Who cares if passenger rail disappears ?

[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.