AMTRAK: Do you support it?

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by donclark

You keep harping about the price of your trip from LA to Waterloo, Indiana. Amtrak coach prices are comparable to airline coach tickets. However, you wanted and took a sleeper. This is first class service, and when comparing prices of airlines versus the train you should compare first class prices. For example an LA to Ft. Wayne first class ticket runs $1528.....next week without a Saturday night layover. First class airline tickets cost as much as Amtrak's sleeper accomodations...... Notice a first class airline ticket isn't the $360 coach price......

Bahhhhh! Your word play impresses me not, the only reason why the "sleeper" even becomes necessary at such outrageous cost, is because the modus of travel cannot connect the dots in one days time. SoI'm expected to pay through the nose to cover for the weakness of the means of travel? How is that a reasonable expectation?

And if rotting in some postage stamp sized compartment for 3 days while the bowels of the rust belt "clickity - clack" by my window is "first class", I'd sure hate to see what evil lurks in "tourist".

Being a railfan to some extent requires one to "live in the past", I've concluded same while reading all the forlorn laments of how "Diesel done steam wrong" Ya right we should ALL goback to steam choo-choo's to make the nostalgia buffs lifes seem worth living, and put the business world on notice that henceforth coast to coast travel shall become a 4 day proposition, simply to permit a segment of the population to live interminable yesterdays ,...case closed. sorry, no sale


Oh, and "waterloo" was not my destination, but you already knew this. Obviously Amtrak didn't care

[Anonymous]

You keep harping about the price of your trip from LA to Waterloo, Indiana. Amtrak coach prices are comparable to airline coach tickets. However, you wanted and took a sleeper. This is first class service, and when comparing prices of airlines versus the train you should compare first class prices. For example an LA to Ft. Wayne first class ticket runs $1528.....next week without a Saturday night layover. First class airline tickets cost as much as Amtrak's sleeper accomodations...... Notice a first class airline ticket isn't the $360 coach price......

[brilondon]

QUOTE: Originally posted by PNWRMNM

Superhief,

Do not put much stock in the support Amtrak got in response to your question. This site is by definition a railfan site, and a lot of rail fans know nothing but Amtrak. If you were to ask the general public, I would guess that 50-70% do not even know that Amtrak exists, let alone what it does or how much it costs.

I don't think it would be as high as 50-70% may be 20% at the high end would not know Amtrak exists. I would think that even the most cynical of people would know about Amtrak. Most people would know it for all the wrong reasons; derailments, crossing accidnts, route cuts or abandonments etc.

[brilondon]

If I lived in the United States I would support Amtrak no matter where it would run. If we loose this form of transport what would our highways be like. Our airports would be even more crowded and flights delays today would pale in comparision to what they are to day. I have to travel to New York on business and would love nothing better than to take the train. Unfortunatly the train takes all day to travel to New York and it is not much more expensive to fly and be there with in three hours. There has to be a faster way to process passengers when we cross the boarder to get into each country such as hire a customs officer to ride the train and process the cross boarder travelers.

[jeaton]

Ah yes, the old open access ideology. It worked quite well for electric power in California and nationwide electric rates are generating so much ca***hat the power grid is keeping years ahead of demand. At the same time security analysts are touting telephone companies as a must buy.

Based on worldwide evidence, including that of Great Britain with their failed effort to split off infrastructure and open access to private operators, there is no genuine regular passenger service making a real profit. Let me be more specific. Even if the railroads charged nothing for the use of their tracks, and there was no charge for use of station facilities, in todays competitive transportation environment it is not likly that passenger revenues would cover the costs of the equipment and all the other costs for running a train in regular passenger service. So, show me a potential entrepreneur who would be glad to operate passenger trains, and I'll identify a potentially bankrupt entrepreneur.

By the way, Amtrak is a private company.

In spite of this, the idea might have a chance. If airlines were required to surcharge passengers enough to pay for the full costs of airports used and the air traffic control system, and in lieu of the federal gas tax, the federal highway system was converted to a toll highway sysytem, it might be possible to set rail fares high enough to make the trains profitable.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Scottydog

Mr Antigates, I have really a tough time seeing what bids you so strongly against passenger rail travel. Do you own any freight rail stock? You say Amtrak is a hidden tax on the people, but if we were to be charge the true cost of air travel, it would be in the thousands. The cost of maintaining airports would have to be included as would the now large security costs. There would also have to be a charge for future airport expansion. As for the highways, if they were all turned into toll roads to produce enough true money for their maintainence, you wouldn't be able to travel on them. The government subsidizes all of these so why not rail passenger services. The ufortunate thing is, Amtrak needs congress to come across big time. Why do you think congress rushed in to bail out the airlines? Was it so we, the people could get to where we were going to in a hurry? Bull! It is so they can ride in big comfortable seats in first class drinking cocktails as soon as they board for free and eating off china plates all at the taxpayers expense. I don't hear you bitching about that. Passenger rail service must,and I say, must be preserved in this country.

I guess my intent isn't coming through all that well..[:)]

If I were to take a step back from the thread, take a deep breath (Ahhhhhhhh-hhhhhAAAA) and without respect to thread context, state my "beef", it would be that 3 wrongs don't make a right and adding another (HSR) as a forth sure don't either.

The Highway system is a given, it aint going away, no matter how misguided it may have been to sell it to the taxpayer under the guise of "The Defense Highway system", it's "there" and does not require the capitalization of a used SD-40-2 or of a new Dash 9 to use it. For better or worse, it's worth keeping

The Air Travel industry, serves the purpose of the impatient (look around you my friend, that quality suits most everyone you are likely to meet in a days time) better than the rail industry can hope to. If you read the "coast to coast by rail and air " article in the winter issue of classic trains, All the hardwriting you should ever need to see on any wall, is write there (excuse the pun).

I wanted to take Amtrak on the earlier outlined trip I took from LA to Ft Wayne In, but found the total price, including sleepers, to be way out of line, For some reason AMTRAK wants me to pay more for that bunk than Holiday Inn wants to charge for a room, and I said "phooey" . For less cost I could fly, and arrive the same day, forgoing the need for any lodging. and be at my destination.

I'll be the first to concede that both the highway and air systems are subsidized by my tax dollar. But, cutting even deeper into my pocket to better subsidize the rail paradigm of travel is a non starter for me. I DON'T WI***O PAY MORE OF MY HARD EARNED MONEY TO SUBSIDIZED MORE TRAVEL OPTIONS, when what we already have to choose from CAN suit my needs quite nicely.

It's NOT AMTRAK that I am against, it is the knowledge of who will be expected to fund an enhanced AMTRAK, ME.

Given the choice, My reply is "thanks, but no thanks"

And HSR? Evern worse because the entities who want the public Dole to put them in business in the first place, have been very careful to not let their identities , nor the level of their own commitment be known,. That in itself should tell you something

[Anonymous]

Over the Thanksgiving holiday, my family rode the California Zephyr from Denver to Salt Lake City and back. For any railfan, this is a must trip. The accommodations - even in coach - were above average. The service was good, and the food was superior to anything the airlines serve these days. But, best of all, was the spectacular scenery. Colorado and Utah offer the best canyon and mesa views of anywhere in NA except possibly the Canadian Rockies. The 42 (?) tunnels were a marvel of engineering. Stops at scenic places like Glenwood Springs and Winter Park were mor enchanting that anything on the roadside equivalent. 16 hours each way can not be spent in any better way.

It will be a very sad day when the California Zephyr finishes its final run. I'm just glad my two children - ages 15 and 19 - had the experience. Don't miss this trip while it is still possible!

[Anonymous]

These say it all:

Images from http://www.slamtrak.com
Have been seen in Trains Mag. (i think)

[Anonymous]

I have a question for all of you who express support for Amtrak. Is it necessarily Amtrak, or just passenger rail in general you support? If it's the latter, then you really should be hoping that the operating portion of Amtrak cease operations, while the oversight portion of Amtrak guarantees the rights of any private operators to run over any of the nation's rail infrastructure. Why is it necessary for the government to be running trains, when it would be more efficient (and cheaper for the taxpayers) to just partially subsidize the private operators (maybe by a few cents of the diesel fuel tax). I do believe it is possible for passenger rail to be quasi-profitable in the USA with the right incentives thrown in, but I absolutely LOATHE Amtrak in its current state.

Of course, this would be alot easier if the feds would just break up the Class I's into separate operating and infrastructure companies, aka AT&T-style, aka OPEN ACCESS!. Then it would be easier to justify using federal monies to upgrade our nation's rail infrastructure, which would then aid in allowing private operators to attempt to run passenger trains. I'll bet there's lots of potential entrepreneurs who would love a chance to run passenger trains over the nation's rail grid, if only they were given a chance.

[PNWRMNM]

Superhief,

Do not put much stock in the support Amtrak got in response to your question. This site is by definition a railfan site, and a lot of rail fans know nothing but Amtrak. If you were to ask the general public, I would guess that 50-70% do not even know that Amtrak exists, let alone what it does or how much it costs.

[Anonymous]

I'll start by making it clear that I am an Amtrak supporter. It is an insult to all of Amtrak's employees and customers that Washington continues to keep Amtrak in a state of perpetual limbo. Washington has never provided Amtrak with more than enough funding to make it a viable alternative to other forms of transport. It is not seldom that Amtrak's survival has come down to the wire been "saved" by a late night session because no president wants Amtrak to die on their watch. Enough with the soapbox.

As a recent college graduate who makes very little money, I continue to spend any extra dough on rail travel every chance I get. Even in its state of underfunded quasi-survival, Amtrak still provides experiences not attainable aboard any other form of transportation. Even first class airline passengers lack the option to dine at a table. Good luck getting a flight from a nearby town. To the vast majority of Americans, an Amtrak community is closer than an airport that receives real airliners. Even if airliners had big windows, they don't do much good at 20,000 feet. The grand canyon just isn't grand when it looks like a crack on the surface of freshly baked cornbread.

Amtrak will not die anytime soon. So long as the political climate remains stable and Americans continue to remain apathetic about its future, Amtrak will be kept on financial respirators. The railroads hate Amtrak but support it because it's familiar and predictable. Washington gives Amtrak enough money to stay alive because Washington politicians do not want to have to answer to their consituents about it. According to all the studies performed in the laboratory and on the rails, it is possible to put Americans on trains. Acela Express proves it, Amtrak Cascades proves it, and all the high speed systems in Europe prove it. Apparently, it takes more than proof to convince Washington that investing in Amtrak upgrades nationwide is worth the money.

[Anonymous]

When I posed this question...I had no idea it would generate such responses. It's painfully evident that we don't always agree on HOW Amtrak should be restructured...or funded...or SAVED, for that matter. What is evident is the fond attachment Americans do appear to have for the continuation of passenger train service. As for those of you who feel that Amtrak is simply a decrepit old horse that should be shot while grazing aimlessly in the pasture...well, I suspect you're entitled to your feelings as well (although I disagree strongly with your view!). What's more disturbing is that in a 'civiled, first-rate country,' our government shows absolute ignorance when pondering what to do about Amtrak. If any of our boys in Washington cared to look long and hard enough, we could examine passenger train systems in other countries that DO work...ask intelligent questions of appropriate individuals in these countries about the secrets behind their rail success stories...and then implement what we've learned right here at home, at whatever the cost.

America is very much a country of diversity: people, interests and lifestyles. This undeniable blend is what makes our nation so interesting and fun. Their is variety, in other words...cultures, interests, activity groups...all coexisiting with many others, each bringing something fresh and vital to our nation's table. Why, then, can we not strike a balance in respect to transportation modes? How does one favor the billion dollar bailout of lanquishing airlines...yet chide Amtrak for having the unmitigated gall of requesting assistance--assistance, I might add, which doesn't come close to what the airlines rather arrogantly expected to receive? Why do we continue to build and rebuild an Interstate system that continues to see more and more congestion...when, running parallel to our freeways in many cities, are underused railroad right-of-ways that could transport thousands of road-weary drivers to their destinations in relative comfort, ease and efficiency? When will we cease with the outdated notion that gasoline will ALWAYS be available for our SUV's...so why take a train or bus?

Balance, folks. Balance.

I've read every single one of the posts and my spirit is buoyed by those of you who do care about Amtrak. Thank-you! It is my prayer that Amtrak will not wither away and die. I want to see it grow stronger and survive. Let's be optimistic that given the will to see something succeed--and by doing OUR part to give success a chance by actually riding the trains--Amtrak will be around for future generations--in much better health and stamina than ever before.

[Anonymous]

I support Amtrak,I dont really care for the service they provide,but I believe in rail transportation.I have used Amtrak in the past and will be riding this month to go to Michigan{actually Toledo Ohio,Because Amtark goes to East Lansing Michigan,via Chicago.about 200 miles out of my way...they would bus me to michigan from ohio,but if I wanted to experience Greyhound..I would have taken it in the first place..}so someone will pick me up in toledo...This could be a sample of whats Wrong with Amtrak..I lived in the United Kingdom for 3 years..You know You can travel to almost any village in the country by train there? im talking inter-city 125 trains that travel 125 MPH.If only the United States would return to Rail Service...Wouldn't that be nice.The snow storm we had last week left airline passengers stuck at logan Airport for up to 16 HOURS..Amtark was delayed 2 hours{Due to a tresspassing snowmobiler who was struck by an acela train}We are expecting another storm this weekend...I'm glad I'm not Flying...I'll stick with the Train anyday...Hope Too See You at the Station.

[espeefoamer]

Yes![8D]I wholeheartedly support Amtrak.[:D]I have traveled well over 200,000 miles on Amtrak[:p]I ride it as often as I can,and will continue to do so as long as I live![:p][:)] "I will give up my Amtrak when they pry my cold dead fingers from around it".

[michaelstevens]

[:D] Hey fellow AMTRAK supporters,

Check out today's news-wire -- it contains some very encouraging ridership-count-info.

[^][^]

[Anonymous]

I am all for passenger rail travel in the US, in fact I think it is totaly unfair that the government spends billions a year on interstates, which trucking and bus companys use , yet spends a fraction on railroads which keep this country alive. Wouldn't you just love to see convoys of 400 or more dumptrucks loaded with coal heading down the freeway to your local powerplant. Countrys like Japan, France , and Germany have huge rail budgets and serve most if not all citys with high speed rail. In these countrys nobody would dream of flying a short distace like New York to D.C. as it is much faster to ride the trains. Here we have one high speed line on which trains can only actualy run high speed in a few places. I would ride amtrak all the time If I could but since I live in columbus ohio and would have to drive 2 hours or more to get to the closest amtrak station it is not practical. I hope that this changes in the neer future. If amtrak is going to survive, I think it needs to bring service back to more of the country. I know that it is faced with upgrading the NEC and other large projects but that is why I belive that the government needs to spend more money on amtrak and other railroads.

[Anonymous]

Yes I do. In fact my family is going to take our second trip this year on amtrak in a few days.
Do you know that between New York and Washington DC more people take Amtrak than fly. You provide frequent on time service and people will use it. For the price of one interstate interchange in Madison, WI ($250M) the state of wisconsin could fund its total commitment for the Midwest Regional Rail Initiative.
What Amtrak needs is a stable funding source and the states need to be given the option of using federal transportation funds for Amtrak. Insteed of it all going to pave our whole state and country. (And then our taxes go up because we cannot afford to maintain them.)

[Anonymous]

I just found this comic that has an interesting stand on this topic, it is at [:D]http://www.empirewire.com/images/amtrak.jpg [:D]

And on another note, Theantigates: what about AMTRAK stations that, like the one in Altoona PA, doubles as a Greyhound Station[;)]

[Anonymous]

Mr Antigates, I have really a tough time seeing what bids you so strongly against passenger rail travel. Do you own any freight rail stock? You say Amtrak is a hidden tax on the people, but if we were to be charge the true cost of air travel, it would be in the thousands. The cost of maintaining airports would have to be included as would the now large security costs. There would also have to be a charge for future airport expansion. As for the highways, if they were all turned into toll roads to produce enough true money for their maintainence, you wouldn't be able to travel on them. The government subsidizes all of these so why not rail passenger services. The ufortunate thing is, Amtrak needs congress to come across big time. Why do you think congress rushed in to bail out the airlines? Was it so we, the people could get to where we were going to in a hurry? Bull! It is so they can ride in big comfortable seats in first class drinking cocktails as soon as they board for free and eating off china plates all at the taxpayers expense. I don't hear you bitching about that. Passenger rail service must,and I say, must be preserved in this country.

[Anonymous]

As a regular passenger, I whole-heartedly support Amtrak. When I was a college student in a city with no Amtrak service (Decatur, Illinois), I lamented the fact that I could not walk to the old Waba***erminal downtown and catch the Cannonball or one of the other classic streamliners which zoomed right through the middle of Millikin University's campus in the 1960's. Instead of simply lementing it, I paid friends with cars to drive me to Springfield, Lincoln, or Bloomington to catch one of the three trains to Chicago whenever I went to visit my parents or to Alton to visit my girlfriend. As a result, I have seen the direct result of the half-baked attempt the Bushies and Blagojevich (Illinois' illustrious Democratic governor) have made to turn the Union Pacific single-track between Joliet and Springfield into a high-speed line for Talgo trains. The brand-new signal system got shorted out in a rainstorm and delayed the Texas Eagle I was riding for an hour. The only diamonds in Chicagoland not protected by an interlocking forces all trains to stop then proceed regardless of cross traffic. What about the talgo trains? They have yet to be ordered, let alone delivered.

I can understand the situation. The freighters and the grangers hate Amtrak. Amtrak hasn't the funding to buy the equipment necessary to provide the new service. Washington doesn't care about trains that don't originate or terminate in their lovely city of ostentatious architecture and abundant pork barrel money. Regardless of the fees Amtrak pays to other railroads for paths on their mainlines, the railroads do not like having to deal with trains that require top priority, require higher standards for maintenance of way, and wear down their rails because of the ever-higher speeds Amtrak passengers desire.

This is merely the dream of one young and feisty railfan who has spent too much time riding the fastest trains on earth, but please bear with me. Amtrak is flawed. Everybody from Bu***o Blagojevich to David Gunn know that Amtrak cannot continue to function as a viable alternative to road and air travel in its current form. The freight railroads and the Government grudgingly support Amtrak because it's "The devil they know." Killing Amtrak would cause political, economic, and social chaos in Washington and every one of the 500 plus Amtrak communities in the country. Washington would have to answer to Mayor Daley, Mayor Bloomberg, and the respective mayors of every other major city where Amtrak is a major source of employment.

High speed rail will not solve the problem. High speed rail means the Freighters and Grangers must still sell priority routing to Amtrak. High speed rail means corners can be cut in infrastructure development. If I remember correctly, Amtrak's flagship Acela-Express trainsets only have clearance to bury the speedometer needle over less than 40 miles of its route. The rest of the time, it runs little faster than the old metroliner trains from the 1960's. High speed rail requires the construction of high speed lines or the upgrade of existing routes to high speed standards, both of which cost about the same as modern Interstate construction. High speed rail means running no faster than 79 miles per hour in large cities because of heavy population and pounding diamonds with other tracks.

The solution I see as the most viable is a multiphase route-for-route replacement of existing Amtrak routes with Transrapid Maglev trains. I cannot say for sure, but I am fairly confident that a railroad would gladly allow the construction of elevated Maglev guideway on air rights over their mainlines in order to kiss Amtrak trains good-bye forever. If not, Dwight Eisenhower conveniently left wide green belts between the two sides of interstate highways that would do a great job of providing an already-federally-owned strip of land on which elevated maglev guideways could be built. The twists and turns of interstates are not a problem for maglev trains which can handle 10 % grades and tighter turns than standard railroads while maintaining a 300 mph speed. The fact that the green belt running down the middle of interstates is already federal property means that the acquisition of right-of-way is cheap and politically streamlined. The fact that building maglev guideways over existing railroad rights-of-way means that the route is already flatter and straighter than necessary for maglev trains means a smooth ride for passengers.

For the PR guys, it's a quick sell. I have often looked out the window of the Texas Eagle and watched the train race the traffic on Interstate 55...and lose. Nothing advertises fast trains better than getting buzzed by one while driving on a parallel road. Furthermore, maglev solves many of the other problems lagging in the shadow of Acela's success. Maglev does not touch its guideway. Maglev trains cause the same amount of wear on the guideway at 300 miles per hour as they do at 20...none. High speed trains pound their rails to death, and the problem only gets worse as the speed limits are increased. Maglev has no wheels. Wheels were the cause of some serious accidents in Germany concerning their flagship ICE trains. Maglev has no Yaw Dampers. Yaw dampers were a major safety issue for Acela recently. Maglev does not use existing infrastructure. Although this causes the initial cost of construction to be higher, the end result is an uninterrupted network of maglev guideways, free of interlockings, bottlenecks, and competing freight traffic. No corners can be cut when building it.

Replacing one Amtrak route at a time with Maglev will allow Washington to replace Amtrak with a system that is faster, more reliable, cheaper to maintain, and attracts more passengers. Due to the distances involved in the US, the high speed Maglev can attain makes it the only viable competition with airline traffic. With 300-mph top speeds, one-night transcontinental service is possible with real beds and real tables for dinner and breakfast. For regional travel, Maglev can compete directly with air travel times and give airlines the opportunity to focus on routes that only they can do...transoceanic flights and daytime transcontinental service.

For the economists, consider how many jobs were created by the construction of the Interstate system. Consider the amount of economic stimulation the interstates caused. Every transportation system in the United States is clogged. The economy is suffering a stroke and a heart attack at the same time. The economy of this great country improves every time America has invested in a new transportation system from the Erie Canal to the first transcontinental railroad to the Interstate system to the air traffic control system. Building a nationwide maglev transit system will increase capacity on the freighters and grangers. It will necessitate the construction of domestic factories to produce guideway sections, trainsets, and support equipment. New jobs will be created nationwide, including skilled labor, ticket agents, train attendants, traffic controllers et cetra.

Now that I have spent a fair amount of time on my soap box, I will say again that I support Amtrak. I support Amtrak because the plans I just outlined above are unlikely to materialize in the current political climate. I support Amtrak because it's all we have until a better alternative (maglev) comes to fruition. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have a train to catch.

[DICKK]

I strongly support AMTRAK!!! Being retired from 30 yrs in the U.S. Navy and having seen the world, AMTRAK is the absolute best way to see America. I travel at least twice a year cross country on various routes and have seen parts of America I would have never seen before. A recent plane trip from LA to PITT reinforced my love of trains vice airplanes. If you want to enjoy yourself, use the train. If not, fly. Stop on your trip and visit some areas of the U.S. and then get back on.

[Anonymous]

After traveling by auto and airplane, we discovered the pure pleasure of rail travel. We were able to make friends and visit, to dine, and to totally enjoy the incredible scenery that awaits as you travel this wonderful country we are priveledged to live in.
We will go west again this winter, and are so looking forward to the adventure. My husband tell all his friends, "AMTRAK is the only way to fly".
Roy and Gloria Haller
West Falls, NY

[Anonymous]

I have been on many Amtrak trains, and have enjoyed the experience. However, I now live in Florida and the departures are terrible and coupled with the fact that many trains offer no accommodations for smokers i find it better to fly, even though they don't accommodate smokers. the travel time is much less. I love trains and only wish we had the type of rail transportation available in Europe. Both of my children lived there for many years and I have traveled extensively throughout Europe on a great system that also accommodated smokers. If the US every can get convenient schedules and provide for all I would again utilizing Amtrak-- but until then forget it.

[Anonymous]

I travel fairly extensively on business and havefor years. Air travel is fine for long distances, but if you figure an hour to get to the airport, and our to check (and be checked) in, a two hour flight, and an hour to get to town at your destination... I would much rather be on a train for four to five hours. As A passionate train lover, stretch that to six to seven hours in some cases. There is a lot of travel that falls into this category.

The problem, as has been pointed out ad nauseum, is the cost. Need I remind that the airlines have been bailed out constantly with our tax dollars? Why, because it is considered by the powers that be that air travel is necessary for the good of the country. Well so is train travel, in my view, and if those bozos in Washington could abandone tunnel vision (no pun intended) for a few moments, they might have a chance to get off their false alternative and do something that makes sense on rails. Think of the national savings in terms of lower back disorders if we could get from Houston to Dallas or San Antonio and back by train? And we are talking about three of the, what is it, seven largest cities in the USA. No, they would rather tear up the highways again to solve a traffic problem that won't be solved anymore by the time the project is finished.

This whle subject makes me see red. Commen sense is so far down on the political list of priorities one can't help but wonder how anything manages to function at all.

Do I support AMTRACK? In a word, yes. Railroads built this country - freight and passenger - and passenger service will continue to help it grow if the pols will only stop tearing up unused rail to make room for more pork.

E-mail me if you want to know what I really think.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by donclark

The reason why Amtrak doesn't serve Dayton or Cedar City is because its routes have been drastically reduced from the early 1970s, to a bare bones structure. There used to be a train running from LA to Salt Lake City and a train running from Cleveland to Cincinnati....Basically Amtrak operates most of its long distance trains outside the NEC from Chicago, except for the Sunset Limited and and Coast Starlight. Even the Lake Shore Limited, Three Rivers, and the Capitol are based from Chicago. Why? To reduce operating costs......

But that air flight from Cedar City to Dayton took 9 hours. Add the additional two hours before leaving, and the hour waiting for luggage and grabbing a rental car, the flight actually took 12 hours..... Notice with a proper high speed rail network, the parralegram I have proposed, two legs could be traveled in that time.... some 1800 miles......not the 200-400 miles someone posted above...... We already have a high speed rail line in America that is 450 miles, it is called the NEC.....

Here is a map I drew using a federal map showing population density. The four legs of my parralegram would include Philladelphia to Chicago, Chicago to Texas, Texas to Florida or Georgia, and DC to Florida/Georgia. There are more than four lines on my map, showing different possible routes. I am not very choosy, either would be a great start, eventually I would like to see the others completed at a later time..... The four legs is less than 4,000 miles, adding branches to Minneapolis, Toronto, to Miami, crossing the parallegram from Chicago to Atlanta, and adding the west coast lines would bring the total to 7,000 miles......Adding aa second line through the east, south, and midwest, and to Denver would bring the total to 11,000 miles. Add another 1,000 miles and one transcontinental line could be built, preferrably LA to Denver..... I am sure many of the forum members can find other lines that they would liked to be built.... But 12,000 miles is plenty....

Costs vary, but the average would probably run close to the Tampa to Orlando HSR in Florida, which is an average of $12 million per mile. Times 4,000 miles, the price of HSR is $48 billion, times 8,000 miles, the price of HSR is $96 billion, times 12,000 miles the price is $144 billion. The US DOT spends nearly $80 billion per year. I support a moratorium on federal airport and highway spending two years to build a HSR network the envy of the world. Afterwards, we won't need to spend so much on highways and airports.....

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

That is a nice map, K?

And I agree with you that Amtrak has been crippled by faulty thinking coming out of Washinton. Based upon the reading I've done, I've concluded it is intentional, part of the master plan to make Amtrak as undesireable as possible to pollute public sentiment from the moment the "fuse" to the mandated profitability a started burning when the fed took the headache off the private railroads. All that 20 or 25 year period to "build profitability" was, is a conveniant time delay in which to sway public sentiment against something they would have killed on the spot if they thought they coulda gotten away with it. (congress, that is)

Bugt still Don,using these stilted, demeaning summations of those of opinion not like your own, as when you postulated why Anti Amtrak people only use large cities in their compairisons of AIR to RAIL is little more than hyperbole, as I've illustrated not even "little city to little city" is something amtrak can even do, let alone being "advantageous" compared to Air travel,. all little towns taken into consideration.

it's just something about guys living in glass houses that I don't particularly care for in your attempt to argue you side. I understand your point, it's just the way you present it as an absolute right awash in a sea of wrongs, and it just don't stand up.

Nor does expecting every tax payer to bankroll a new private entity into a profit seeking enterprise(HSR)just cause it sounds "cool". None of these aspiring beneficiaries of public investment has been even willing to let themselves be known on a concrete basis, let alone make known what kind of financial commitment they themselves might be willing to put on the table, in feathering their own capitalistic good fortunes.

Boiled down to bare essance, the only HSR proposals I've seen floated out look like "any suckers out there yet?" prospectus' from blue sky entities.

Let the folks hoping to hold the key to the farebox put some meat on the table, and then tell me what they expect in matching commitment, before asking me how deep my pocket might happen to be for a pipe dream. The prospectus is being floated back axwards

[Anonymous]

I do support Amtrak. In fact, my wife and I have reservations to leave Erie, PA on August 28th via the Lakeshore Limited and onward to California via the Zephyr. It will be our third trip, and we can hardly wait for August 2004 to roll around. We have never had a bad trip on Amtrak!

[Anonymous]

As for luggage, its been my experience with the airlines that if the flight is not non-stop, the luggage don't arrive at your destination when you do....

Obviously, Amtrak has not been given the funds to become the best passenger train service in the world..... We haven't even given it the funds to bring the NEC up to speed.... Maybe we should give Amtrak the funds needed to operate a state of the art service before we kill passenger train service in America.....

[Anonymous]

I support U.S. Passenger trains, but not so much in the non-functional method called AMTRAK. We mean well, but the method of execution is inherently flawed.
Govt ownership has not equated to efficiency, functionality nor profitability which is why this system has brinked on failure.

If you want AMTRAK or any other passenger rail system to work it must have :
- Functionality. The Trains need to go where we go. They must be convenient
- Reliability (the trains need to be on time in order to be a real option for a traveller.) (notice how Europe and Asia run their systems or look at innercity rail systems or light rails that have right of way)
I humbly submit that the Passenger industry or AMTRAK invest in it's own private rail lines or right of way (very costly from freight industry). This would allow the speed increases needed and thus solve the reliability and punctuality issues.

We all know we love the car and if we want to challenge it, we must have a real viable option.

Simply put, we would ride the system if it was efficient, available on time, everytime.
My last experience on a US train was from New Orleans to Pensacola. This 200 mile plus trip took well over 7 hours ! By car it takes around 3.5 hours or so. This was way too painful. The right of way was not reserved for us, thus we had to stop endlessly to allow local freights through and we never built a real head of steam! Talk about a long trip.
Compare to Europe - I took an overnight train from Naples to Venice aboard a sleeper.
This was truly a treat. The train had right of way, thus it was able to really move fast and be punctual. The service was stellar and the whole trip enjoyable.
Do it right and they will come!

Respectfully,
R Green

[Anonymous]

The reason why Amtrak doesn't serve Dayton or Cedar City is because its routes have been drastically reduced from the early 1970s, to a bare bones structure. There used to be a train running from LA to Salt Lake City and a train running from Cleveland to Cincinnati....Basically Amtrak operates most of its long distance trains outside the NEC from Chicago, except for the Sunset Limited and and Coast Starlight. Even the Lake Shore Limited, Three Rivers, and the Capitol are based from Chicago. Why? To reduce operating costs......

But that air flight from Cedar City to Dayton took 9 hours. Add the additional two hours before leaving, and the hour waiting for luggage and grabbing a rental car, the flight actually took 12 hours..... Notice with a proper high speed rail network, the parralegram I have proposed, two legs could be traveled in that time.... some 1800 miles......not the 200-400 miles someone posted above...... We already have a high speed rail line in America that is 450 miles, it is called the NEC.....

Here is a map I drew using a federal map showing population density. The four legs of my parralegram would include Philladelphia to Chicago, Chicago to Texas, Texas to Florida or Georgia, and DC to Florida/Georgia. There are more than four lines on my map, showing different possible routes. I am not very choosy, either would be a great start, eventually I would like to see the others completed at a later time..... The four legs is less than 4,000 miles, adding branches to Minneapolis, Toronto, to Miami, crossing the parallegram from Chicago to Atlanta, and adding the west coast lines would bring the total to 7,000 miles......Adding aa second line through the east, south, and midwest, and to Denver would bring the total to 11,000 miles. Add another 1,000 miles and one transcontinental line could be built, preferrably LA to Denver..... I am sure many of the forum members can find other lines that they would liked to be built.... But 12,000 miles is plenty....

Costs vary, but the average would probably run close to the Tampa to Orlando HSR in Florida, which is an average of $12 million per mile. Times 4,000 miles, the price of HSR is $48 billion, times 8,000 miles, the price of HSR is $96 billion, times 12,000 miles the price is $144 billion. The US DOT spends nearly $80 billion per year. I support a moratorium on federal airport and highway spending two years to build a HSR network the envy of the world. Afterwards, we won't need to spend so much on highways and airports.....

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

[Anonymous]

I would like to be able to support rail travel, but the schedule to places I want to go is not alway convenient for me. Amtrak was set up to fail and will continue to do so until the govt and the people deside to spend more money to built it up a viable travel alternative. Until then Amtrak will continue on life support. The problem with rail is that it doesn't interface well with the other transportation systems ( car, bus, air). Rail was around before all these forms of transportation were developed and was made to only interface with other rail carriers and station stops. The way we travel has changed since the rail system was developed. The highway and airport systems were developed at the same time and were designed to work with each other and for the way we travel now. The difference between Rail in the USA vs rail in Europe is that Europe's rail system was designed to work with auto and air travel as a whole system to provide more efficient travel between locations. There are some USA commuters and reginal rail sevice that are getting it right. Those that interface with airports, public transportation, and private auto seem to make it work. These agencies are usually funded heavily by states and local communities. But in turn are also used by those same local people. There needs to be a clear distinction for funding and management of commuter, regional, and long distance rail systems. Commuter rail seems to be working in some places provided the locals put in money to update the rail and stations. Regional does compete with air and car in the NEC and could do a better job if the money were invested by local states that use the corridor invested money to update the system. The focus does not need to be if we should keep or lose Amtrak. The focus should be on how to improve our overall transportation system. That includes air, auto, and rail. In some case investing in rail will make sense. In others it will not.