arbfbe wrote:The math looks pretty good when you compare a single ticket to a lone rider. Now it all starts to fall apart when you put multiple riders in the same automobile compared to the cost of a like number of AMTK fares. During a multi day trip the cost of motels vs sleeping in the seat again move the balance towards the train. If you want a bed on the train the auto again may be "cheaper". It all depends upon how you want to factor in the options.
Using $89 hotel rooms, $6 per meal per diem, current Amtrak coach fares and roomette costs and Jay Eaton's gas prices, assuming the car trip requires four nights motel stay ...
By car:
1 occupant $738 per person
2 occupants $405
3 occupants $294
Amtrak
1 person coach $219.00 per person
2 persons coach $438.00
1 person roomette $740.00
2 persons, roomette $370 per person
Now, add in the extra time taken by car as a cost, plus overhead and depreciation on the car ...
I think Amtrak is truly missing the ad campaign for the Empire Builder ...
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
jeaton wrote: futuremodal wrote: The thought of subsidizing folks like Mark Meyer and Jay Eaton is irksome to say the least.Like I need another reason to ride Amtrak. However, I'll remember to keep you posted of my travel plans.
futuremodal wrote: The thought of subsidizing folks like Mark Meyer and Jay Eaton is irksome to say the least.
The thought of subsidizing folks like Mark Meyer and Jay Eaton is irksome to say the least.
Like I need another reason to ride Amtrak. However, I'll remember to keep you posted of my travel plans.
Well, just as long as you're not buying beer with your food stamps..........
MichaelSol wrote: Dakguy201 wrote: I had to get out a map to even find out where Darby and Polson were. I now know, and I also know out that they have populations of 625 and 3300. Yup, no doubt they should have train service also. A Roadrailer pickup each way twice a week should do very nicely. Of course, MRL wouldn't be studying rail passenger service to a little town of 625. Perhaps that wasn't obvious. What the corridor describes, however, is a linear belt of about 45,000 people who funnel onto one (mostly) two lane highway for commuting between Missoula and Hamilton, primarily, Darby happens to be a little further down the track and is the physical end of the rail route. These are well-educated people by and large -- and some pretty wealthy ones as well. A variety of car pools and busses, privately organized, serve part of the commuting public, and a drive down the highway on a weekday will show informal parking lots full of cars all along the route -- ironically typically on MRL property at road crossings. So, people are already substantially "trained" to an urban transportation model -- the model just happens to be lacking a key component of urban transportation.
Dakguy201 wrote: I had to get out a map to even find out where Darby and Polson were. I now know, and I also know out that they have populations of 625 and 3300. Yup, no doubt they should have train service also. A Roadrailer pickup each way twice a week should do very nicely.
I had to get out a map to even find out where Darby and Polson were. I now know, and I also know out that they have populations of 625 and 3300. Yup, no doubt they should have train service also. A Roadrailer pickup each way twice a week should do very nicely.
Of course, MRL wouldn't be studying rail passenger service to a little town of 625. Perhaps that wasn't obvious. What the corridor describes, however, is a linear belt of about 45,000 people who funnel onto one (mostly) two lane highway for commuting between Missoula and Hamilton, primarily, Darby happens to be a little further down the track and is the physical end of the rail route. These are well-educated people by and large -- and some pretty wealthy ones as well. A variety of car pools and busses, privately organized, serve part of the commuting public, and a drive down the highway on a weekday will show informal parking lots full of cars all along the route -- ironically typically on MRL property at road crossings. So, people are already substantially "trained" to an urban transportation model -- the model just happens to be lacking a key component of urban transportation.
"We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics
Now is the time for Amtrak to raise rates to cover costs, yet at the same time advertise the comparitive costs of travel by auto and bus with that of a self sufficient passenger rail.
jeaton wrote: OW Delavan, WI to Portland, OR: Gasoline $309.90OW Milwaukee, WI to Portland, OR: My Amtrak coach ticket $119.85
OW Delavan, WI to Portland, OR: Gasoline $309.90
OW Milwaukee, WI to Portland, OR: My Amtrak coach ticket $119.85
Marketing.
Southwest Airlnes became wildly successful not because they had low rates, but because they really promoted those low rates -- they had those characteristic ads -- billboards everywhere in their territory -- and if you were in San Francisco or Phoenix, you could see "San Diego $99" all along the freeways.
It would grab my attention on I-94 if I saw a big sign that said "Portland $120!"
It would grab my attention if it said $180.
So that brings us back to the question of whether Amtrak should raise the price of their tickets to cover all their costs?
Does anyone know, based on the example above, what the fully allocated cost of an Amtrak ticket from Milwaukee to Portland would be? Would it be more than $309 or less?
If it would still be less than the cost of driving, I agree with Michael that Amtrak might want to advertise that.
But that would bring us full circle to the very question of Amtrak's existence. If a passenger train can cover it's costs, then don't we have a moral duty to hand such service over to the private sector?
MichaelSol wrote: jeaton wrote: OW Delavan, WI to Portland, OR: Gasoline $309.90OW Milwaukee, WI to Portland, OR: My Amtrak coach ticket $119.85Amtrak should make ads that actually say that. I think people would think about it differently. Although, in my case, I enjoy an overnight trip, but Milwaukee to Portland? I "dined" with a group from Chicago. The old man wouldn't fly, and his wife and daughter were with him. The daughter (a 40s something) explained that this was the third day of the trip and, while they had mostly enjoyed it, "the bloom was off the rose" as far she was concerned.
Amtrak should make ads that actually say that. I think people would think about it differently. Although, in my case, I enjoy an overnight trip, but Milwaukee to Portland? I "dined" with a group from Chicago. The old man wouldn't fly, and his wife and daughter were with him. The daughter (a 40s something) explained that this was the third day of the trip and, while they had mostly enjoyed it, "the bloom was off the rose" as far she was concerned.
arbfbe wrote: So long as a track exists through southern Montana there will be someone who wants to establish a passenger service on the line. So long as there are tracks to Darby and Polson, increasing populations will make commuter service on those lines seem appropriate.The spark and debate will not go away. The politics and economics will be the bugaboos.
So long as a track exists through southern Montana there will be someone who wants to establish a passenger service on the line. So long as there are tracks to Darby and Polson, increasing populations will make commuter service on those lines seem appropriate.
The spark and debate will not go away. The politics and economics will be the bugaboos.
Fred Simpson told me that early on MRL did a study of commuter train service on the Darby branch; the numbers just wouldn't work for it. But, as the price of gasoline continues to rise, passenger train service becomes more and more viable. In my case, last summer for instance was the first time that an Amtrak ticket to Seattle cost me less than the cost of gas to get there and back ... it was no longer just an interesting way to travel, it had become more economically viable.
Now, considering that was for my venerable International Scout, with its 6300 lb GVW, it is probably true that I am, uniquely, the very first person on the cost curve for which that has happened, but the general trend is there ....
futuremodal wrote: I expect most of you have recieved your June TRAINS by now...........On page 28 there is a chart that shows the majority of boardings on the EB occur on either the Seattle/Portland - Whitefish section or the Chicago - Twin Cities section. And anything between Whitefish and Minot ND apparently isn't sufficient to merit mention.Obviously, Michael is correct in his assessment that the Whitefish boardings represent all of Western Montana, most of whose residents reside on or near the I-90 corridor. And this increased ridership is due to the overnight aspects of the EB between Puget Sound and Western Montana.Now just think how much ridership would increase on the EB if it was rerouted via Missoula to Billings! You're not going to lose the ridership represented in the Whitefish boardings, and you're going to gain the 1 day + overnight travelers between Puget Sound and Billings, not to mention the intercollegiate travel to/from/between U of M and MSU (are we counting Carroll College and Eastern Montana in this intercollegiate analysis?).If this chart is a fair representation of EB travel characteristics, then moving the EB to the southern line is an obvious choice.
I expect most of you have recieved your June TRAINS by now...........
On page 28 there is a chart that shows the majority of boardings on the EB occur on either the Seattle/Portland - Whitefish section or the Chicago - Twin Cities section. And anything between Whitefish and Minot ND apparently isn't sufficient to merit mention.
Obviously, Michael is correct in his assessment that the Whitefish boardings represent all of Western Montana, most of whose residents reside on or near the I-90 corridor. And this increased ridership is due to the overnight aspects of the EB between Puget Sound and Western Montana.
Now just think how much ridership would increase on the EB if it was rerouted via Missoula to Billings! You're not going to lose the ridership represented in the Whitefish boardings, and you're going to gain the 1 day + overnight travelers between Puget Sound and Billings, not to mention the intercollegiate travel to/from/between U of M and MSU (are we counting Carroll College and Eastern Montana in this intercollegiate analysis?).
If this chart is a fair representation of EB travel characteristics, then moving the EB to the southern line is an obvious choice.
Dave -- I don't recall (maybe they did?) anyone disputing your assertion that ridership would improve on a NP routing rather than the current GN, but I re-state --- The Politians Won't Let It.
And -- routing the current train to Portland would rob the train of its Seattle traffic, which is quite a lot of folks. I restate my original proposal, that #'s 27 and 28 be extended to Missoula with a car swap at Spokane.
futuremodal wrote: MichaelSol wrote: MP173 wrote: Michael:What do you coach?edMinor sports. It's been a fun ride -- not the pressure of the big sports. Once in a great while the opportunity arises to take a team by Amtrak -- almost invariably the first experience of these college kids ever to be on a train, and at a railroad passenger depot, and naturally they fall in love with the whole idea ...You U of M types were always spoiled! I was an assistant cross country and track coach while I was working on my masters degree at U or I, and was often involved in scheduling transportation to and from meets. Never got the chance to schedule rail travel though.....
MichaelSol wrote: MP173 wrote: Michael:What do you coach?edMinor sports. It's been a fun ride -- not the pressure of the big sports. Once in a great while the opportunity arises to take a team by Amtrak -- almost invariably the first experience of these college kids ever to be on a train, and at a railroad passenger depot, and naturally they fall in love with the whole idea ...
MP173 wrote: Michael:What do you coach?ed
Michael:What do you coach?
ed
You U of M types were always spoiled! I was an assistant cross country and track coach while I was working on my masters degree at U or I, and was often involved in scheduling transportation to and from meets. Never got the chance to schedule rail travel though.....
Well, Ed is right, sports teaches these kids great things, and it's been a real pleasure to be able to involve Amtrak once in a while. The initial reaction is always one of complete befudlement: "railroad?" "Whitefish?" "How do you ride ... a train?" It becomes a part of their "University" experience. I am now coaching sons and daughters of people I coached years ago -- their parents insist they participate ....
I really dont think there is such a thing as minor sports. Oh, certain collegiate sports are big revenue producers, but for young men and women any sport can be a great experience, teaches them great skills.
arbfbe wrote: Dorothy Bradley once ran for Governor and a plank in her platform was to institute a delux excursion train across the state to appeal to high $$ tourists. She did not get elected and that plank was not as popular as she expected. What the people of the state need is viable transportation.The southerly routing has both main universities at Bozeman and Missoula, the respective medical and financial centers at Billings and Missoulan and the state capital at Helena where there are also federal facilities. A train to get you back and forth serving these facilities would be beneficial. If it went on to national destinations, all the better. A state supported system using Colorado Railcar types of hardware would be wonderful but do not expect state Republicans even to give that idea a once over.
Dorothy Bradley once ran for Governor and a plank in her platform was to institute a delux excursion train across the state to appeal to high $$ tourists. She did not get elected and that plank was not as popular as she expected. What the people of the state need is viable transportation.
The southerly routing has both main universities at Bozeman and Missoula, the respective medical and financial centers at Billings and Missoulan and the state capital at Helena where there are also federal facilities. A train to get you back and forth serving these facilities would be beneficial. If it went on to national destinations, all the better. A state supported system using Colorado Railcar types of hardware would be wonderful but do not expect state Republicans even to give that idea a once over.
Dorothy's boyfriend, Rick Applegate, ran the "Transportation Research Center" at Bozeman and a lot of her perspectives came from Rick. He was a real rail guy. Just loved the whole idea of railroads and effiicency and competition. Had a number of state and federal contracts. I was a consultant there while Rick was working hard on MILW and BN issues. Then Rick got hired away by Senator Leahy of Vermont and became influential on national legislation -- esp. Amtrak.
Would Montana be interested in having the MRL route instituted to promote growth in tourism in the state?
Would leasing Colorado Railcar sets work for sightseeing purposes?
nanaimo73 wrote: arbfbe wrote: I want to try to keep the thread focused upon the hearings this time around. That does not grand attempts to make vast changes in the current AMTK routings and schedules. We all have our ideas about what might make a better AMTK but this group is more interested in what will make a better AMTK in Montana without giving up what we have now which is pretty important to the people who use it or who's business depend upon travelers detraining on the high line now. Would the incremental approach work better ?How about splitting the Portland Empire Builder in Spokane, with some of the cars added to the Empire Builder, while the rest continues to Billings, and returns the following day to Spokane ?
arbfbe wrote: I want to try to keep the thread focused upon the hearings this time around. That does not grand attempts to make vast changes in the current AMTK routings and schedules. We all have our ideas about what might make a better AMTK but this group is more interested in what will make a better AMTK in Montana without giving up what we have now which is pretty important to the people who use it or who's business depend upon travelers detraining on the high line now.
I want to try to keep the thread focused upon the hearings this time around. That does not grand attempts to make vast changes in the current AMTK routings and schedules. We all have our ideas about what might make a better AMTK but this group is more interested in what will make a better AMTK in Montana without giving up what we have now which is pretty important to the people who use it or who's business depend upon travelers detraining on the high line now.
Would the incremental approach work better ?
How about splitting the Portland Empire Builder in Spokane, with some of the cars added to the Empire Builder, while the rest continues to Billings, and returns the following day to Spokane ?
Allan and Dale,
I have gone into some detail in earlier posts on this thread concerning this suggestion. They are back about pages 3-5 or so. There is a natural market, as Michael says, between southern Montana and Portland, and also into Seattle. I think there is sufficient traffic to fill a Missoula-Portland #'s 27 and 28 swapping cars at Spokane with #'s 7 and 8.
We handled the Montana Rockies with style and grace. The trains were sort of slow and had enough slack built into the schedule time could be made up along the way if needed. The AOE trains have been a little more time sensitive and connections with other forms of transportation must be kept.
Since the passenger trains have left the railroad we get daily MOW windows of 6 - 12 hr durations which is great for the section and bridge gangs but would have to be curtailed for daylight passenger service.
MRL might even be able to take advantage of the passenger service to dead head crews when needed.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.