once you did get on it, it went about 30 miles per hour. By the time where you got where you wanted to go, you'd have a beard, gray hair, or maybe both.

I also live in NYC. I can't imagine life in New York City without the subway train system. I use Amtrak all the time to travel to D.C. or to Philly.

So let the chips fall where they may, but realistically passenger train travel only belongs where there is sufficient population to make it economical to offer such service.

[CG9602]

I care. However, for all of these additional trains to appear, there has to be funding. From the comments of the previous posters, it seems as though nobody at the State DOT's have gotten the message that when you run trains over somebody else's tracks, you have to compensate them for the usage of the tracks. That usually involves the exchage of money. Instead of defining Amtrak or VIA as railroads in and of them selves, maybe one of the things tah should take place is to re-define them as nonprofit public service providers, along the same lines as a local bus service. That, and you have to give the service provider enough $$$ in order to reasonalby compensate the landlord for the use of the tracks. It all goes back to funding and regulation - you want trains? Be ready to cough up the $$$. Make it worth someone's time.

[CG9602]

I care. However, for all of these additional trains to appear, there has to be funding. From the comments of the previous posters, it seems as though nobody at the State DOT's have gotten the message that when you run trains over somebody else's tracks, you have to compensate them for the usage of the tracks. That usually involves the exchage of money. Instead of defining Amtrak or VIA as railroads in and of them selves, maybe one of the things tah should take place is to re-define them as nonprofit public service providers, along the same lines as a local bus service. That, and you have to give the service provider enough $$$ in order to reasonalby compensate the landlord for the use of the tracks. It all goes back to funding and regulation - you want trains? Be ready to cough up the $$$. Make it worth someone's time.

[Anonymous]

DonClark, [:)] Thanks for the pics, I enjoyed them. [:)]

[Anonymous]

DonClark, [:)] Thanks for the pics, I enjoyed them. [:)]

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by kevinstheRRman

SEE?!?! Up with passenger trains!!!

YEAhhhhhhhhhh. what he said. [8D]

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by kevinstheRRman

SEE?!?! Up with passenger trains!!!

YEAhhhhhhhhhh. what he said. [8D]

[Anonymous]

From the National Association of Railroad Passengers:

DEBUNKING COMMON MYTHS ABOUT AMTRAK

1. Myth: Amtrak is unique in operating in the red, at taxpayers' expense.

Fact: All transportation is subsidized by American taxpayers (see #2 regarding highways). Singling out Amtrak assumes taxpayers do not want to invest in passenger rail. Polls consistently show that Americans support federal funding for a national rail passenger system. A Washington Post poll taken July 26-30, 2002 (and reported August 5, 2002), found 71% support for continued or increased federal funding of Amtrak. Conservative Columnist George Will, in a June 4, 2003, column, said the poll indicated that "support for Amtrak is strong among all regions, ages, education levels and income groups." A CNN/Gallup/USA Today poll conducted June 21-23, 2002 -- near the height of Amtrak's funding crisis -- found 70% support for continued federal funding for Amtrak. Votes in Congress have demonstrated time and again that taxpayers' duly elected representatives agree.

2. Myth: Highways pay for themselves through user fees.

Fact: In 2001, 41% of the $133 billion spent on highways came from payments other than the gas tax, tolls, and vehicle taxes and fees, as follows: 15.3% general fund appropriations; 9.5% bond issue proceeds; 5.8% investment income and other receipts; 5.6% other taxes and fees; 4.8% property taxes. While most of this is at the state and local levels, federal policy encourages this by offering states generous funding matches for highway investments but no match for intercity rail investments. These statistics are in "Improving Efficiency and Equity in Transportation Finance," by Martin Wachs [The Brookings Institution Series on Transportation Reform (April 2003)], which states: "Revenues from fuel taxes have for three decades been rising more slowly than program costs as legislators become ever more reluctant to raise them to meet inflation. As a result, the burden of raising the funds for transportation programs is gradually being shifted to local governments and voter-approved initiatives that are, in most instances, not based on user fees."

3. Myth: Amtrak carries only a half-percent of the US travel market, therefore it is insignificant.

Fact: Where there is a strong Amtrak presence, as in the Northeast Corridor and New York-Albany, Amtrak dominates the airlines and offers a significant alternative to automobile travel. (Amtrak handles about 50% of all New York-Washington airline+railroad traffic. This calculation includes Newark/JFK/LaGuardia and Reagan National/Dulles Airports; and these rail stations: Stamford/New Rochelle/New York/Newark/Newark Airport/Metropark; New Carrollton/Washington/Alexandria/Manassas/Woodbridge/Quantico/Fredericksburg.) As travel volumes grow in the future, and construction of new highways and airports becomes less practical, the need for such services also will grow around the nation.  In rural areas, where Amtrak's infrastructure costs are insignificant, Amtrak is often the only transportation alternative to automobiles.

4. Myth: Private Freight Railroad companies subsidize Amtrak.

Fact: The freight railroads urged the federal government to create Amtrak and agreed to provide access to their tracks at an incremental cost basis in 1971. The case can be made for the opposite -- that Amtrak subsidizes the freight railroads. For much of Amtrak's existence, the law prevented Amtrak from contracting out most work while the freight railroads reduced their employment rolls (in some cases by contracting out), thus reducing the amount freight railroads pay into Railroad Retirement. Amtrak workers are "railroad employees." Railroad Retirement obligations-unlike Railroad Unemployment Insurance payments-are calculated on an industry-wide bias, with all companies paying the same rates. Therefore, Amtrak is subsidizing the freight railroads' contribution to Railroad Retirement; Amtrak's "excess Railroad Retirement payments" (about $150 million a year) is what Amtrak contributes to Railroad Retirement for workers that Amtrak never employed. If Amtrak were to go away, Railroad Retirement payments by the freight railroads and their employees would be increased.

Also, capacity enhancements designed for passenger trains benefit freight operations during much of the week. The newest example, with construction just under way, is restoration of double-track on Union Pacific's mainline just west of Sacramento.

5. Myth: Any dollar going to Amtrak is another dollar not going to roads.

Fact: Federal funds for roads come from the Highway Trust Fund, a dedicated long-term source of funding, whereas Amtrak receives federal dollars from the General Fund through the annual appropriations process. However, states and local governments should have the option to spend transportation dollars on the most efficient mode of transportation. Current policy discourages states and local governments from investing in intercity rail.

6. Myth: Shut down Amtrak and the private sector will operate passenger rail.

Fact: Rail passenger service was in private hands from its inception in the 1830s until 1970, when Congress and the Nixon Administration made a policy decision to create Amtrak because the private sector could not make a profit. The private sector operators that have expressed an interest in operating rail passenger service will do so for a fee with the clear expectation that the government will absorb the associated losses. Furthermore, most Amtrak route miles are on tracks whose owners, the private freight railroads, do not want to run their own passenger trains and have a top priority of opposing legislation to give Amtrak's rights (for track access at reasonable cost) to any other entity. The practical result of shutting down Amtrak would be elimination of intercity passenger rail.

7. Myth: Flying is cheaper than taking a long-distance train.

Fact: Anyone with a computer can find a train fare that is less than an airfare, or the opposite. Long-distance trains don't just go from one major market to another like flights, but serve many intermediate markets with poor air service (or no air service, or costly air service). Furthermore, the walk-up fare for an Amtrak trip is often much less than walk-up airfare. There are also people who cannot or do not want to fly.

8. Myth: One particular route (e.g., the Kentucky Cardinal between Chicago and Louisville) shows the entire national system is flawed.

Fact: The Kentucky Cardinal was instituted in 1999 to grow express package business. The profitable business never materialized and Amtrak discontinued the route on July 6, 2003. Despite limited ridership, no community wants its passenger train to disappear. Residents of Louisville recently filed a class action suit against Amtrak and the USDOT to bring back the route.

9. Myth: The overwhelming majority of Americans have chosen the automobile lifestyle.

Fact: To a large extent, this apparent "choice" reflects a necessary response to pro-highway federal policies, which for decades have encouraged state and local decisions that foster reliance on the automobile. States -- naturally influenced in choosing transportation projects by the federal funding available for those projects -- can obtain generous federal matches for investments in highways-often 80% and 90% of a project's total cost-and aviation, but there is no federal match for states to develop intercity rail projects. The public's interest in more travel choices is reflected both in the aforementioned polls and in ridership increases on Amtrak over five straight years (Fiscal 1997-2001) and on mass transit. At a June 27, 2003, conference on traffic congestion, American Public Transportation Association President William Millar stated, "Since 1995, transit ridership has grown by 21 percent, versus 16 percent for driving and 12 percent for domestic airlines. More people are taking public transportation now than in the last 40 years." Also, on April 17, 2001, The Washington Post reported, "Mass-transit ridership grew faster than highway use for the third year in a row last year, according to new national figures."

In their July 2001 report, "Twelve Anti-Transit Myths: A Conservative Critique," Paul M. Weyrich and William S. Lind of the Free Congress Foundation write, "From the advent of the Model T until quite recently, transit was a declining industry. This is not surprising because government offered massive subsidies to cars and highways.  Most transit systems, in contrast, were privately owned and operated and, far from receiving subsidies, had to pay taxes ... Post-World War II building codes, which forced a separation of housing, shopping, and work places also hit transit hard." Of course, the private railroads -- including their passenger facilities -- also were privately controlled and publicly taxed.

10. Myth:  Amtrak labor protection is outrageous.

Fact: Labor protection flowed from the railroad industry and the creation of Amtrak by Congress. Railroad workers historically have had strong labor protection. At the major freight railroads, protection can be triggered by many more events than at Amtrak. This was true even before Amtrak labor protection was scaled back as a result of the 1997 Amtrak reauthorization law.

Labor protection has no impact on day-to-day operating costs. It only comes into play when a route is discontinued or a mechanical facility is closed. In other words, none of the 1,000 employees Amtrak laid off in the past year got labor protection. Even when a facility is closed, Amtrak can avoid labor protection simply by letting employees follow their work, and -- for employees who choose to do that -- paying moving costs.

In the last reauthorization in 1997, rather than repealing labor protection provided by law outright, Congress sunsetted the provision, subject to negotiation of a substitute labor protection agreement by the unions and Amtrak under the provisions of the Railway Labor Act. The result of those negotiations was an arbitration award which reduced the benefits of labor protection for Amtrak employees.

Looking more broadly at Amtrak labor issues, many Amtrak pay rates are less than for comparable work at commuter railroads and some other companies. Commuter railroads and electric utilities benefit from "Amtrak as training ground," using higher pay to attract Amtrak employees.

* Linemen (who work on overhead electrification) get about $20 an hour at Amtrak but $33-$35 at Newark-based Public Service Electric and Gas Company. Pennsylvania Power & Light Inc. recently advertised positions at $30 an hour.
* Commuter rail examples: Locomotive engineers' hourly rate is $27.24 at Amtrak, $29.92 at Long Island RR, $25.73 at New Jersey Transit. The trackman rate is $16.31 at Amtrak, $19.03 at Metra (Illinois), $20.42 at SEPTA (Philadelphia), $23.33 at Long Island.

Amtrak President and CEO David L. Gunn has made clear his belief that Amtrak pay rates are not excessive, and that the primary focus for Amtrak management in labor negotiations will be productivity and medical cost containment issues.

Unlike many employees in the private sector, Amtrak employees have never benefited from stock options.

Meanwhile, Amtrak management -- which does not get labor protection -- has not had a general salary increase since Fiscal 1997 (lump sum payments FY 1998 and FY 1999).

I could not have said the above better.....

[Anonymous]

From the National Association of Railroad Passengers:

DEBUNKING COMMON MYTHS ABOUT AMTRAK

1. Myth: Amtrak is unique in operating in the red, at taxpayers' expense.

Fact: All transportation is subsidized by American taxpayers (see #2 regarding highways). Singling out Amtrak assumes taxpayers do not want to invest in passenger rail. Polls consistently show that Americans support federal funding for a national rail passenger system. A Washington Post poll taken July 26-30, 2002 (and reported August 5, 2002), found 71% support for continued or increased federal funding of Amtrak. Conservative Columnist George Will, in a June 4, 2003, column, said the poll indicated that "support for Amtrak is strong among all regions, ages, education levels and income groups." A CNN/Gallup/USA Today poll conducted June 21-23, 2002 -- near the height of Amtrak's funding crisis -- found 70% support for continued federal funding for Amtrak. Votes in Congress have demonstrated time and again that taxpayers' duly elected representatives agree.

2. Myth: Highways pay for themselves through user fees.

Fact: In 2001, 41% of the $133 billion spent on highways came from payments other than the gas tax, tolls, and vehicle taxes and fees, as follows: 15.3% general fund appropriations; 9.5% bond issue proceeds; 5.8% investment income and other receipts; 5.6% other taxes and fees; 4.8% property taxes. While most of this is at the state and local levels, federal policy encourages this by offering states generous funding matches for highway investments but no match for intercity rail investments. These statistics are in "Improving Efficiency and Equity in Transportation Finance," by Martin Wachs [The Brookings Institution Series on Transportation Reform (April 2003)], which states: "Revenues from fuel taxes have for three decades been rising more slowly than program costs as legislators become ever more reluctant to raise them to meet inflation. As a result, the burden of raising the funds for transportation programs is gradually being shifted to local governments and voter-approved initiatives that are, in most instances, not based on user fees."

3. Myth: Amtrak carries only a half-percent of the US travel market, therefore it is insignificant.

Fact: Where there is a strong Amtrak presence, as in the Northeast Corridor and New York-Albany, Amtrak dominates the airlines and offers a significant alternative to automobile travel. (Amtrak handles about 50% of all New York-Washington airline+railroad traffic. This calculation includes Newark/JFK/LaGuardia and Reagan National/Dulles Airports; and these rail stations: Stamford/New Rochelle/New York/Newark/Newark Airport/Metropark; New Carrollton/Washington/Alexandria/Manassas/Woodbridge/Quantico/Fredericksburg.) As travel volumes grow in the future, and construction of new highways and airports becomes less practical, the need for such services also will grow around the nation.  In rural areas, where Amtrak's infrastructure costs are insignificant, Amtrak is often the only transportation alternative to automobiles.

4. Myth: Private Freight Railroad companies subsidize Amtrak.

Fact: The freight railroads urged the federal government to create Amtrak and agreed to provide access to their tracks at an incremental cost basis in 1971. The case can be made for the opposite -- that Amtrak subsidizes the freight railroads. For much of Amtrak's existence, the law prevented Amtrak from contracting out most work while the freight railroads reduced their employment rolls (in some cases by contracting out), thus reducing the amount freight railroads pay into Railroad Retirement. Amtrak workers are "railroad employees." Railroad Retirement obligations-unlike Railroad Unemployment Insurance payments-are calculated on an industry-wide bias, with all companies paying the same rates. Therefore, Amtrak is subsidizing the freight railroads' contribution to Railroad Retirement; Amtrak's "excess Railroad Retirement payments" (about $150 million a year) is what Amtrak contributes to Railroad Retirement for workers that Amtrak never employed. If Amtrak were to go away, Railroad Retirement payments by the freight railroads and their employees would be increased.

Also, capacity enhancements designed for passenger trains benefit freight operations during much of the week. The newest example, with construction just under way, is restoration of double-track on Union Pacific's mainline just west of Sacramento.

5. Myth: Any dollar going to Amtrak is another dollar not going to roads.

Fact: Federal funds for roads come from the Highway Trust Fund, a dedicated long-term source of funding, whereas Amtrak receives federal dollars from the General Fund through the annual appropriations process. However, states and local governments should have the option to spend transportation dollars on the most efficient mode of transportation. Current policy discourages states and local governments from investing in intercity rail.

6. Myth: Shut down Amtrak and the private sector will operate passenger rail.

Fact: Rail passenger service was in private hands from its inception in the 1830s until 1970, when Congress and the Nixon Administration made a policy decision to create Amtrak because the private sector could not make a profit. The private sector operators that have expressed an interest in operating rail passenger service will do so for a fee with the clear expectation that the government will absorb the associated losses. Furthermore, most Amtrak route miles are on tracks whose owners, the private freight railroads, do not want to run their own passenger trains and have a top priority of opposing legislation to give Amtrak's rights (for track access at reasonable cost) to any other entity. The practical result of shutting down Amtrak would be elimination of intercity passenger rail.

7. Myth: Flying is cheaper than taking a long-distance train.

Fact: Anyone with a computer can find a train fare that is less than an airfare, or the opposite. Long-distance trains don't just go from one major market to another like flights, but serve many intermediate markets with poor air service (or no air service, or costly air service). Furthermore, the walk-up fare for an Amtrak trip is often much less than walk-up airfare. There are also people who cannot or do not want to fly.

8. Myth: One particular route (e.g., the Kentucky Cardinal between Chicago and Louisville) shows the entire national system is flawed.

Fact: The Kentucky Cardinal was instituted in 1999 to grow express package business. The profitable business never materialized and Amtrak discontinued the route on July 6, 2003. Despite limited ridership, no community wants its passenger train to disappear. Residents of Louisville recently filed a class action suit against Amtrak and the USDOT to bring back the route.

9. Myth: The overwhelming majority of Americans have chosen the automobile lifestyle.

Fact: To a large extent, this apparent "choice" reflects a necessary response to pro-highway federal policies, which for decades have encouraged state and local decisions that foster reliance on the automobile. States -- naturally influenced in choosing transportation projects by the federal funding available for those projects -- can obtain generous federal matches for investments in highways-often 80% and 90% of a project's total cost-and aviation, but there is no federal match for states to develop intercity rail projects. The public's interest in more travel choices is reflected both in the aforementioned polls and in ridership increases on Amtrak over five straight years (Fiscal 1997-2001) and on mass transit. At a June 27, 2003, conference on traffic congestion, American Public Transportation Association President William Millar stated, "Since 1995, transit ridership has grown by 21 percent, versus 16 percent for driving and 12 percent for domestic airlines. More people are taking public transportation now than in the last 40 years." Also, on April 17, 2001, The Washington Post reported, "Mass-transit ridership grew faster than highway use for the third year in a row last year, according to new national figures."

In their July 2001 report, "Twelve Anti-Transit Myths: A Conservative Critique," Paul M. Weyrich and William S. Lind of the Free Congress Foundation write, "From the advent of the Model T until quite recently, transit was a declining industry. This is not surprising because government offered massive subsidies to cars and highways.  Most transit systems, in contrast, were privately owned and operated and, far from receiving subsidies, had to pay taxes ... Post-World War II building codes, which forced a separation of housing, shopping, and work places also hit transit hard." Of course, the private railroads -- including their passenger facilities -- also were privately controlled and publicly taxed.

10. Myth:  Amtrak labor protection is outrageous.

Fact: Labor protection flowed from the railroad industry and the creation of Amtrak by Congress. Railroad workers historically have had strong labor protection. At the major freight railroads, protection can be triggered by many more events than at Amtrak. This was true even before Amtrak labor protection was scaled back as a result of the 1997 Amtrak reauthorization law.

Labor protection has no impact on day-to-day operating costs. It only comes into play when a route is discontinued or a mechanical facility is closed. In other words, none of the 1,000 employees Amtrak laid off in the past year got labor protection. Even when a facility is closed, Amtrak can avoid labor protection simply by letting employees follow their work, and -- for employees who choose to do that -- paying moving costs.

In the last reauthorization in 1997, rather than repealing labor protection provided by law outright, Congress sunsetted the provision, subject to negotiation of a substitute labor protection agreement by the unions and Amtrak under the provisions of the Railway Labor Act. The result of those negotiations was an arbitration award which reduced the benefits of labor protection for Amtrak employees.

Looking more broadly at Amtrak labor issues, many Amtrak pay rates are less than for comparable work at commuter railroads and some other companies. Commuter railroads and electric utilities benefit from "Amtrak as training ground," using higher pay to attract Amtrak employees.

* Linemen (who work on overhead electrification) get about $20 an hour at Amtrak but $33-$35 at Newark-based Public Service Electric and Gas Company. Pennsylvania Power & Light Inc. recently advertised positions at $30 an hour.
* Commuter rail examples: Locomotive engineers' hourly rate is $27.24 at Amtrak, $29.92 at Long Island RR, $25.73 at New Jersey Transit. The trackman rate is $16.31 at Amtrak, $19.03 at Metra (Illinois), $20.42 at SEPTA (Philadelphia), $23.33 at Long Island.

Amtrak President and CEO David L. Gunn has made clear his belief that Amtrak pay rates are not excessive, and that the primary focus for Amtrak management in labor negotiations will be productivity and medical cost containment issues.

Unlike many employees in the private sector, Amtrak employees have never benefited from stock options.

Meanwhile, Amtrak management -- which does not get labor protection -- has not had a general salary increase since Fiscal 1997 (lump sum payments FY 1998 and FY 1999).

I could not have said the above better.....

[Anonymous]

Mr Clark, nobody can teach you anything about getting ducks in a row. That was a very precise and to the point piece. Thanks

[Anonymous]

Mr Clark, nobody can teach you anything about getting ducks in a row. That was a very precise and to the point piece. Thanks

[Puckdropper]

If a private organization was to build a rail line from the ground up, or take a good established system and improve it, what are the chances of getting government subsidaries? (Aparently good if they're connected to *** Chaney. But enuf of that.)

Metra seems to have a good feeder line in from the 'burbs to Chicago, how about expanding it to Kankakee and/or Milwaukee (if it doesn't already go there.) From Kankakee, head south and hit Decatur or Springfield, and continue to St Louis... If they can make it better than taking I55, there's probably money there. (I think high speed passenger rail would be better...)

[Puckdropper]

If a private organization was to build a rail line from the ground up, or take a good established system and improve it, what are the chances of getting government subsidaries? (Aparently good if they're connected to *** Chaney. But enuf of that.)

Metra seems to have a good feeder line in from the 'burbs to Chicago, how about expanding it to Kankakee and/or Milwaukee (if it doesn't already go there.) From Kankakee, head south and hit Decatur or Springfield, and continue to St Louis... If they can make it better than taking I55, there's probably money there. (I think high speed passenger rail would be better...)

[CG9602]

Well stated, Mr. Clark. Amtrak needs to be re-defined as a kind of service provider that isn't a railroad outright. There should aslo be some industry-wide regulatory reforms as well (e.g. why do we still have RR retirement when most everyone else pays into Social Security - at a cheaper rate, no less?).

[CG9602]

Well stated, Mr. Clark. Amtrak needs to be re-defined as a kind of service provider that isn't a railroad outright. There should aslo be some industry-wide regulatory reforms as well (e.g. why do we still have RR retirement when most everyone else pays into Social Security - at a cheaper rate, no less?).

[brilondon]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jgoose1

Strangely enough the UP, SantaFe and the Great Northern had a real hard time finding suficient cause to present to the ICC to get them out of the passenger business and It wasn't until AmTrak was created and demanded they hand over the business that they actually did get rid of the long distance trains. The Rio Grande continued to run the Zepher into the 1980's until AmTrak took over the central corridor route and today the ski train still runs every week end year arround from Denver to Winter Park. The Denver Regional Transportation District wants to run heavy rail commuter trains from Cheyenne down into New Mexico but the 30+ freight/coal trains a day that they would have to share the right of way with make that impossible so they are going to see if they can get the UP/BNSF to move the coal traffic to lines farther east. There initial contact apparently had the BNSF management rolling arround on the floor holding their stomachs shouting "You want to do What ??". On a snowy day it is possible to have a 40 mile long parking lot on I25 ( on a good day its only about 10 miles long). Tthe RTD light rail system in metro Denver has received over whelming support and is being extended and proposed Heavy rail commuter trains will probably be running as far South as Castle Rock by 2005.

The secret to having a passenger rail network may lie in tieing Regional commutter systems together. In the west most of these systems would run north to south in so much as the cities are to far apart east to west They would use existing surplus railroad right of way and would most likely contract with the freight railroads for maintence but do their own dispatching.

[:)] If it was such a great thing to be in pax those [:(] railroads [:(] would still be running trains today, but the fact that they are not, should be an indication that it is not worth the [:)] investment [:D] it would take. The reason that the railroads took so long in stopping their pax service is the [:o)] ICC ( read government ) [:o)] would not let them stop it. The railroads were losing beaucoup $$$'s and had to go to the ICC a number of times before the ICC would finally let them drop the services[8][B)]. Have you ever thought about riding in a [:(!] commuter coach [:(!] from, oh I don't know, say Denver to Chicago. I hate taking GO Transit for more then the 20 minutes on my way into work when I do take it. I could not imagine riding that thing for 17.5 hours. With little or no services on board commuter coaches riding them accross the country would be an [:(] endurance [:(] test to say the least. The commuter lines rely on volume and long distance trains do not have high volumes of pax traffic to make them pay for the ride. What about if you have to go to the washroom? Maybe at dinner time you might like something to eat. This would be train travel commuter style. [V][V][8D]

[brilondon]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jgoose1

Strangely enough the UP, SantaFe and the Great Northern had a real hard time finding suficient cause to present to the ICC to get them out of the passenger business and It wasn't until AmTrak was created and demanded they hand over the business that they actually did get rid of the long distance trains. The Rio Grande continued to run the Zepher into the 1980's until AmTrak took over the central corridor route and today the ski train still runs every week end year arround from Denver to Winter Park. The Denver Regional Transportation District wants to run heavy rail commuter trains from Cheyenne down into New Mexico but the 30+ freight/coal trains a day that they would have to share the right of way with make that impossible so they are going to see if they can get the UP/BNSF to move the coal traffic to lines farther east. There initial contact apparently had the BNSF management rolling arround on the floor holding their stomachs shouting "You want to do What ??". On a snowy day it is possible to have a 40 mile long parking lot on I25 ( on a good day its only about 10 miles long). Tthe RTD light rail system in metro Denver has received over whelming support and is being extended and proposed Heavy rail commuter trains will probably be running as far South as Castle Rock by 2005.

The secret to having a passenger rail network may lie in tieing Regional commutter systems together. In the west most of these systems would run north to south in so much as the cities are to far apart east to west They would use existing surplus railroad right of way and would most likely contract with the freight railroads for maintence but do their own dispatching.

[:)] If it was such a great thing to be in pax those [:(] railroads [:(] would still be running trains today, but the fact that they are not, should be an indication that it is not worth the [:)] investment [:D] it would take. The reason that the railroads took so long in stopping their pax service is the [:o)] ICC ( read government ) [:o)] would not let them stop it. The railroads were losing beaucoup $$$'s and had to go to the ICC a number of times before the ICC would finally let them drop the services[8][B)]. Have you ever thought about riding in a [:(!] commuter coach [:(!] from, oh I don't know, say Denver to Chicago. I hate taking GO Transit for more then the 20 minutes on my way into work when I do take it. I could not imagine riding that thing for 17.5 hours. With little or no services on board commuter coaches riding them accross the country would be an [:(] endurance [:(] test to say the least. The commuter lines rely on volume and long distance trains do not have high volumes of pax traffic to make them pay for the ride. What about if you have to go to the washroom? Maybe at dinner time you might like something to eat. This would be train travel commuter style. [V][V][8D]

[daveklepper]

Please note that after Sloan and Kettering of GM fame graduated from MIT, they decided that Ford's getting the farmers out of the mud was not sufficient. They decided that Cars had to be the future, and that every American MUST own car. The GM rape of public transportation began with GM's direct purchase of Manhattan's largest streetcar operator, New York Railways, in 1926, and the conversion of the first New York State railroad line, possibly the third or fourth in the country, the streetcars using the original New York and Harlem route, sourth from Grand Central to City Hall, to bus in 1935. The present Park Avenue vehicular tunnel in this location had been a streetcar tunnel with two stations, before that it was used by horsecars, and for a while at the same time by both NY&H and New Haven steam trains. Quite a symbolic act for an important transit facility to be converted for private cars and taxis only, with the buses running on the street above. For documentation just part of GM's rape of city public transit contact the website www.thethirdrail.net (possbily .com?) and check the May 2000 and May 1999 issues. Now much is made of the idea that highway transportation is self-supporting because the highway funds are used to repair and extend highways. But this is nonsense because it doesn't begin to cover land removed from tax rolls, police required for traffic control and accident cleanup, effects of pollution and noise and congestion on living standards and other uses of the neighborhoods. The success of the light rail lines and other transit improvements, not only heavy rail but yes bus rapid-transit where applicable, show that many Americans will leave their cars at home and enjoy a relaxing rail ride when available. The Downeast Maine service is a success despite the non-participtation of New Hampshire and the lack of through service via a Boston N. Sta- S, Sta connection. The great President Dwight David Eisenhower warned against the power of the "Military-Industrian Complex." Perhaps a warning against the power of the Auto-Oil-Highway lobby was even more in order? Dave Klepper
[e-mail]

[daveklepper]

Please note that after Sloan and Kettering of GM fame graduated from MIT, they decided that Ford's getting the farmers out of the mud was not sufficient. They decided that Cars had to be the future, and that every American MUST own car. The GM rape of public transportation began with GM's direct purchase of Manhattan's largest streetcar operator, New York Railways, in 1926, and the conversion of the first New York State railroad line, possibly the third or fourth in the country, the streetcars using the original New York and Harlem route, sourth from Grand Central to City Hall, to bus in 1935. The present Park Avenue vehicular tunnel in this location had been a streetcar tunnel with two stations, before that it was used by horsecars, and for a while at the same time by both NY&H and New Haven steam trains. Quite a symbolic act for an important transit facility to be converted for private cars and taxis only, with the buses running on the street above. For documentation just part of GM's rape of city public transit contact the website www.thethirdrail.net (possbily .com?) and check the May 2000 and May 1999 issues. Now much is made of the idea that highway transportation is self-supporting because the highway funds are used to repair and extend highways. But this is nonsense because it doesn't begin to cover land removed from tax rolls, police required for traffic control and accident cleanup, effects of pollution and noise and congestion on living standards and other uses of the neighborhoods. The success of the light rail lines and other transit improvements, not only heavy rail but yes bus rapid-transit where applicable, show that many Americans will leave their cars at home and enjoy a relaxing rail ride when available. The Downeast Maine service is a success despite the non-participtation of New Hampshire and the lack of through service via a Boston N. Sta- S, Sta connection. The great President Dwight David Eisenhower warned against the power of the "Military-Industrian Complex." Perhaps a warning against the power of the Auto-Oil-Highway lobby was even more in order? Dave Klepper
[e-mail]

[oltmannd]

A "talking head" conservative with a common sense opinion:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/georgewill/gw20030608.shtml

His conclusion? Amtrak stays people people like trains.

[oltmannd]

A "talking head" conservative with a common sense opinion:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/georgewill/gw20030608.shtml

His conclusion? Amtrak stays people people like trains.