HIGH-SPEED RAIL SERVICE

[Anonymous]

How about Carnelle ( i think this is how it's spelled)...no fast food restaurants allowed!

[CG9602]

OK . . . .Let me see here. Juniper, how would you set about doing the financing of these rail lines? Would the US set up some sort of Trust Fund, similar to what exists for the highways & avaition? I'd also like to see high-speed, ( or just plain increased speed) trains here in the US. The ones that would benefit me the most would be the MWHSR. I also think that the RRB should have all of its functions and responsibilities combined with the Social Security, so RR's don't have to pay such exhorbitant RRB taxes, but that's off topic. The main question I have here is funding. US military test pilots have a saying: "No bucks, no Buck Rodgers."


Also, plase turn off the caps, here There's no need to shout.

[Anonymous]

The trick would be to set up a specific legal authority to make the HSR national system possible. This authority (agency) would have its own enabling legislation, allowing it to receive public monies (in federal legislation, it is a two-step process--first an authorization, then an appropriation).

The HSR agency would establish a staff, and proceed to promulgate a schedule of lines to be built, with specific guidelines and requirements for type and operation. This would guarantee a US national HSR system of uniform type and standard (unlike the original rail lines, which were rebuilt to standard gauge after starting with wildly different gauges and standards--too expensive for such folly now).

Having established the standards, a bidding process for specific lines (say, San Diego to Vancouver, CN or Chicago-New Orleans, DC-San Francisco, NY to Miami, etc.) could be set up. This would require bidders to have a legal corporation, and minimum capitalization to enter the bid process. Once a firm won that bid, it could then be legally empowered to issue a certain amount of capital stock, bonds and other debentures, and also to receive federal subsidy on a per-mile-built basis (this is how the Union Pacific was built, in essence).

I think you get the idea. Of course, the original enabling legislation would also establi***hings like a deadline for completion of the national system, say 25 years from date of inception.

J. Snyder

[Anonymous]

Or we could add a penny or two to the federal gasoline tax just for the construction and operation of HSR. Either way will suffice....

[RudyRockvilleMD]

Let's be realistic. Adding anything to fuel tax, and diverting it for use other than for highway maintenance or construction just isn't going to fly. I drive, and I want my roads to be in good condition and as safe as possible. I further believe any talk of high speed rail lines longer than 400 - 500 miles is pure pie-in-the sky. Assuming a train could average 150 mph between Washington and San Francisco the journey would take 22 hours. High speed trains can only run at high speeds over terrain which is flat. The minute they get into the mountains they are litle faster than most conventional trains so crossing the mountains will slow them down appreciably to the point where they may not be able to average a high speed or run at sustained high speeds..

[Anonymous]

It used to be 300 miles, the distance from Lyons to Paris. Our NEC is 450 miles. France's TGV has extended the line to Marsailles, to London, to the Netherlands with links to Germany's ICE trains...... 300 miles indeed!

Already Virginia wants to extend the HSR line to Richmond, North Carolina wants to extend the line to Raleigh and Charlotte. Once we get to Charlotte, we are more than half the way to Atlanta, and Atlanta is two thirds of the way to Orlando, but why stop there, why not go all the way to Miami? There are a lot of people living in Virginia, the Carolinas, Georgia and Florida.....

Pennsylvania wants to build HSR to Pittsburgh, and Chicago wants to build HSR to Detroit, why not fini***he line through Toledo and Cleveland? There are a lot of people living in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, and Illinois.....

Yes, we should build lines longer than 300 miles, or even longer than 450 miles. Why not go to the hub of the next largest population areas, such as Chicago, Atlanta and Florida, and on to Texas? Most of these lines have a distance of 800 to 900 miles.....with large cities inbetween..... Time traveled is 6 hours @ 150 mph over 900 miles. Six hours is not too long on a train. People fly more than 6 hours, people will ride a train for more than 6 hours. They do today!

And as I noted before, many Amtrak passengers go all the way and then some.... Half the passengers traveling to Chicago get on another train.....

However, if you have seen my map, you will notice that there isn't much population density west of Minneapolis, Kansas City, and Dallas, except for Denver, Seattle-Portland, and California. So I agree with you, it is fooli***o build HSR over the Rockies.... well, I wouldn't do so at the start of building HSR. Maybe later....... but lines can be built serving LA and the Bay area, and Portland and Seattle. Oh, by the way, the distance between LA and Oakland is further than 300 miles.

So get off this 300 miles kick, or the 450 miles kick...... The whole point in building HSR is to provide choices for travelers...... whatever the distance!

My map:
http://homepage.mac.com/donclark/.Public/DonHSR.jpg

[RudyRockvilleMD]

Virginia, and possibly North Carolina, want to extend their so called version of high speed rail from Washington to Richmond, Raleigh, and Charlotte traveling at a top speed of 110 mph. At 110 mph top speed the average speed would be about 75 - 80 mph provided the stops are few and far between. That is hardly high speed in my book. The distances are Washington - Richmond 115 miles; Richmond - Raleigh [using the ex SAL alignment is 185 miles, while Raleigh to Charlotte is approximately 175 miles. I doubt if there would be sufficient ridership between Richmond and Raleigh or Raleigh and Charlotte to justify the expenditure for high speed rail service.

People fly more than 6 hours, and most of those flights are overseas. Six hours on a plane in the continental United States is going to get you across the country non-stop.

Yes, people ride a train for 6 hours or more, and they do that if they travel between Boston and Washington on the Acela Express; however, more people fly than travel by train the NEC between Washington and New York [226 miles] being an exception. High speed rail would serve mainly business travelers as an alternative to flying. The standard of business travel today is air for trips that take longer than 4 hours via surface transportation.

The shortest distance between Los Angeles and San Francisco is through the San Joaquin Valley, approximately 420 miles, and I suspect there is sufficient ridership in that corridor to justify high speed rail; however; using that route you face a problem in getting out of the Los Angeles Basin at any speed because it is surrounded by mountains, and a high speed train would be little faster than a conventional train in that territory. I base this on my experience in riding a TGV through the Western French and Italian Alps. That train was no faster than a conventional train on the same route, but the distance through the Alps was long enough to keep that train's average speed down.

Philadelpia - Pittsburgh - 350 miles via Altoona. Again where is the ridership? West of Harrisburg the Pennsy-Conrail-NS ran through the Juniata Valley, which is anything but straight, to avoid the mountain ranges west of Harrisburg.

The whole point in building high speed rail is to provide an alternative to flying mostly for business travelers where it is economically feasible.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Juniperhouse

I BELIEVE THE UNITED STATES SHOULD BUILD A NATIONAL NETWORK OF NEW, DEDICATED, HSR LINES COAST-TO-COAST AND NORTH TO SOUTH. I WOULD RECOMMEND THREE E/W LINES (I.E., NORTHERN TIER OF CITIES, CENTRAL US DC/BALT. TO SAN FRANCISCO, SOUTHERN TIER OF CITIES, AND THREE NORTH-SOUTH LINES--WEST COAST, MISSISSIPPI VALLEY CHICAGO-NEW ORLEANS, EAST COAST.

CONNECTIONS WOULD BE ESTABLISHED AT KEY NODAL POINTS FOR INTEROPERABILITY. LINES WOULD BE PRIVATELY OPERATED, OVER PUBLICLY-OWNED RIGHTS-OF-WAY CREATED BY GOVERNMENT LAND CONDEMNATION AND RE-USE OF EXISTING ROW IN URBAN AREAS (LIKE FRANCE, FOR EXAMPLE).

TECHNOLOGY WOULD BE STEEL-WHEEL-ON-STEEL-RAIL, WITH THREE TIERS OF SERVICE: NONSTOP COAST-TO-COAST, EXPRESS BETWEEN KEY CITIES, AND EVERY-CITY SERVICE. LINES WOULD BE DOUBLE-TRACKED WITH HIGH-SPEED CROSSOVERS.

FINANCING WOULD BE PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP (LIKE ORIGINAL RRS IN 19TH CENT).

YOUR THOUGHTS?

JOSEPH J. SNYDER
SHEPHERDSTOWN, WV
E-MAIL: [e-mail]

Gov Frank O'Bannon (Indiana) was kicking around some story about HSR from Pittsburgh to Chicago utilizing the old Pennsey right of way, through Ft Wayne, but the plan was laden with so many if's, ands, buts, and potential "gotcha" s that it seemed more a ruse than anything else. First of all it was all solicitous as to how much local backing might be obtainable, and while referancing a "private enterprise" who would be chiefly responsible as dev/operator was careful to not name the party, nor indicate the financial commitment they were willing to put into "their" end of it..

Further, the "high speed" end of it would not come for 10 years, and only then if "ridership merited the further investmenment"

Sounds like a whammy in the making, if you ask me, I can just hear it all now "cancel the high speed, local private investment was too scant, and ridership too sparce to justify the main investor commiting more of their own funds, so don't blame the primary investor for the failure of the locals or the riders" In the mean time the primary's make a nice grab on tthe Amtrak assets, having duped "joe sixpak" into gleefully abandoning same in a "fire sale" as a preliminary in the hubris of expectation of something that ain't never gonna be fulfillled.

Yes, I think it's all a clever scam devised as part of a ruse to facilitate the liquidation of Amtrak, sorry.

[daveklepper]

Is the USA Government funding fuel-cell development to pour money to solve highway transportation problems, when Hybrid technology already exists to solve the problem, but won't spend money on intercity rail transportation (frieght and passenger) other than the very tiny, in comparison, Amtrak subsidy? Why? The political clout of the highway lobby? Dave Klepper

[Anonymous]

Yes, the Highway Lobby has much clout.....as do their friends, Big Auto and Big Oil. While they can no longer get away with any National City Lines scandals, other than that they may as well be God as far as the DOT is concerned.
You see, Big Auto isn't content that everyone wants a car anyways.....they want it to be the ONLY way. And Big Oil want$ thing$ a$ inneficient as po$$ible. Trains are too efficient. And any "funding" into alternate technologies is probably just a ruse.....Big Oil and Big Auto are happy with the way things are! Sadly, things are too similar up here in Canada.....even if VIA is in a better state than Amtrak

~Ra'akone

[wallyworld]

It's a commendable wish but so is world peace. The United States could easily be classified as a third world nation in comparitive terms as far as having a balanced mass transit system, let alone one that could be considered intermodal. This won't happen in my lifetime nor that of either my children or grandchildren. One of the few struggling manufacturing bases in this country that has survived is the manufacture of automobiles. As I write this, our nation's national debt is at record levels. Most of the non railfan electorate has a image of railroads as a quaint 19th century technology that is still powered by steam engines. As far as the federal government funding the tens of millions of dollars for inumerable enviromental impact studies before the first tie is spiked, bear in mind they were the sole managers for our space station that was supposed to be supplied by obsolete space shuttles, that really has no compelling reason to float above the earth. It will take a much larger crisis than the last gas shortage to compell our leaders to act and who wishes for that to happen?.

[Anonymous]

There is nothing to be gained by nay-saying negativism. I think we all agree the present transportation system is not adequate and has many limitations, in addition to making it very difficult for cities across North America to link up.

Instead of fussing, endlessly, about what can't be done (all of which is nothing more than narrow-minded inside-the-box assumptions anyway), I suggest we take a larger look at matters.

As for the population density issues, the demographers tell us the center of the US has been slowly emptying toward the coasts the last century. Building a new national HSR network would be one way to reverse that trend, and move people back to the more-accessible heart of the country (more accessible because of the arrival of HSR).

Great public-works projects (like the original railroad lines) stimulate thousands of spinoffs, and bring business and population to places where it did not exist before, or in our US case, has gradually gone away.

As for solving the problem by adding two cents to the federal gas tax, this is absurd. The rule of thumb is that one cent of gas tax generates a billion dollars in new revenue. Two billion dollars is not enough to even get into trouble, let alone get out of it on HSR. It will take hundreds of billions in financing, both public and private, and concerted cooperation between federal and state governments (like the building of the original RRs in the 19th century, we might add).

We (our group, including transport engineers) have looked at the speed issue, and we believe we can cross coast-to-coast using off-the-shelf HSR equipment in 16 hours. This, of course, involves substantially higher speeds where possible to compensate for the slower speeds in urban environments and in mountainous terrain. Note that the French TGV has done 322 mph in test runs, and the German ICE trains over 250 mph in tests. Conventional HSR is now very close to maglev in speed capability, and we believe it can be improved still further.

The USA has been famous in history for a can-do attitude. That built the railroads, and completed the Panama Canal when the French backed off. Americans love great engineering projects, and, I believe, will pitch in wholeheartedly once it gets underway. God knows the Bush program of overseas imperialism isn't drawing much enthusiasm, and the bloom is off the bush (no pun intended) for the space program.

What else is there to stimulate a national re-awakening? HSR is the answer.

J. Snyder

[eastcoast]

Look, we all need to consider that the government IS NOT going to do this anytime soon. Amtrak is faltering as it is! Do you like paying taxes?? It will come straight out of OUR POCKETS!! And then, how much for tickets on thes trains? What about grade crossing collisions or do we seek MAG LEV?? THE ACELA HAS NOT BEEN WITHOUT PROBLEMS! It still has to deal with all kinds of restrictions and limits. Now, Disney Corp. is toying with the idea in Florida to boost tourism and to save the environment from all the vehicle exhaust.The solution? MONORAIL.MAGLEV.NO GRADE CROSSINGS.MAYBE BY 2025.[B)]
KEN_ECR

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Juniperhouse

There is nothing to be gained by nay-saying negativism. I think we all agree the present transportation system is not adequate and has many limitations, in addition to making it very difficult for cities across North America to link up.

Instead of fussing, endlessly, about what can't be done (all of which is nothing more than narrow-minded inside-the-box assumptions anyway), I suggest we take a larger look at matters.

As for the population density issues, the demographers tell us the center of the US has been slowly emptying toward the coasts the last century. Building a new national HSR network would be one way to reverse that trend, and move people back to the more-accessible heart of the country (more accessible because of the arrival of HSR).

Great public-works projects (like the original railroad lines) stimulate thousands of spinoffs, and bring business and population to places where it did not exist before, or in our US case, has gradually gone away.

As for solving the problem by adding two cents to the federal gas tax, this is absurd. The rule of thumb is that one cent of gas tax generates a billion dollars in new revenue. Two billion dollars is not enough to even get into trouble, let alone get out of it on HSR. It will take hundreds of billions in financing, both public and private, and concerted cooperation between federal and state governments (like the building of the original RRs in the 19th century, we might add).

We (our group, including transport engineers) have looked at the speed issue, and we believe we can cross coast-to-coast using off-the-shelf HSR equipment in 16 hours. This, of course, involves substantially higher speeds where possible to compensate for the slower speeds in urban environments and in mountainous terrain. Note that the French TGV has done 322 mph in test runs, and the German ICE trains over 250 mph in tests. Conventional HSR is now very close to maglev in speed capability, and we believe it can be improved still further.

The USA has been famous in history for a can-do attitude. That built the railroads, and completed the Panama Canal when the French backed off. Americans love great engineering projects, and, I believe, will pitch in wholeheartedly once it gets underway. God knows the Bush program of overseas imperialism isn't drawing much enthusiasm, and the bloom is off the bush (no pun intended) for the space program.

What else is there to stimulate a national re-awakening? HSR is the answer.

J. Snyder

Well don't get me wrong, I think the idea would be cool. But my suspicions have an uncanny knack for panning out, and it seems more than just a tad..................~vested~ that all this talk about HSR came out of nowhere at about the same time that our fine feathered Prez, and cronies are trying to find a silver spike to kill off Amtrak. Especially with the emphasis upon the public needing to make it's commitment first, and hollow promises that include pre engineered escape chutes, for un-named private entities who have yet to put any meat of their own on the table.

Don't take this personally, but the plan wreaks of asset grab and subterfuge, and high level Republicanism. And I consider myself a Republican...

I just have no desire to line someone elses pockets, sir. And I have very little confidence in the "joe six-paks" of this country to make a rational decision if they've been led to believe "oh goody! Did you hear we are gonna have HSR service?" <ten years down the road, if the mystery investors don't back out and leave us holding an empty bag>.

[Anonymous]

And REALLY, who wants to go coast to coast in 16 hours, if you can fly there in 4? I might do it once, just to say I did, after that it would seem Like 12 hours down the drain, and I suspect this would be a popular perspective, time being all valuable to most people, so after the novelty wears off, the public gets stuck with a high maintenance item that nobody uses? Seems like I've seen this scenario unfold once before, and private industry depended on a public bailout then, the only thing that's changed is we don't know who they are (yet, if ever) this time.

[Anonymous]

AntiGates......if there was Coast to Coast highspeed rail service.....you think most people would be riding coast to coast? Of course not.......it would be at the intermediate stops.
One thing that's often forgotten about.....TRAINS ARE NOT LIKE PLANES.......with airplanes, it doesn't make economical sense to have them landing at multiple stops (which is why it's seldom done, except with certain longer routes that call at more obscure destinations) Trains, on the other hand, you don't have to spend all that money for landing fees and refueling at each stop. Sure, on corridor trains you'll find more end-to-end riders......but on longer routes, more people get on or off at intermediate locations.

~Ra'akone

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by raakone

AntiGates......if there was Coast to Coast highspeed rail service.....you think most people would be riding coast to coast? Of course not.......it would be at the intermediate stops.
One thing that's often forgotten about.....TRAINS ARE NOT LIKE PLANES.......with airplanes, it doesn't make economical sense to have them landing at multiple stops (which is why it's seldom done, except with certain longer routes that call at more obscure destinations) Trains, on the other hand, you don't have to spend all that money for landing fees and refueling at each stop. Sure, on corridor trains you'll find more end-to-end riders......but on longer routes, more people get on or off at intermediate locations.

~Ra'akone

Hey, the gentleman was plugging the coast to coast time as though it was a desireable "do-able" endeavor. I was merely replying to the concept......

No, my bet is that the maximum range appeal for any HSR transit will be in the 400-600 mile range

So I ask " why build from coast to coast then?" I`ll tell you what I think, its `window dressing` to make anyone who might have a meaningful input on the issue of AMTRAK think ~h`mm, HSR for my community? maybe it`s worth a shot~....... PORKBARREL!!

[RudyRockvilleMD]

As for the population density issues, the demographers tell us the center of the US has been slowly emptying toward the coasts the last century. Building a new national HSR network would be one way to reverse that trend, and move people back to the more-accessible heart of the country (more accessible because of the arrival of HSR).


We (our group, including transport engineers) have looked at the speed issue, and we believe we can cross coast-to-coast using off-the-shelf HSR equipment in 16 hours. This, of course, involves substantially higher speeds where possible to compensate for the slower speeds in urban environments and in mountainous terrain. Note that the French TGV has done 322 mph in test runs, and the German ICE trains over 250 mph in tests. Conventional HSR is now very close to maglev in speed capability, and we believe it can be improved still further.

J. Snyder

[METRO]

Forget National! There are still plenty of short-haul lines that need work! The Chicago-Milwaukee-Madison-Twin Cities corridor has just started to run faster than a snail's pace. Even some turbo-trains would be an improvement over the P-42s we have, let alone some nice Acelas.

[Anonymous]

What kind of cost to ride is envisioned for the public at large? You know, the same public that's gonna be expected to conceed publicly owned assets to the cause, most likely have to bear higher local taxes to fund the ~local commitment~, and will be expected to forgo benefits through opportunity cost as the Federal contributions siphon resources that could be used elsewhere, if not for the needs of the HSR program?

Then, of course, whoever the ~private entity~ beneficiary of all that public contribution ends up being, will expect to earn a profit (naturally) after the public puts them in business to begin with, so How much will I have to pay to ride my (as a taxpayer) friggin railroad?

[Anonymous]

You can fly coast to coast in 4 hours is a lie. By the time you add the 2 hour wait to go through security, it is actually 6 hours. Add another hour (some live closer to and then some live further from the airport) to get to the airport, and from the airport to your destination and home, it is 8 hours. Yes, big business considers flying a day of work....

Up to the 6 hour mark high speed trains are as effective time wise as any airliner. Buiding a network of high speed trains will provide the traveler more choices they currently don't have. The idea is to drive prices down, not up, especially in the smaller city category. It is easy to find a cheap airline ticket from Chicago to Dallas, but it isn't so easy to find a cheap airline ticket from Oklahoma City to Chicago....It is easy to find a cheap airline ticket from Dallas to Atlanta, but it isn't as easy to find a cheap airline ticket from Dallas to Birmingham....

However, you will point out it is 800 miles from Dallas to Atlanta, but to Birmingham it is 700 miles. You might be shocked to find out it is cheaper to fly from Birmingham to Atlanta than it is to fly from Birmingham to Jackson, but not as cheap to fly from Dallas to Atlanta. The airlines are based on hubs, flying to hubs is cheap, flying anywhere else is expensive. To fly from Birmingham to Jackson there is a very good chance you will have to fly to Atlanta and make a connection.... A high speed train along that route will obviously drive airline tickets down.....

There are many cities in America that have that problem, expensive airline tickets, that would be well served if another mode of transportation was available.....

[Anonymous]

cost/benefit ratio of flying isn't a poblem for me. Couple years ago american Airlines charged me $350 round trip L. A. -Ft Wayne Indiana While AMTRAK wanted $325 (for coach) add another $800 for sleeper service on the same trip. But would drop me 38 miles from my destination, out in the boonies.

Are you saying HSR would charge less than $350 and get me there in one day? Sounds like the return on investment wont justify the up front expense of building the thing, if you ask me.

[wallyworld]

By the reply to my post I understand some clarfication is due. I am not opposed to HSR. However it is not a matter of simply being negitive or thinking within a box when you take an objective survey of the political and social barriers to begin a national consensus toward funding such a massive project out of the public purse . Especially when that purse is not only empty, it will shortly contain an estimated 500 billion dollars worth of IOU's. Rather than being in a box or being negitive I think a better term is being realistic. I am as idealistic as the next person, and can appreciate the great engineering projects of past centuries but none of these attributes contributes one iota to getting a project off the ground. Appealing to either past glories or idealism won't get two cents out of every gallon of gas sold. The simple math of investing billions of dollars to travel 16 hours coast to coast when I am loathe to do the same now in much less time does not appeal to the vast majority who have less and less time to devote to a personal life let alone killing even more time on a train while paying even more to use my car. America right now has a shortage of both idealism and a real appreciation of history, let alone knowing who the current speaker of the house is. You need to work from the bottom up. If we saw only a fifteen second spot on tv that showed a TGV flying past at warp speed, a shot of hundreds of frustrated airline passengers in line waiting to be frisked, another shot of expressway traffic stalled while a narrator asks " Think theres no alternative? Join us. WWW. Alternative." Or a shot of horrific hurricanes, devasting wildfires and droughts with the narrator asking " Think there's no alternative? Join us in a cleaner world with less pollution at WWW. Alternative."
Forget about economics, studies or patriotic appeals. This is America-you have to sell, sell sell. Get an alliance going with the railroads ( they would like electrification), passenger groups etc to fund an ad campaign.Use a website to build petitions, activist groups, etc. I would be willing to contribute to some reasonably realistic effort toward a sorely needed national dialog as would others as evidenced by these posts. Until we have the leadership capable of focusing a vision toward a goal, all of this discussion is like pouring from the empty into the void. You need to bypass professional politics and do an end run on the electorate and have the numbers to drive decisions from them that you want. The railroads are their own worst enemy. See the UP ad running now? Some old grizzled voice says they have been around forever while a freight train the public has no relation to runs through a barren landscape .Railroads are so far below the public radar, the only exposure they receive is negitive. A train hits a car. A train derails. You sit in stalled traffic behind gates down for a train. Their biggest public relations effort while laudable is another negitive- Operation Lifesaver -how not to be killed by a train. They desperately need a more positive image but they too are in the 19th century in their thinking. Until they realise the public are their customers who happen to also make shipping decisions in their employment which provides them profit, they will remain stuck with a shrinking range of services and commodities to ship. My point is until a product is agressively marketed directly to the public in a positive manner, you are relying soley on fate, politicians and fortune cookies.

[Anonymous]

Yes, the price with a Saturday night layover is $356 from LA to Fort Wayne. But lets change that a little, say from Santa Barbara to Fort Wayne. Price is $632 without a Saturday night layover on the red eye flight, and $722 for a day flight....

Flying from or to major airports is cheap. Flying elsewhere isn't......

Amtrak beats this easily....hey, you might even want to plunge on a sleeper.....

[michaelstevens]

Looks like something is finally moving in Florida.
Check out the news wire.
Bombardier/Fluor got a contract yesterday to build a system (using the "JetTrain") between Tampa and Orlando.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by donclark

Yes, the price with a Saturday night layover is $356 from LA to Fort Wayne. But lets change that a little, say from Santa Barbara to Fort Wayne. Price is $632 without a Saturday night layover on the red eye flight, and $722 for a day flight....

Flying from or to major airports is cheap. Flying elsewhere isn't......

Amtrak beats this easily....hey, you might even want to plunge on a sleeper.....

Are you kiddin? Ft Wayne is a Pudunk town, 275,000 maybe. We BARELY have jet service.

I derned near took Amtrak for that trip, priced it out, with the summer discount it was like $600 round trip, which while nearly twice the air fare, I had a ~use it before we loose it~ outlook, youknow one last trip for old times sake? So, I wasgonna splurge, but when I went to order, I found out I ALSO had to buy a coach seat to go along with the sleeper, for an extra $325.00 And $925 was out of the question.

For the extra $575 they wanted to charge me for "lodging" compad t Airfare, I could spend those 4 nights in an A+ resort, sorry AMTRAK, that ain't no way to run a railroad. I just wanted to rent the sleeper berth, not buy into it's amortization on a time share basis

[eastcoast]

QUOTE: Originally posted by eastcoast

Look, we all need to consider that the government IS NOT going to do this anytime soon. Amtrak is faltering as it is! Do you like paying taxes?? It will come straight out of OUR POCKETS!! And then, how much for tickets on thes trains? What about grade crossing collisions or do we seek MAG LEV?? THE ACELA HAS NOT BEEN WITHOUT PROBLEMS! It still has to deal with all kinds of restrictions and limits. Now, Disney Corp. is toying with the idea in Florida to boost tourism and to save the environment from all the vehicle exhaust.The solution? MONORAIL.MAGLEV.NO GRADE CROSSINGS.MAYBE BY 2025.[B)]
KEN_ECR

Like I said before, DISNEY CORP. WANTS TO BUILD AND CONTROL THE FLORIDA MARKET. THE FACT THAT THEY(DISNEY) MUST COMPETE WITH F E C IN THE MIAMI MARKET WILL BE A HUGE ISSUE. DID YOU KNOW THAT MAGLEV WAS THE FIRST IDEA ON THE TABLE??? ALL TRACKS LEAD TO THE MOUSE!!!

[CG9602]

QUOTE: Originally posted by METRO

Forget National! There are still plenty of short-haul lines that need work! The Chicago-Milwaukee-Madison-Twin Cities corridor has just started to run faster than a snail's pace. Even some turbo-trains would be an improvement over the P-42s we have, let alone some nice Acelas.

While I concur with your sentiments, I think that you still have to work with the incremental approach - Madison is a market of such character that it would be an easy sell. You have to get the word of mouth out that people really do travel by train. Living in WI, and having lived in Madison, I cal tell you from anecdotal experience that the tracks in that area will never be brought up to Class 6 standards until the local Yuppies and Legislators get it into their heads that people really do take the train, and that it can be less of a hassle than flying. Like most non-rail fan USAmericans, the legislators probably don't know anyone who takes the train in WI (besides one particualr individual who was a very successful realtor in Madison). You have to spend money in order to make money, and there are lots of folks out thater who still think that "No one takes the train, why should we spend money on it?"

I can tell you from personal experience that plenty of folks take the train. If the train went to sports-crazy Madison, the current schedule of the Empire Builder would put its arrival just in time for the start and end of football games, and hockey games. Think of the patronage!
However, one must increase the service, fix up the tracks between MSP and MKE via Mad Town, and then get AMTK to go through Madison. One also has to foot the bill to return Amtrak to a State Of Good Condition, similar to what Mr. Gunn is working towards. I would like to see HSR in the USA as much as any member of this forum, but I think we ned to work on getting rid of the currenty faults before introducing something new.
I'd love to be able to take the train to see the relatives in MSN, but I'd also like to see more frequency of service as well.

Sorry, Enough pontificating.

[brilondon]

Correct me if I am wrong but aren't the Fed's trying not to fund AMTRAK at all. Amtrak has to go hat in hand and grovel for its megre funding requests every year. Here in Canada we get all gaga over any additional money our government wishes to give it. It is planning to give VIA Rail a bone to the tune of 800 million CDN dollars over the next five years. Unfortunatly that is the ramblings of a senile old man who is our present king, I mean Prime Minister, who when he finally gets his butt out of our government will be sadly disapointed when the hier apparent Paul Martin come in and reverses everything Johnny Cruton has screwed up.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by brilondon

Correct me if I am wrong but aren't the Fed's trying not to fund AMTRAK at all. Amtrak has to go hat in hand and grovel for its megre funding requests every year. Here in Canada we get all gaga over any additional money our government wishes to give it. It is planning to give VIA Rail a bone to the tune of 800 million CDN dollars over the next five years. Unfortunatly that is the ramblings of a senile old man who is our present king, I mean Prime Minister, who when he finally gets his butt out of our government will be sadly disapointed when the hier apparent Paul Martin come in and reverses everything Johnny Cruton has screwed up.

Yes, that's the gist of it, but as with all things Republican, there is substantially more to the story than meets the eye. There are some lucrative markets in the Amtrak fold, and the Prez has some friends in low places (hereinafter refered toas the"cronies") who'd like to get their hands on them. Hence ~Amtrak~ A "BROKEN SYSTEM" needs to be done away with..

But, there are sizeable public owned assets in Amtrak, that just wouldn't look right handing those assets over to the "cronies" unless (my take) some popular sentiment can be built to make "Joe six pak" see a silver lining in doing so.

Enter "High speed rail service coming to a town near you" but with the deal structured with so many outs, and no strings attached to the cronies, that when the pie in the sky fails to meet proforma, the deal get trashed due to "local and public failure to fulfill their end of the bargain", but that comes to form a few years down the road, with Amtrak a distant memory, with the valued assets long since transfered into the hands of the "no strings attached" cronies, amid blubberings of "Don't you dare blame the cronies for the failures of the local and public sector"

And BLAMMO , the cronies have a nice shortline passenger railroad that is as profitable as it is exclusive.