Rather than quote the message above, I'll comment on one item from it:
QUAD Cities passenger rail coalition has made great strides since summer in getting service headed west from Rock Island into Quad Cities and beyond. Amtrak officials were in Des Moines yesterday, presumably about this, and although the train isn't a'comin' around the bend this morning, the Iowa group is a'waitin' the specifics of the Amtrak study (a necessary part of the process) before the end of the year.
Kansas DOT has issued a similar request for study (back in July), following the pattern of schedule, they may hear about their results in mid-Spring '08.
Unfortunately, NARP isn't leading these efforts. Most of them are grass-routes (pun intended) organizations, that may have NARP members, but these aren't NARP campaigns.
CSSHEGEWISCH wrote: Los Angeles Rams Guy wrote: I was really impressed with the vision NARP has in regard to what the national system should look like down the road. While I don't agree with ALL the possible route extensions/additions, here are some no-brainers that are LONG overdue:1. Restoring service on the I-25 Corridor - If Amtrak were to add only one route to it's current system, this would HAVE to be the choice - hands down. Anybody currently traveling on I-25 between Denver and Colorado Springs alone will tell you what a nightmare it is to travel on that segment.2. Twin Cities - Kansas City - Another corridor that needs service. What a complete and utter joke it is that you currently have to backtrack to Chicago to connect with service to the West Coast. Presumably, the UP's former CNW "Spine Line" mainline would be the ideal choice here.3. Alternative Chicago-Omaha service - I've always advocated of rerouting the CZ from current BNSF (nee CB&Q) to the CNW's portion of UP's "Overland Route" mainline. But, because UP is seemingly adamant about keeping Amtrak off of its showcase mainline the other choice would be the Iowa Interstate's Chicago-Omaha route (former Rock Island). The problem here is that there would have to be a LOT of work done just to get it up to Class 4 or 5 status.4. Chicago - Dubuque - Waterloo - An extension of the Blackhawk route from Chicago to Dubuque to Waterloo on the CN's Iowa Division mainline (ex IC, ICG, CC).Samantha, this is not trying to return to the 50's. This is trying to get the current system into the 21st century.Denver-Colorado Springs-Pueblo would make sense as a Section 403 operation, but don't bet on the State of Colorado making any contributions.Minneapolis-Kansas City service vanished prior to the onset of Amtrak, around 1965 on the CGW and around 1970 on RI. Reinstating this service makes no sense.Alternate Chicago-Omaha service on the North Western, why? This line hasn't seen through passenger service since 1955. Besides, the existing route serves towns that are poorly served by other transportation modes.Chicago-Waterloo. The Black Hawk never had great ridership to Dubuque. Is there a real market for such a service?
Los Angeles Rams Guy wrote: I was really impressed with the vision NARP has in regard to what the national system should look like down the road. While I don't agree with ALL the possible route extensions/additions, here are some no-brainers that are LONG overdue:1. Restoring service on the I-25 Corridor - If Amtrak were to add only one route to it's current system, this would HAVE to be the choice - hands down. Anybody currently traveling on I-25 between Denver and Colorado Springs alone will tell you what a nightmare it is to travel on that segment.2. Twin Cities - Kansas City - Another corridor that needs service. What a complete and utter joke it is that you currently have to backtrack to Chicago to connect with service to the West Coast. Presumably, the UP's former CNW "Spine Line" mainline would be the ideal choice here.3. Alternative Chicago-Omaha service - I've always advocated of rerouting the CZ from current BNSF (nee CB&Q) to the CNW's portion of UP's "Overland Route" mainline. But, because UP is seemingly adamant about keeping Amtrak off of its showcase mainline the other choice would be the Iowa Interstate's Chicago-Omaha route (former Rock Island). The problem here is that there would have to be a LOT of work done just to get it up to Class 4 or 5 status.4. Chicago - Dubuque - Waterloo - An extension of the Blackhawk route from Chicago to Dubuque to Waterloo on the CN's Iowa Division mainline (ex IC, ICG, CC).Samantha, this is not trying to return to the 50's. This is trying to get the current system into the 21st century.
I was really impressed with the vision NARP has in regard to what the national system should look like down the road. While I don't agree with ALL the possible route extensions/additions, here are some no-brainers that are LONG overdue:
1. Restoring service on the I-25 Corridor - If Amtrak were to add only one route to it's current system, this would HAVE to be the choice - hands down. Anybody currently traveling on I-25 between Denver and Colorado Springs alone will tell you what a nightmare it is to travel on that segment.
2. Twin Cities - Kansas City - Another corridor that needs service. What a complete and utter joke it is that you currently have to backtrack to Chicago to connect with service to the West Coast. Presumably, the UP's former CNW "Spine Line" mainline would be the ideal choice here.
3. Alternative Chicago-Omaha service - I've always advocated of rerouting the CZ from current BNSF (nee CB&Q) to the CNW's portion of UP's "Overland Route" mainline. But, because UP is seemingly adamant about keeping Amtrak off of its showcase mainline the other choice would be the Iowa Interstate's Chicago-Omaha route (former Rock Island). The problem here is that there would have to be a LOT of work done just to get it up to Class 4 or 5 status.
4. Chicago - Dubuque - Waterloo - An extension of the Blackhawk route from Chicago to Dubuque to Waterloo on the CN's Iowa Division mainline (ex IC, ICG, CC).
Samantha, this is not trying to return to the 50's. This is trying to get the current system into the 21st century.
Denver-Colorado Springs-Pueblo would make sense as a Section 403 operation, but don't bet on the State of Colorado making any contributions.
Minneapolis-Kansas City service vanished prior to the onset of Amtrak, around 1965 on the CGW and around 1970 on RI. Reinstating this service makes no sense.
Alternate Chicago-Omaha service on the North Western, why? This line hasn't seen through passenger service since 1955. Besides, the existing route serves towns that are poorly served by other transportation modes.
Chicago-Waterloo. The Black Hawk never had great ridership to Dubuque. Is there a real market for such a service?
As far as reinstating service between Twin Cities and Kansas City; why then does it make sense to have to backtrack to Chicago to connect with one of the current runs from there to the West coast? Service between the Twin Cities and Kansas City on the UP's "Spine Line" would be a much better alternative.
As for service on the UP's former CNW "Overland Route" mainline, uh, WHY NOT? First, the "Overland Route" mainline serves much larger population centers than the current BNSF mainline across southern Iowa (Clinton, Cedar Rapids, Marshalltown, Ames [Iowa State], Boone, and Carroll on UP vs. Burlington, Mt. Pleasant, Ottumwa, Osceola, and Creston on BNSF). If you're going to make the argument that the towns on the current BNSF main are "poorly served by other transportation modes", then shoot, in that case then why don't we put the CZ on the CN's Iowa Division mainline between Chicago and Omaha where most communities are also "poorly served" by alternative transportation modes. Ironically, even that route STILL has more populous centers with Dubuque, Waterloo/Cedar Falls, and Ft. Dodge in Iowa alone (not to mention Rockford and Freeport in Illinois) as opposed to BNSF's route. And, even though it would need a lot of work, you could make a stronger argument for having service on IAIS' former Rock Island mainline that serves the Quad Cities, Iowa City (U of Iowa), and Des Moines than on BNSF.
Apparently, there must BE a market for service between Chicago and Dubuque as there is a study being done on that. And it would definitely make sense to extend that run to Waterloo. When the Illinois Central had the Iowa Division mainline in tip top shape, that was an easy fast run; particularly between Dubuque and Waterloo. And the CN has already got most of the Iowa Division mainline in pretty decent shape as it is so it's not a quantum leap to get that mainline up to at least Class 4 standards.
al-in-chgo wrote: Anyone advocating before legislators, policy makers and/or planners would do well to bring up the rating shown in the December 4, 2007, issue of PARADE magazine. When I voted on Sunday, the one-item survey was "Should Congress commit more money to America's trains?" It got a whopping ninety-seven percent "Yes." Site is Parade.com .a.s.
Anyone advocating before legislators, policy makers and/or planners would do well to bring up the rating shown in the December 4, 2007, issue of PARADE magazine. When I voted on Sunday, the one-item survey was "Should Congress commit more money to America's trains?" It got a whopping ninety-seven percent "Yes."
Site is Parade.com .
a.s.
I would discount the probative value of this poll right from the start. The respondents are unlikely to be a representative sample, opponents on such a question probably ignored the article and consequently wouldn't see the web address for the poll.
MR.TOY.
AS YOU WELL KNOW NARP IS A MEMBERSHIP GROUP.THEY GET NO FEDERAL FUNDING,SO THEIR RESOURCES ARE ,LIMITED.THIS IS WHY NOT EVERYONE KNOWS ABOUT NARP.I HAVE BEEN TO WASJHINGTON DC MANY TIMES TO MEET WITH ROSS CAPON EXEC DIRECTOR,NEWS COLUMNISTS WHO COVERED TRANSPORTATION AMTRAK OFFICIALS ETC. HAV E YOU EVER HAD THE CHANCE TO MEET ANY OF NARPS OFFICIALS LIKE I HAVE.
I SUPPORT NARP WITH A YEARLY TAX FREE DONATATION ONCE A YEAR BESIDES MY REG MEBERSHIP FEE.NARP HAS THE ABILITY TO MEET WITH FWEDERAL OFFICIALS ,SENATORS,REPRESENATIVIES ETC.NARP HAS TESTIFIED MANY TIMES BEFORE VARIOUS COMMITTIES IN WASHINGTON ON AMTRAK MATTERS,AND THEY RE THE BEST FRIEND AMTRAK HAS IN WASHINGTON D.C.
LIKE YOU WHEN I GO TO WASHINGTON I RIDE THE CAAPTIOL LIMITED FROM CHICAGO CONNECTING THERE WITH THE TRIP FROM MY HOME BASE.I HAVE HAD THE OPPORTNITY TO TALK TO AMTRAK PASSENGERS,AND YES I AGREE THE MAJORITY OF PASSENGERS DONT REALLY KNOW WHO NARP IS,BUT THHAN GOD I DO AND CAN TALK TO PASSENGERS ABOUT NARP
GRAND AVE-MO.
Northern Flyer Alliance is sponsoring a public meeting for state legislators and passnegerrailks.org at Kansas City Union Station on December 8th, 9:00am - 12 noon in the Jarvis Hunt Room off the main hall. It is a public meeting-meaning open and free. The Northern Flyer Alliance just had a similar meeting in Topeka on October 20th. See www.northflyer.org
Oklahoma Department of Transportation has issued a request for study to Amtrak this week. Governor Henry of Oklahoma has been asked by an Oklahoma House member to write a letter to Governor Sebelius of Kansas requesting discussion of a possible bi-state compact. U.S. Senate bill S-294 looks like it will probably pass. A quad cities "Alliance" is moving forward on extending passenger rail service (inter-city) into Iowa from Rock Island, Illinois. Nebraska has a similar organization.
IM LOOKING AT THIS DIFFERENTLY THAN MOST OF THE REPLIES SO FAR.WHEN NARP OF WHICH I AM AN ACTIVE MEBER FROM LEES SUMMIT,MO IT SEEMED THAT NARP WAS TRYING TO ESTABLISH NEW AND IMPROVING EXSISTING SERVICE TO THE LOWER 48. I AGREE SOME OF THE SERVICE THEY PROPOSE WOULD NOT INVOLVE LD TRAINS.IN THE CASE OF KANSAS CITY AREA,MORWE REGINAL TRAINS WOULD BR ADDED TO THE GRID TOAUGMENT THE EXSISTING LD TRAINS.MISSOURI AT PRESENT DESPITE THE LACK OF MO GOV COOPERSATION IS STILL LOOKING AT EESTABLISHING A ST LOUIS TO SPRINFIELD/JOPLIN WHERE THE OKLANHOMA DOT WOULD PICK UP AND EXTENED THE TAIN TO TULSA/OK CITY TO CONNECT WITH THE HEARLAND FLYER TO DLS/FT WORTH.SIMILIAR KANSAS DOT IS ALSO RETHNKING THEIR POSITION TO REESTABLISH THE KANSAS CITY-WICHITA-OKLAHOMA CITY,CONNECTING ON THE NORTH END WITH THE SOUTHWEST CHIEF AND WITH THE HEARTLAND FLYER. THERE IS MORE BUT ILL GO INTO THAT LATER WHEN I RECEIVE REPLIES TOTHIS POST
GRAND AVE,
Is this a matter of our national pride being turned inside-out? I'm picking up a bit of "If we can't have the best, then nothing at all" from a couple of the above posts. Which ignores the fact that there are lots of foreign HST train-makers, for example, who would love to show us the state of the art -- after their gov'ts have picked up the tab for the R&D. (Us, we do the same thing indirectly with our big pharma houses, through federally-subsidized university research and protective legislation).
Look, we can either buy the dang things or not. Most people do understand the concept of a "balanced transportation system," but where's the money? Should the U.S. gov't sell Fannie Mae-like bonds for railroad acquisition and rehab? There are a couple of states who have declarted themselves HST-ready, laid out routes and then . . . nothing happens. Is the United States now becoming the land of "can't do"? as opposed to the "can do" attitude that got us to the moon and built the Interstate highways? How depressing. - a. s.
Chuck, your question is the exact opposite of what most people ask. The majority of opinion that is opposed to long distance trains argues that they are ONLY suited to leisure travel and poorly suited to business travel.
I would never suggest that trains are the best way to travel in any situation (and neither does NARP, by the way). The decision to choose the train, car, boat or plane needs to be answered by individual travelers in regards to their own preferences, desires, budgets, and schedules. (That is actually NARP's official position, as well as my own). So I would not presume to choose the best way for others to travel, even as a generality.
In order to determine an appropriate route network, it is not necessary to know why people might choose the train, and it is really none of our business what they do at their destination. We only need to know how many people would use it if it were available. The fact is that I have met people on long distance trains traveling for leisure, business, and the oft forgotten category of personal business (attending family events like weddings, trips to and from college, visiting/caring for elderly family members, that sort of thing).
I can't find the data at hand, but people do track these things, not for justifying the existence of a train, but for targeting their marketing to those most likely to use the train. I recall reading that most of Amtrak's long distance travelers are divided almost equally between the leisure and personal business categories, with commercial business travelers being a relatively small, but not insignificant, percentage.
True, I don't see too many families on trains, and you may be right that they are priced out of that market. But families don't constitute the whole of the traveling public. I most often see singles and couples, and we are many. For my wife and I the Coast Starlight is the most convenient and economical way to get from our house in California to my mother's house in Oregon. We could drive, with an overnight in a motel, but the time is unproductive. We could fly, but the cost is about the same as Amtrak and the nearest airport to my mother is over an hour away not including check in times, etc. (the train station is ten minutes away and check in times are minimal).
Because travelers are individuals, not averages, I believe people should have a choice of transportation options so that people can choose what works best for them, for their schedule, for their budget, for their purpose.
Excellent points, Mr Toy, but there is one little item that needs to be considered - an extension of your second point:
Where are the people, where do they want to go and what do they intend to do when they get there?
If a single person is traveling to a business meeting in a downtown building and will turn right around and return to their starting point, a train makes sense.
If they are actually a family of five (plus two dogs) traveling to Aunt Effie's house in the suburbs a train doesn't make sense at all. The family minivan or SUV is (much) less expensive, almost as fast and a LOT more flexible.
Vacation travelers, for the most part, are traveling in groups, going to places that are not good candidates for rail service and prefer their own vehicle to a rental.
Yet, the "all travelers" model favored by the NARP lumps everyone traveling from Alpha to Omega as "potential rail users." They could be counted as potential lottery winners with equal validity.
NARP, IMHO, is trying desperately to reinvent the square wheel. Rail for rapid transit, and in busy corridors where city center to city center time is comparable to air, si! But rail as a viable way for a family to travel from Tucson to Las Vegas? You have got to be kidding.
Chuck
Paul, I don't necessarily disagree with your points as far as they go, and I thank you for expressing them in a civilized manner, but I think you're missing much of the picture.
I agree, NARP is far from perfect, but its still the most prominent rail advocacy group in the country. Their vision is often poorly presented in a "preaching to the choir" format, but they do offer a place to start the discussion. NARP's vision is one of potential, not an outright demand.
Amtrak is also far from perfect, but right now it is all we've got and it does provide us with a foundation for something better.
Since this is what we have to work with at the moment, I suggest it is more productive to discuss ways to make them better rather than tear them down and be left with nothing.
Nobody expects that Congress or any other public agency is going to wave a magic wand and make it happen overnight. There are a lot of tough questions tough questions that need to be answered before any rail plan moves forward.
Let me list a few:
Taking into consideration all modes of transportation, and how they complement each other, and also considering the relative costs of each mode to handle increasing traffic, what do we want our passenger rail network to look like 20 years down the line?
Where are the riders and where do they want to go?
What sort of equipment and infrastructure will best serve the traveling public in answer to question #2?
The problem is nobody is asking these questions. Amtrak isn't. Congress certainly isn't. NARP is at least trying, but I agree it is not presenting itself very well.
But individual state governments are asking these questions, and they're concluding that in many cases rail is a cost effective way to move people. I have talked to a few rail transportation planners at the state and county levels, and they agree that both long distance and corridor trains need to be part of the overall transportation mix. They are desparate for some leadership from Congress, but so far their pleas have largely fallen on deaf ears.
Yes, it is a national embarrassment
I am not that skilled in debate, and I guess anything I have to say will be taken apart line-by-line. But arguing that Congress is not giving what the rail advocacy community is asking for constitutes a national embarrassment bothers me. Yes, an airline-reliant transportation system is vulnerable to a 9-11. A train-reliant transportation system is also vulnerable -- the Spanish "9-11" involved a mass attack on trains. As to national embarrassment, I understand they either have a nation-wide rail/transit strike in France or the unions are planning one, but again, that is probably an apples-to-oranges comparison where the struggles waged by labor unions in France relate to the tortured history of their numbered Republics since the Revolution while the U.S. has had a different history of social upheavels.
We can be uniformly embarrased that the predominant mode of passenger transportation in the U.S. as well as in Europe is the private automobile. The predominant mode of common-carrier intercity transportation in Europe is rail, some of it high-speed rail, while the predominant mode of common-carrier transportation in the U.S. is air. The dominance of autos in two different cultures -- one in which autos are highly taxed and inspected and where gas has always been expensive, another in which autos are regarded as a kind of divine birthright -- this suggests that there is a great deal of popular appeal to private autos, one that remains strong even when there are vigorous public policies to discourage cars.
As to the common-carrier modes, that rail dominates in one culture and air in the other partly reflects differences in population density and distance between city centers, but also reflects policy choices on where to concentrate public funds.
There is not a person viewing or commenting on this forum who does not have a favorable opinion of passenger trains to some degree or another. There are no "trolls" on these pages from the "Cement and Airline Institute" or even, heaven forbid, Heritage or Cato on these pages as they don't even know we exist. Of the people who like trains, there are those of us among us who are the activists and true believers, others among us, perhaps lapsed activists or apostate believers, who think we should step back and see whether passenger-train advocacy is "on the right track", and yet others, who have resigned themselves to the demise of passenger trains much as the passing of steam.
I had been a NARP member back in the pre-Amtrak days when we were all mad at the railroads for shirking their common-carrier responsibilities and actively discouraging patronage so they could get regulatory permission to discontinue trains. I discontinued my NARP membership after we got Amtrak (it was what we wanted, wasn't it?) and the NARP newsletter started tearing into Amtrak with the same gusto as it tore into the railroad companies. The newsletter was actually Tony Haswell's printed "blog" in the days before the Internet and blogs -- the masthead had an impressive list of prominent people in public life who were in some kind of advisory role, but it was mainly that these people gave their good name to the effort and Tony Haswell wrote the whole thing -- H. L. Menken had an essay about "Executive Secretaries" many years ago explaining that many "associations" are really a one-man band.
It is sort of like the neighbor with an eyesore on his front lawn. "What is that for?" "To scare away the giraffes which would eat our trees." "There are not giraffes!" "See, it is working." One could argue that the NARP mode of advocacy needs reevaluation because we have seen Amtrak shrink and shrink over the years; one could counterargue that in the absence of NARP, there would not be any Amtrak at all.
But on an emotional level, I am tired of the freight-railroads-hate-us-Congress-is-indifferent-trains-in-America-are-a-national-shame school of rail advocacy which has been going on for 40 years now. This mode of advocacy is not bringing more people into our camp, and it is driving out some of the people who had been on board. Our local group gets some fresh faces to a meeting with an outside speaker about legendary 100 MPH passenger trains of the steam era, one of our officers lays into the speaker - a published rail-history author by the way - for expressing the view that the future lies with corridor instead of long-distance trains, same officer gets up after our featured speaker to give a half-hour worth of announcements regarding NARP and his disgust with the current state of affairs with the Adminstration and Congress, I watch the backsides attached to the fresh faces squirm in their chairs, and I never see these new people again.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
No, Congress is the one with "inertia" and is forcing Amtrak down with it. If Amtrak itself had "inertia", the NEC would not have average speeds of between 78 and 87 mph, and the Porter-Kalamazoo (Amtrak-owned) segment of the Chicago-Detroit corridor would not be seeing any of the upgrades it has been seeing. Not to mention, no improvements would have happened to the Keystone Corridor no matter who funded them. If NARP have indeed staved off funding cuts to Amtrak (as they claim), they've done something almost herculean for a small lobbying group.
I'm still wondering what's wrong with the system as NARP proposes.
NARP’s goal is to have a nationwide “grid and gateway” system fully in place in the next 40 years, which can be achieved by utilizing existing resources. Public policy should:Incorporate existing services, rail lines, and rights of way as well as corridor proposals already underway by states, localities, and freight railroads into a comprehensive national system;Upgrade bottlenecks and capacity-constrained corridors already identified as causing congestion for passenger and freight rail; andSupport and enable future high-speed service in the most heavily traveled corridors.
Seems like 9/11 is quickly forgotten by some people. Not by me. People were scrambling to find domestic long-distance transportation options back then, while all planes were grounded. Thanks to the continued evisceration of the national railroad passenger system, there were almost no options, and the ones that were available, thanks to deprecation of technology thereof, had frequencies and average speeds so low (10 mph lower than average speeds at the turn of the 20th Century) as to not make it worthwhile to use them versus waiting for the planes to start flying again. (Yes, it is a national embarrassment, and a weakness that our enemies would be happy to exploit again.)
Samantha wrote: Unfortunately, NARP seems locked in a time warp. Instead of seeing the world through realistic lenses, they keep lobbying Amtrak and the Congress to reinstate the Sunset Limited between New Orleans and Florida, which makes no sense whatsoever.
Unfortunately, NARP seems locked in a time warp. Instead of seeing the world through realistic lenses, they keep lobbying Amtrak and the Congress to reinstate the Sunset Limited between New Orleans and Florida, which makes no sense whatsoever.
...and Amtrak seems to go along for the ride. They have had little reason to rock the boat. They have had exactly zero incentive to try to improve their efficiency much less try anything new. I will say that their new prez, Kummant, seems to understand that corridors are where Amtrak's growth could be and is framing some discussion along those lines. I think Amtrak and Congress have so much political inertia that it will take a long steady pull to change the current course.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
NARP's plan for expanded passenger rail service in the United States is an attempt to reinvent the 1950s. From this Texan's point of view it is unrealistic.
Passenger trains can be a good option for high density corridors if they are quick, economical, dependable, and frequent. Only a tiny percentage of the population use the long distance trains, although NARP does not seem to get it. It spends a lot of time arguing for a national system.
The future for rail passenger service is in the country's high density corridors. The Texas Triangle, which includes Dallas/Fort Worth to Houston and San Antonio, as well as intermediate cities, is a good candidate for rapid passenger rail. But it will not happen until the cost of driving or flying - time and money - makes both prohibitive and rail passenger service is competitive - cost, convenience, amenities, etc.
The highways and airways between the Texas Triangle's major cities and cities in west Texas or south Texas, as an example, are no where near a saturation point. People will fly or drive between these cities for decades if not centuries to come. Hoping for passenger rail service between them is unrealistic.
When they are traveling for business, Texans want to jump on Southwest Airlines or one of the other carriers. It is all about time, and time is money. They are more than willing to put up with utilitarian accommodations. When they are off for a vacation, most Texans load up the SUV or pick-up truck and drive. If Amtrak discontinued the trains that serve Texas, most Texans would not even know that they were gone.
If NARP wants to see an increase in passenger rail service in the U.S., it should stop lobbying for a continuance of Amtrak as it stands. Instead, it should lobby for a fuel pricing structure that reflects the true cost of gasoline and aviation fuel. Americans don't tote the note for these fuels. Oh, they pay the exploration, production, transportation, refinery, and marketing costs, as well as a return for the oil companies. But they don't pay for the naval presence in the Middle East, or the damage to the environment from burning fossil fuels, or the incremental medical costs that are driven by foul air, or at least they don't pay for these at the pump. If these factors were factored into the cost of fuel, gasoline would probably soar north of $5.00 a gallon.
Higher fuel costs would cause people to opt for more fuel efficient cars, better public transit, and rapid rail corridors. Trains would shine where they are most advantageous, which is in high density corridors.
Seems every 10 yrs or so, NARP comes up w/ proposals that just simply are not reality. I was a member for one or two yrs back around 1985 and wisely decided not to renew my membership. At that time the group had a proposal on adding several long distance trains. One I recall was to operate on the former TX Zephyr route Denver-Ft.Worth. Still 20 yrs later, there is not a demand to warrant psgr rail in that market. Stick to ideas that are workable and make sense. I am a Amtrk supporter but not to the extent where we have trains running all over the country half full.
My limited experience with the CZ (one round trip per year in April/early May) is actually the other way 'round. The busier segments are Chicago/Denver, Denver/Winter Park/Glenwood Springs and again Reno/Oakland. The Glenwood Springs/Reno segment is pretty quiet. I did have a car attendant tell me once that the Reno traffic trails off in summer, which allows more through traffic from SLC and points east.
I think the popularity is tied to the schedule. Chicago/Denver works well for an overnight trip (both ways), Denver/Winter Park/Glenwood Springs is a good daytime trip either way, and Reno/Oakland also have arriavals & departures that make a good daytime trip. Salt Lake City and Omaha are middle of the night stops both ways, which limits their practicality for most people. Mind you, this is all based on scheduled times-not the usual, actual later times (and my memory-not the usual, actual correct times!).
Expanding serivce might be a candidate for a situation like this-can Salt Lake City and/or Omaha be connected to anyplace that people might want to go to at anytime they might want to?
Mr. Toy wrote: So I see the problem being more political than economic. Maybe its time to reverse the process. Add a few carefully selected routes and see what happens. It has the merit of being the only thing that has not yet been tried.
So I see the problem being more political than economic. Maybe its time to reverse the process. Add a few carefully selected routes and see what happens. It has the merit of being the only thing that has not yet been tried.
I don't believe Amtrak should add any new long distance routes, rather they should continue to try to bring those routes to break even status. It would seem to me if they could haul more passengers on short and medium range lines, there would be more passengers looking for space on the long distance trains. This would allow Amtrak to raise those fares higher.
The Rocky Mountaineer between Vancouver and Calgary is probably the only long distance train in North America that makes a profit. Can't Amtrak run a similar service between Denver and Salt Lake City, parking overnight in Grand Junction ? The distances and geography involved are almost identical.
I'm guessing the California Zephyr is crowded between Denver and SLC, and thus ends up hauling empty equipment over most of its route. A second shorter sightseeing train could increase equipment utilization.
Is there any reason the connecting track in Ravenna, Ohio can't be put back in, sending the Capitol Limited through Youngstown instead of Alliance ?
Maybe it is because the subsidy rate is such that Amtrak routes on balance are a net cost than a source of revenue. There are also negative economies of scale: John Kneiling had long written about the fictitious discount store that loses money on every sale but makes it up on the volume.
Amtrak has a "fixed infrastructure" in terms of management overhead. It also has a fixed infrastructure in terms of locomotives and cars, and my understanding is that Amtrak does not have spare locomotives and cars apart from ones parked on the repair line at Beech Grove. As to Amtrak not having the money to refurbish more cars, that speaks to the cost, not only of buying rail cars but of keeping them in service long term, and of course, all of these issues can be solved by granting Amtrak more money.
That is also where marginal cost vs fully-allocated cost accounting makes a big difference. Even if you are operating at a loss and need subsidy money to make fully-allocated cost, if you are operating at a profit on marginal cost, it pays to expand your service.
Let's say Amtrak is appropriated 1.2 billion in subsidy. Let's say we could increase that subsidy from 1.2 to 1.8 billion, by 50 percent, but in the bargain double the number of revenue seats on trains. Lets say cutting Amtrak from 1.2 down to 1 billion would effectively mean shutting the whole thing down -- all that money would pay for overhead and you would not be able to operate trains. Don't you think Congress and the American people would say, "Hmm, we could spend a little bit more on Amtrak and get a whole lot more trains."
There was mention about airline bankruptcies. For all of the subsidy money the airlines get, there is a certain "above the tarmack" cost that they have to meet from fares, they submit a business plan to their funding sources (banks, shareholders) that they can cover that portion of cost, and when they fail, they go bankrupt, banks and shareholders lose their stake, and people start over.
NARP is great on proposals like "grid and gateway." Is there a price tag on this project in terms of rate of funding over so many years and a projection of yield in terms of so many train seat miles? Is anyone willing to stick their neck out on this one, that if we don't meet those targets we are prepared to accept funding cuts?
It is NARP's position (and mine) that Amtrak would be better off financially with a larger network than a smaller one, hence their (and my) opposition to cutting routes.
We talked about economies of scale earlier. You don't get that by selling less of your product while fixed costs stay fixed. But that's how Congresscritters and government bureaucrats think. They see trains as costs to be avoided, not as sources of revenue. Under that theory cutting routes leads to fewer losses. Thus under years of such political pressure Amtrak has tried to cut its way to profitability, only to find the company losing more money than before the cuts. The reason why these cuts don't work is because fewer and fewer trains have to support the same fixed plant.
I don't have a side of an argument, just an observation that the economic fundamentals of the passenger train business, as it were, don't look good, given the rate of subsidy that Congress can realistically be expected to appropriate, and given the NARP model of fighting any reduction in service by Amtrak in the manner of fighting discontinuances in the pre-Amtrak days.
Paul Milenkovic wrote:Care to show us your spreadsheets?Yes I will show my "spreadsheets" -- it is all in the Inspector General Kenneth Mead Report, which is derived from the Amtrak RPS cost accounting numbers, but as soon as I mention Mead, no one wants to listen anymore because anyone critical of Amtrak, forget that, people get upset.
Care to show us your spreadsheets?
How about you show me your spreadsheets. Really, I am not saying this rhetorically or as a debating device or as a put down. Can anyone out there show me their spreadsheets that disprove Amtrak's direct-operating cost numbers? URPA talks how they are inflated, but no one has any alternate hard numbers; I would really like to see such numbers, I really would, because as a rail fan I wish it were some other way.
That's a blanket statement. (FTR, all TGVs have dining cars.) And TGV gets government subsidy money
That's a blanket statement. (FTR, all TGVs have dining cars.)
More blanket statements. Conveniently left out are the facts that back during that time, airports were being directly subsidized (which means that the airlines did not have to worry about infrastructure costs; and the later trust funds still ameliorate direct infrastructure costs to a certain degree) and that the railroads, thanks to ICC over-regulation, were saddled with undue new and exorbitant cost requirements to make rail travel competitive speed-wise even over medium distances. (I notice that you didn't compare the 727 with the PRR in the NY-Washington DC market. Somewhat conveniently, perhaps? nor did you cite any other comparison between jet power and electric rail power.) Yes more blanket statements, quoting what was printed in back issues of Trains Magazine. I am talking direct operating cost. Back in the day as in this day it was thought trains were at a disadvantage because of unfair accounting for indirect costs, but the counter-intuitive thing is that trains lose on direct operating costs.
More blanket statements. Conveniently left out are the facts that back during that time, airports were being directly subsidized (which means that the airlines did not have to worry about infrastructure costs; and the later trust funds still ameliorate direct infrastructure costs to a certain degree) and that the railroads, thanks to ICC over-regulation, were saddled with undue new and exorbitant cost requirements to make rail travel competitive speed-wise even over medium distances. (I notice that you didn't compare the 727 with the PRR in the NY-Washington DC market. Somewhat conveniently, perhaps? nor did you cite any other comparison between jet power and electric rail power.)
The AE defies that argument, as do the high-speed trains of other countries. Even Amtrak Regionals defy that argument.
You denying that infrastructure costs are still a factor?
As far as the electric-powered NEC market, that is where there has been agreement that if trains are competitive, that is where they will do this. But the NEC is not the long-distance trains with their ultra-low revenue seat density and dining and sleeping cars, apart from the pass-through LD trains.
Economy-class seating on any airline is miserable. Thanks to the need for pressurized cabins, it's not very efficient space-wise, either. (Compare 3-3 seating in an 11' 6"-wide cabin with 2-2 seating in a 10' 6"-wide railcar.)Yes economy seating is plain miserable, but it is driven by market forces, where airlines which receive subsidy, yes, but not for direct operating costs (yeah, yeah, post 9-11 bailout, but this is not a permanent and ongoing thing) where airline passengers have voted with their dollars and desire for cheap fares that they would prefer low fares to the extra room you desire. Why is 2-2 seating inherent in a railcar -- why not the 3-2 seating of coach on the Bullet train or the 3-3 seating on some of the newer "widebody" Japanese trains?
Economy-class seating on any airline is miserable. Thanks to the need for pressurized cabins, it's not very efficient space-wise, either. (Compare 3-3 seating in an 11' 6"-wide cabin with 2-2 seating in a 10' 6"-wide railcar.)
Why cite the Shinkansen, when its loading gauge has always been wider than that of US passenger trains, the 0-series (the first Bullet Train) being 11 feet wide, and subsequent trains wider still? Note that even the 0-series was roomier for passengers than the Boeing 727, even with the difference in cabin width—and the speed is competitive with air travel, which is a chief selling point.
Oh yeah; on airlines, not all flights are direct. Ever deal with the connecting-flight syndrome? Saves bucks, adds hours; and your alleged two-hour journey becomes as long as eight, or perhaps longer than a LD train takes, thanks to broken equipment and missed connections. Sometimes makes you wish the USA did invest in high-speed rail, because in a lot of markets, the plane is literally the only choice, which is not a choice at all. 13 billion gallons of jet fuel was Reply Paul Milenkovic Member sinceJuly 2004 2,741 posts Posted by Paul Milenkovic on Saturday, October 6, 2007 3:57 PM Care to show us your spreadsheets?Yes I will show my "spreadsheets" -- it is all in the Inspector General Kenneth Mead Report, which is derived from the Amtrak RPS cost accounting numbers, but as soon as I mention Mead, no one wants to listen anymore because anyone critical of Amtrak, forget that, people get upset.How about you show me your spreadsheets. Really, I am not saying this rhetorically or as a debating device or as a put down. Can anyone out there show me their spreadsheets that disprove Amtrak's direct-operating cost numbers? URPA talks how they are inflated, but no one has any alternate hard numbers; I would really like to see such numbers, I really would, because as a rail fan I wish it were some other way.That's a blanket statement. (FTR, all TGVs have dining cars.) And TGV gets government subsidy money. More blanket statements. Conveniently left out are the facts that back during that time, airports were being directly subsidized (which means that the airlines did not have to worry about infrastructure costs; and the later trust funds still ameliorate direct infrastructure costs to a certain degree) and that the railroads, thanks to ICC over-regulation, were saddled with undue new and exorbitant cost requirements to make rail travel competitive speed-wise even over medium distances. (I notice that you didn't compare the 727 with the PRR in the NY-Washington DC market. Somewhat conveniently, perhaps? nor did you cite any other comparison between jet power and electric rail power.) Yes more blanket statements, quoting what was printed in back issues of Trains Magazine. I am talking direct operating cost. Back in the day as in this day it was thought trains were at a disadvantage because of unfair accounting for indirect costs, but the counter-intuitive thing is that trains lose on direct operating costs. As far as the electric-powered NEC market, that is where there has been agreement that if trains are competitive, that is where they will do this. But the NEC is not the long-distance trains with their ultra-low revenue seat density and dining and sleeping cars, apart from the pass-through LD trains.Economy-class seating on any airline is miserable. Thanks to the need for pressurized cabins, it's not very efficient space-wise, either. (Compare 3-3 seating in an 11' 6"-wide cabin with 2-2 seating in a 10' 6"-wide railcar.)Yes economy seating is plain miserable, but it is driven by market forces, where airlines which receive subsidy, yes, but not for direct operating costs (yeah, yeah, post 9-11 bailout, but this is not a permanent and ongoing thing) where airline passengers have voted with their dollars and desire for cheap fares that they would prefer low fares to the extra room you desire. Why is 2-2 seating inherent in a railcar -- why not the 3-2 seating of coach on the Bullet train or the 3-3 seating on some of the newer "widebody" Japanese trains? Oh yeah; on airlines, not all flights are direct. Ever deal with the connecting-flight syndrome? Saves bucks, adds hours; and your alleged two-hour journey becomes as long as eight, or perhaps longer than a LD train takes, thanks to broken equipment and missed connections. Sometimes makes you wish the USA did invest in high-speed rail, because in a lot of markets, the plane is literally the only choice, which is not a choice at all. 13 billion gallons of jet fuel wasted every year in this country on domestic flights testifies to the waste and the dependence on rogue nations for our supposed "freedom" in this arena.I would hardly call the 13 billion gallons of jet fuel wasted when Amtrak fuel efficiency is only marginally better than jets, owing to those dining cars, low-density "chair car" coaches, sleepers, etc., which many people regard as an inherent feature of the rail mode. As to delays in LD travel, Amtrak has not been exemplery in that score. Also, with connecting-flight airline ops, the goal is cheap fares -- I argued that the jet beats the train on equipment and crew cycles, not necessarily on getting there quick, and again, the airlines compete on price rather than on amenities or performance.The NARP-informed passenger-rail advocacy community has had over 36 years to make the arguments you are making, both to the public and large and to Congress. That is a long time to make a case, and I think it is high time to examine critically where Amtrak has disadvantages relative to other modes rather than reading our own press releases, so that we make progress in advancing trains as an alternative. We are like GM and Ford, subject to some structural disadvantages relative to Japanese auto makers, but like GM and Ford we blame the disadvantages and don't look to what we are selling to see why our customers (public, Congress) have left us for the competing product.Argue with me about how I am making blanket statements and not citing references for my assertions -- you can argue me into silence, but you haven't changed one thing that is keeping Amtrak stalled at 1 percent of the common-carrier intercity market. If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks? Reply JT22CW Member sinceDecember 2006 302 posts Posted by JT22CW on Saturday, October 6, 2007 5:43 AM Paul Milenkovic wrote:A big cost of providing dining car meal service is the dining car itself -- its capital expense prorated as interest and amortization costs, and the maintenance of a passenger railroad car. Even if the food and service labor were contracted out and somehow made lower in cost, dining car meals are served in a very expensive venue.Care to show us your spreadsheets? That's a blanket statement. (FTR, all TGVs have dining cars.)That an airplane wins hands down in a direct operating cost comparison over a long-distance train was established 40 years ago in a comparison of a Boeing 727 with the Denver Zephyr and confirmed what was happening with the passenger train discontinuances in the pre-Amtrak era. This was a surprising result. One would accept that the 727 is much faster than the train, but that the 727 would be cheaper than a train was counterintuitive. The 727 was pound for pound much more expensive than a railroad car and it required a high-level of specialized maintenance to make it safe to fly. But the jet goes 10 times faster than the train and gets more passenger miles per dollar spent both on the jet as well as the crew to operate it.More blanket statements. Conveniently left out are the facts that back during that time, airports were being directly subsidized (which means that the airlines did not have to worry about infrastructure costs; and the later trust funds still ameliorate direct infrastructure costs to a certain degree) and that the railroads, thanks to ICC over-regulation, were saddled with undue new and exorbitant cost requirements to make rail travel competitive speed-wise even over medium distances. (I notice that you didn't compare the 727 with the PRR in the NY-Washington DC market. Somewhat conveniently, perhaps? nor did you cite any other comparison between jet power and electric rail power.)When rail speeds are, thanks to regulation, held down to a 40-mph average speed (which is 10 mph lower than the average speed of most trains at the turn of the 20th Century), of course jet travel can be considered "less expensive" to a degree. However, perhaps airlines should have been made to follow the railroad model, with full ownership of airports funded out of pocket (including air traffic control), and then get charged all sorts of property taxes on the airports on top of all the up-front costs. Whatcha think?The jet also packs a large number of seats into a tiny cabin, and people (or at least most people) tolerate that for the two hours or so; the train passengers on an 18-hour trip have come to expect low density coaches, individual-cabin sleeping cars and a separate dining car. Combined with the comparative slow speed of trains affecting the "number of cycles" you can get with the equipment, trains are expensive and hence require substantial operating subsidy in order to charge comparable fares to competing modes.When one notes the "comparative slow speed of trains", one must also note that such trains cited are not at the limits of rail technology, otherwise the comparison will be biased. Where passenger rail is close to its technological limits, the airlines (even low-cost ones) are always looking over their shoulders.Economy-class seating on any airline is miserable. Thanks to the need for pressurized cabins, it's not very efficient space-wise, either. (Compare 3-3 seating in an 11' 6"-wide cabin with 2-2 seating in a 10' 6"-wide railcar.)Oh yeah; on airlines, not all flights are direct. Ever deal with the connecting-flight syndrome? Saves bucks, adds hours; and your alleged two-hour journey becomes as long as eight, or perhaps longer than a LD train takes, thanks to broken equipment and missed connections. Sometimes makes you wish the USA did invest in high-speed rail, because in a lot of markets, the plane is literally the only choice, which is not a choice at all. 13 billion gallons of jet fuel wasted every year in this country on domestic flights testifies to the waste and the dependence on rogue nations for our supposed "freedom" in this arena.Oh well; onto another issue… oltmannd wrote: nanaimo73 wrote: CSSHEGEWISCH wrote:Also, how many restaurant operators would be willing to bid on providing food service on trains? I thought Subway tried that, and failed, between New York City and Albany.Not quite. Subway WANTED to try it. There was a union snit fit over it and Subway backed out. And, Amtrak didn't push the issue why?Because Amtrak's management was clearly in the wrong by violating labor contracts negotiated in good faith, perhaps?Would you trust managers of a business that violate a contract and thus breach good faith? I sure wouldn't. WADR, sir, you seem to have an outlook that would be quite at odds with that of Theodore Roosevelt. Countenancing dishonest business practices is the same as countenancing anarchy and chaos. Holding businesses to what they agreed to is not called a "snit fit"; it's called asserting your rights.BTW, just to be factual: There was no food service on the Empire Corridor trains prior to the Subway operation, which did indeed operate in November of 2005 at least. There was to have been a four-month pilot program. If there were no union agreements as to dining service on the Empire Corridor, how could the unions object to it (unless there were agreements in place that Amtrak was about to violate)? The program stood and fell on its own merits. Reply 123 Join our Community! Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account. Login » Register » Search the Community Newsletter Sign-Up By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy More great sites from Kalmbach Media Terms Of Use | Privacy Policy | Copyright Policy
Yes I will show my "spreadsheets" -- it is all in the Inspector General Kenneth Mead Report, which is derived from the Amtrak RPS cost accounting numbers, but as soon as I mention Mead, no one wants to listen anymore because anyone critical of Amtrak, forget that, people get upset.
Yes more blanket statements, quoting what was printed in back issues of Trains Magazine. I am talking direct operating cost. Back in the day as in this day it was thought trains were at a disadvantage because of unfair accounting for indirect costs, but the counter-intuitive thing is that trains lose on direct operating costs. As far as the electric-powered NEC market, that is where there has been agreement that if trains are competitive, that is where they will do this. But the NEC is not the long-distance trains with their ultra-low revenue seat density and dining and sleeping cars, apart from the pass-through LD trains.
Yes economy seating is plain miserable, but it is driven by market forces, where airlines which receive subsidy, yes, but not for direct operating costs (yeah, yeah, post 9-11 bailout, but this is not a permanent and ongoing thing) where airline passengers have voted with their dollars and desire for cheap fares that they would prefer low fares to the extra room you desire. Why is 2-2 seating inherent in a railcar -- why not the 3-2 seating of coach on the Bullet train or the 3-3 seating on some of the newer "widebody" Japanese trains?
Oh yeah; on airlines, not all flights are direct. Ever deal with the connecting-flight syndrome? Saves bucks, adds hours; and your alleged two-hour journey becomes as long as eight, or perhaps longer than a LD train takes, thanks to broken equipment and missed connections. Sometimes makes you wish the USA did invest in high-speed rail, because in a lot of markets, the plane is literally the only choice, which is not a choice at all. 13 billion gallons of jet fuel wasted every year in this country on domestic flights testifies to the waste and the dependence on rogue nations for our supposed "freedom" in this arena.
I would hardly call the 13 billion gallons of jet fuel wasted when Amtrak fuel efficiency is only marginally better than jets, owing to those dining cars, low-density "chair car" coaches, sleepers, etc., which many people regard as an inherent feature of the rail mode. As to delays in LD travel, Amtrak has not been exemplery in that score. Also, with connecting-flight airline ops, the goal is cheap fares -- I argued that the jet beats the train on equipment and crew cycles, not necessarily on getting there quick, and again, the airlines compete on price rather than on amenities or performance.
The NARP-informed passenger-rail advocacy community has had over 36 years to make the arguments you are making, both to the public and large and to Congress. That is a long time to make a case, and I think it is high time to examine critically where Amtrak has disadvantages relative to other modes rather than reading our own press releases, so that we make progress in advancing trains as an alternative. We are like GM and Ford, subject to some structural disadvantages relative to Japanese auto makers, but like GM and Ford we blame the disadvantages and don't look to what we are selling to see why our customers (public, Congress) have left us for the competing product.
Argue with me about how I am making blanket statements and not citing references for my assertions -- you can argue me into silence, but you haven't changed one thing that is keeping Amtrak stalled at 1 percent of the common-carrier intercity market.
Paul Milenkovic wrote:A big cost of providing dining car meal service is the dining car itself -- its capital expense prorated as interest and amortization costs, and the maintenance of a passenger railroad car. Even if the food and service labor were contracted out and somehow made lower in cost, dining car meals are served in a very expensive venue.
That an airplane wins hands down in a direct operating cost comparison over a long-distance train was established 40 years ago in a comparison of a Boeing 727 with the Denver Zephyr and confirmed what was happening with the passenger train discontinuances in the pre-Amtrak era. This was a surprising result. One would accept that the 727 is much faster than the train, but that the 727 would be cheaper than a train was counterintuitive. The 727 was pound for pound much more expensive than a railroad car and it required a high-level of specialized maintenance to make it safe to fly. But the jet goes 10 times faster than the train and gets more passenger miles per dollar spent both on the jet as well as the crew to operate it.
When rail speeds are, thanks to regulation, held down to a 40-mph average speed (which is 10 mph lower than the average speed of most trains at the turn of the 20th Century), of course jet travel can be considered "less expensive" to a degree. However, perhaps airlines should have been made to follow the railroad model, with full ownership of airports funded out of pocket (including air traffic control), and then get charged all sorts of property taxes on the airports on top of all the up-front costs. Whatcha think?
The jet also packs a large number of seats into a tiny cabin, and people (or at least most people) tolerate that for the two hours or so; the train passengers on an 18-hour trip have come to expect low density coaches, individual-cabin sleeping cars and a separate dining car. Combined with the comparative slow speed of trains affecting the "number of cycles" you can get with the equipment, trains are expensive and hence require substantial operating subsidy in order to charge comparable fares to competing modes.
Oh well; onto another issue…
oltmannd wrote: nanaimo73 wrote: CSSHEGEWISCH wrote:Also, how many restaurant operators would be willing to bid on providing food service on trains? I thought Subway tried that, and failed, between New York City and Albany.Not quite. Subway WANTED to try it. There was a union snit fit over it and Subway backed out. And, Amtrak didn't push the issue why?
nanaimo73 wrote: CSSHEGEWISCH wrote:Also, how many restaurant operators would be willing to bid on providing food service on trains? I thought Subway tried that, and failed, between New York City and Albany.
CSSHEGEWISCH wrote:Also, how many restaurant operators would be willing to bid on providing food service on trains?
Would you trust managers of a business that violate a contract and thus breach good faith? I sure wouldn't. WADR, sir, you seem to have an outlook that would be quite at odds with that of Theodore Roosevelt. Countenancing dishonest business practices is the same as countenancing anarchy and chaos. Holding businesses to what they agreed to is not called a "snit fit"; it's called asserting your rights.
BTW, just to be factual: There was no food service on the Empire Corridor trains prior to the Subway operation, which did indeed operate in November of 2005 at least. There was to have been a four-month pilot program. If there were no union agreements as to dining service on the Empire Corridor, how could the unions object to it (unless there were agreements in place that Amtrak was about to violate)? The program stood and fell on its own merits.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.