MISSING THE "BOAT"?????

[Prairietype]

Something in your message rang a resonant chord with me regarding your rationalizing the sleeper cost with lodging.

The most expensive hotel room I've ever stayed in cost $899 for one night. It was the honeymoon, and the view of Niagara Falls was spectacular, and it was in the top floor, etc, etc,. Now I stayed in this hotel a few more nights on lower floors that had a view of the Falls but not quite as good, and it did not cost $899 per night. But is was still expensive.

I've stayed in many other hotels (all price ranges) some with, others without view.

Riding Amtrak, and booking a sleeper is not cheap, and never bargain basement. But, the food is good, the scenery is ever changing, sometimes spectacular sometimes not, but comparatively it has something extra that you don't get in the average Marriott Courtyard. And the meals are inlcuded in the price.

One more thing about the $899 room at Niagara Falls-it had a bed, a shower, a television and a refrigerator; and if we wanted to we could have bought $5 Disani water in the room if we got thirsty, and I think that tally's up about everything-all that for $899 dollars a night.

I think the Amtrak rail experience compared/compares quite well. 

 

[jlckansas]

My girlfriend and I live about 2 hours southeast of KC.  She is a ceramics artist and we go a couple of times a year to New York City.  Our normal route is the Southwest Chief to Chicago then Lakeshore to NY.  Coming home we either reverse the trip, or take NEC service to DC then the Capitol to Chicago then Southwest Chief home.

Taking some of her ceramics on a flight would be laughable.  With the size and weight we are allowed by amtrak for carry on bags we can bring some of her stuff last minute and have it in hand the whole time.  And the cost of the sleeper we figure as just being equal to another nights lodging and food.  Having tried to fly with her stuff we said no way, people just dont understand the word fragile. Amtrak works better for us even if it is late.

One problem we have found talking to people is that most younger people did not experience the days of good rail travel.  The only experience that is available to them is Amtrak, or taking an airplane somewhere.

 

[daveklepper]

Most honest studies I have seen indicate taxes from liscences and gasoline and diesel sales, etc., support only a portion of the costs of maintaining highways and need to be supplemented from the general tax base/

[alphas]

Just remember that most of the road monies came directly from the users themselves.   Also, roads now go pretty much everywhere.  Rails are limited as to where they go and high-speed rail (or any other significant passenger service) simply can't run on most existing freight lines without causing major disruptions.    Society has determined that roads are to be built to take people and goods from point A to point B, but the great majority of the point A's and B's don't generate enough freight traffice to justified a railroad, let alone rail pasenger service.

I've heard Urban Sprawl accused of a lot of things but bankrupting the taxpayer is a new one.   Last I heard it is education, social programs, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, and having an all volunteer military (much more expensive than in the days of the draft) that are considered the culprits in most areas of government spending for the states and the FED.   (And if the USA gets national health care after the 2008 elections, I doubt there will be any monies for anything else new at all.) 

[Prairietype]

UK2007,

And to construct brand new right-of-ways across the USA would financially break the Federal Government at a time when our grossly underfunded Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security programs are relatively soon "going to hit the fan".    In other words, the money just isn't there, both now and the long-term future.  

Was this circumstance caused by blowing trillions on roadways, thus contributing to uncontrolled sprawl which has used up our national wealth making the wealthiest nation in the world bankrupt? Isn't it amazing how metro areas have expanded to the point that wonderful new neighborhoods built just 25 years ago now look tacky, streets crumbling, sidewalks buckled, streelamps rusty and strip malls looking like strip joints. Now that's an agenda we should continue to support both fiscally and politically, eh?

 

[alphas]

UK2007,

The last thing the private railroads in the USA (and Canada too) want to do is start getting back in the passenger business.   They are doing quite well financially with just freight.   And to construct brand new right-of-ways across the USA would financially break the Federal Government at a time when our grossly underfunded Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security programs are relatively soon "going to hit the fan".    In other words, the money just isn't there, both now and the long-term future.   There probably are some new Federal monies that are going to be going into RR expansion but it will be to help improve freight operations, not passenger. 

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

In answer to Prarie type (and I did once see a 2-6-2 substiting for the usual Mikado on a Burlington local freight while eating dinner at a restaurant near the Stone Avenue station in La Grange in 1952 while living there working a a summertime Junior engineer at EMD):

When I post ideas here I often follow them up by letters to transportation officials.

Including letters to Metro North on Penn Station access for Hudson and New Haven riders, need for through PATH Newark - 33rd Street service and how to do it, immediate suggestion to Amtrak with regard to wheel profiles on Acela based on the North Shore's experiences, many letters on Minneta vs.  Amtrak, need for N-Sta - S-Sta. Boston connector, diaphragms vs. pantograph gates between cars, trying to get the UP to run its own Chicago - St. Louis passengers service, streetcars restored to the Arborway.

When you consider how much you charge for your advice, you can reasonably deduce as to wear it goes.

[daveklepper]

In answer to Prarie type (and I did once see a 2-6-2 substiting for the usual Mikado on a Burlington local freight while eating dinner at a restaurant near the Stone Avenue station in La Grange in 1952 while living there working a a summertime Junior engineer at EMD):

When I post ideas here I often follow them up by letters to transportation officials.

Including letters to Metro North on Penn Station access for Hudson and New Haven riders, need for through PATH Newark - 33rd Street service and how to do it, immediate suggestion to Amtrak with regard to wheel profiles on Acela based on the North Shore's experiences, many letters on Minneta vs.  Amtrak, need for N-Sta - S-Sta. Boston connector, diaphragms vs. pantograph gates between cars, trying to get the UP to run its own Chicago - St. Louis passengers service, streetcars restored to the Arborway.

[Prairietype]

Get on-line, tune into C-Span 2 and listen to Amtrak funding bill, Lott-Lautenburg being debated today (all day).  Info and partial transcript is under S-294 

 1:06 PM CTT 

[f14aplusfl]

Well maybe it should be something on the order of like taking Amtrak’s Empire Builder or California Zephyr (and continue to Seattle) where one could transfer to a cruise ship to Alaska or something like that. Make it a combination package deal/partnership between the the cruise line and Amtrak. Cruise lines are moving away from some of the more traditional ports to be closer to certain markets and some of these ports could be nicely linked by rail even if it isn't a LD train (or would be depending upon where).

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

I'm curious to see just how long Grand Luxe will last.  American European Express only lasted a few years and I doubt that it would have lasted much longer than it did even if the derailment didn't take place.  The market for that sort of business is pretty small and will tap out pretty quickly.  How many land cruises can you afford?

[Anonymous]

If budget isn't a consideration, I would suggest an alternative to Amtrak.  We just completed two trips with GrandLuxe Rail Journeys.  They are the former American Orient Express.  Both were fabulous vacations in a relaxed atmosphere and an all inclusive trip.  We thought it was very expensive, but after traveling this way I can understand the cost.  It only carries 150 passengers.  The day trips are all included and excellent.  The food was very good.  The passengers are interesting people and friendly. 

[f14aplusfl]

There is a black and white picture in a book of a DC-4/6/7 in ATSF colors (silver metal finish and Santa Fe logo on the tail). I don't have it here otherwise I'd scan it in andtry to show it to you all.

[delray1967]

What if the railroads got into the air travel business?  I know it won't happen, but it sure would be cool to see a 737 in CSX colors, anyone have a good photo program to paint their railroads colors' onto existing aircraft?

Maybe if each company (air/sea/land transportation) pitched in a little and banded together, instead of trying to fight each other, they could all benefit a little and conquer this travel problem.  I've never seen joint advertisements for rail/air travel to ease some areas of congestion, and boost traffic in otherwise 'thin' markets.  I know AMTRAK has those auto-trains (great idea) and their schedules include bus routes, but airlines seem to be on their own.  If it was so lucritive for the airline companies, wouldn't other companies invest?

Just some thoughts.

[f14aplusfl]

I would disagree with the fearing the power of the influential lobbyists as its more so the power of the lobby rests with those with deep, big pockets... meaning corporations. Amtrak maybe a corporation but its hedged in there competing for the same pool of money alongside those advocating for healthcare, education, defense, etc...

My questions aren't a criticism of your points, but rather are meant to be leading....

1. How can we create and invest in a viable passenger rail strategy when Amtrak is handcuffed by public policy and funding? 

2. How can one convince people to support such an strategy beyond just talking about it?

3. How do you "win" the public's support for such investments?

I apologize if I misunderstood your original posting and no, I am not offended.  But I will tackle each of your questions on order.

1. Passenger rail travel is handcuffed by public policy and funding. For the most part Amtrak is a government agency first, a railroad second. It should be the other way around. The strategy for passenger rail should be written by railroaders with input from their customer base. The more important reason is through the strategy is identifying and sustaining the niche passenger rail travel plays in the transportation network. Quite frankly the American political system is broken. Congress has no idea what its doing. I think it is ironic that congress handicapped the railroads Post-WWII then finally freed them in the 1980s with deregulation. I also think its even more ironic that congress expected to make profitable a business none of the railroads after a fashion wanted to keep as it was losing money into one giant losing money business and put people who had no idea what they were doing in charge. Sure Conrail made money but that is because they were running freight, where the money was. But Congress pass laws on healthcare without practicing medicine, laws regarding education without having been teachers, I could go on but I won’t for my own sanity. Those who shape those policies should directly be involved in its creation. Amtrak should be able to define like any company it’s “mission” and plan its strategy for growth and the future without outside interference. Companies have long term growth plans and strategies and they adjust them as their market changes. But Amtrak rides on the roller coaster called the whims the Congress. Amtrak should be allowed to create it and execute it. Congress should just ask how much money do you need and debate over the amount. Amtrak should be able to walk into the Capitol building and say this is our plan and this is what we need and this is where we hope to go if you can give me the resources to do so. But the Board that any company has isn’t made up of those paid off by lobbyists. A company from top to bottom, the employees want to see where they work succeed. Congress has members who are paid off by lobbyists who are supported by those that it is their best interest to see Amtrak fail.
   
   
2. You are going to have to talk about it. There is no way around it. A grassroots campaign or lobby group can have the same affect as any other lobby. The issue more so is organizational. A way to get help actually would be the railroad industry themselves... I think they might like the idea of federal aid the assist in their track maintenance/expansion (partly to accommodate passenger trains). I am sure BNSF and Union Pacific would have liked to see some money from congress besides congress complaining how the utilities that power their constituents’ homes and businesses didn’t have enough coal from the Powder River Basin.
   
   
3. No pun intended but a whistle stop campaign might be effective means of spreading the message. Essentially it is a campaign for awareness. The public needs to be truly educated on how their tax dollars go towards transportation in America. Right now I think it would be safe to argue that most people probably wouldn't know that their tax dollars in the billions fund infrastructure in this country. By that, I am of course referring to the highways and airports that they use that trucking companies, airlines, etc... use daily and on a daily basis where they pay for perhaps a small margin of the actual cost of designing, constructing, and maintaining the infrastructure they need to conduct their business. A railroad is all under one banner, one institution. By educating the public in the "big picture" versus the "little picture" that airlines and the auto lobby wants you to see, it could generate support. There are different venues for approaching it but all of it is a public relations campaign. You could play on the rising price of oil or how trains are more eco-friendly (okay Alcos and honorary Alcos maybe not) than driving or flying. Also passenger rail travel has to establish itself as a valuable, viable national asset to the general public’s perception and not just those of us here who are obviously discussing it.

 

[Prairietype]

As an outsider looking in, your country is missing the boat Due to understandable paranoia with terrorism and airlines.  Its your railroads chance to take the lead.

Dont use exsisting infrastructure. Build TGV style lines between your cities. Why not?  You have the land do it. (this is what the UK should be doing but were too thick to take up this idea).

America has a fab freight network dont clog it up with passenger trains, build new high speed lines for your new passenger network like France has. look at the possibility of 250mph trains is possible and only in your country with its wide open spaces. DO IT?????????????

For the most part the citizens of the United States are paeons to the whim of corporate America and lack the civic intellectual capital to attempt this. We fear the power of the influential lobbyists more than fear itself.

[Anonymous]

As an outsider looking in, your country is missing the boat Due to understandable paranoia with terrorism and airlines.  Its your railroads chance to take the lead.

Dont use exsisting infrastructure. Build TGV style lines between your cities. Why not?  You have the land do it. (this is what the UK should be doing but were too thick to take up this idea).

America has a fab freight network dont clog it up with passenger trains, build new high speed lines for your new passenger network like France has. look at the possibility of 250mph trains is possible and only in your country with its wide open spaces. DO IT?????????????

 

[Prairietype]

OK, based on my earlier post, and the response to it about Amtrak advocacy, is there anything that anybody participating in this forum does or has done to promote, support, advocate for, or has accomplished with regard to passenger rail improvement in recent years? If so, what have you done, and did it do any good?

[daveklepper]

I have the answer, but I am not sure Bergie would approve, so:

Possibly Bergie will allow me to phrase it as a series of questions?

Who shaped transportation policy right after WWII and why?

Where the energy and transportation lessons of WWII immediately out the window as a result?

What proposals did FDR bring to a certain King at Yalta and what promises did he make after his meeting with that King?

Whose pockets have transportation policies and energy policies after WWII enriched?

Do these people have money to spend and to lobby now?

Is it possible that a country that is labeled an ally of the USA is actually its greatest enemy by the kinds of education it funds throughout the world and where does the money for this education come from?

Incidentally, there are functioning synagogues and churches in IRAN, of all places!   And one can talephone there from the USA or Israel!

[Anonymous]

 

My questions aren't a criticism of your points, but rather are meant to be leading....

1. How can we create and invest in a viable passenger rail strategy when Amtrak is handcuffed by public policy and funding? 

2. How can one convince people to support such an strategy beyond just talking about it?

3. How do you "win" the public's support for such investments?

 

Actually, its not the public that needs convincing. Polls consistently show public support for Amtrak funding in the 60-70% range, and a Harris poll last year respondents chose passenger trains, both regional and long distance, as the top two choices for expanding transportation capacity. Clearly, the public is way ahead of the politicians. So I would ask, how do we get the politicians to pay attention? 

[Prairietype]

Jezzuzz Christmas cookies...how about a viable rail travel stratagy? Oh my! cant-wont-never will-I dont want to pay for it-not in my backyard! ...now I know why we are rocketing towards mediocrity and gridlock.

I believe we can create and should invest in a viable passenger rail strategy and more importantly, implement it. The problem like you just said in your rant is convincing people to support such an strategy. The triard of transportation in America is air, car, and rail. Rail is often the black sheep when it comes to public support. It necessary to obtain the funds yes, but also it is needed to win the public's support for such investments. Long distance travel by rail isn't dead, it never has been. Since the 1960s its been hanging on by a thread, just think of the number of times its been thought Amtrak was going to die.

 

My questions aren't a criticism of your points, but rather are meant to be leading....

1. How can we create and invest in a viable passenger rail strategy when Amtrak is handcuffed by public policy and funding? 

2. How can one convince people to support such an strategy beyond just talking about it?

3. How do you "win" the public's support for such investments?

 

[Anonymous]

alphas, in most markets long distance coach seats are very cheap compared to flying, but of course times are longer. For the trips we take, a Roomette for two is cost competitive with flying, and more convenient given the locations of airports relative to our destinations. Full bedroms are quite expensive, more than we can usually afford but Amtrak still manages to sell 'em, so somebody must find value in them. 

We find for us that trains are best suited for trips in the 500-1200 mile range. Anything farther and it is easier to fly. Anything shorter and it is cheaper and easier to drive. Trips in that range do take longer than flying, sure, but the time is not excessive, usually taking 1 to 1.5 days. Indeed, the average trip length on a long distance train is in the 800-1000 mile range, depending on the route (east-west trains tend to have longer average trip lengths than north-south trains). So I guess that makes us pretty average people. 

I can't find the figures at hand, but I recall reading at the Bureau of Transportation Statistics website that more than half of all trips in the 500-750 mile range are taken on the ground, while just under half of all trips in the 750-1000 mile range are also done on the ground-usualy by car which is the slowest method when you consider overnight stops. So clearly, for about half of the population, time is of less concern than other factors in that distance range. Thus I see a fair amount of potential to attract more rail riders for trips in these markets. 

I would add that corridor trains aren't the magic bullet they are reputed to be. Their cost recovery ratios are actually lower than most long distance trains (generally about 45-50% vs 60-65%).

But I believe there is a place for both long distance and corridor trains. Rather than taking away from each other each complements the  other through interconectivity, bringing in more riders collectively than either would alone.

[alphas]

One other problem with LD passenger trains is cost.    Coach class isn't that cheap and sleeper service is certainly not cheap.   Example: wife and I flew round-trip from central PA to Ft. Lauderdale earlier this month for $684 total.  Timewise, we left the house at 7:05 AM, flew jet commuter to Philly leaving at 7:55 (only took 15 minutes to go through ticketing and baggage & personal securityat our commuter airport where we were the only plane leaving/arriving between 7:20 and 8:15), had an hour and 40 minute layover at Philly where we got a good breakfast--airport food has really improved in recent years--and arrived at Ft. Lauderdale at 1:06 PM.  35 minutes later we had our luggage and, thanks to Emerald Isle membership, were on our way to the FL Keys.  

[oltmannd]

I think we may be missing the boat, but consider this:

1. Airlines flying DC3s and two lane US highways are what knocked the stuffing out of long distance train travel as the primary mode of travel in the early 1950s.  Now the competition is 737s and an intestate highway network.

And therein lies the problem. But not the way you might think. The problem is that passenger rail technology in this country hasn't really changed much since the days of DC3s and two lane  highways. Newer technologies exist, we just aren't using them.

Why? By the 1950s new technoloties for all modes of transportation were emerging. Public funding went into highways and airports. But since the railroads were traditionally self sufficient they were left out  of the public funding trough. This was not a conspiracy so much as mere neglect. Many railroads wanted to invest  in new passenger technology to stay competitive, but they didn't have the capital. They certainly couldn't compete against the government on funding, so they lost business to highways and airlines. So they turned their passenger operations over to the government, the competition, with predictable results.

It's interesting to note that the gov'ts "too little - too late" investment in Metroliners was pretty successful.  Imagine if it was 10 years earlier....

I think that if we had devleoped (or will develop) a network of short haul, higher speed corridors, the whole argument over LD trains would just fade into the background. 

[AmtrakRider]

Here's an interesting idea.  Enterprise says they have an office within 15 miles of 90% of the population - and they pick up and deliver.  Why wouldn't Amtrak partner with them to provide a car on arrival at just about any train station?  Make your car reservation thru the Amtrak web site, etc.

As a case in point, this summer I rode Greyhound to Caspar, WY (unfortunately, no longer any passenger train service out there ), where I was due to pick up a car.  I chose Enterprise, and their people picked me up at the bus station and took me to complete my paperwork.  Their office was closed on my return, but I was still able to drop off the car at the office and catch a shuttle back to the bus station - and this was in po'didly Caspar. 

An integrated service like this, properly advertised, could go a long way in making train travel more accessible and therefore more feasible.  I did my bookings myself, but Amtrak could easily link passengers to a car service online or add directions to/from airports as part of their internet service.

[Anonymous]

I think we may be missing the boat, but consider this:

1. Airlines flying DC3s and two lane US highways are what knocked the stuffing out of long distance train travel as the primary mode of travel in the early 1950s.  Now the competition is 737s and an intestate highway network.

And therein lies the problem. But not the way you might think. The problem is that passenger rail technology in this country hasn't really changed much since the days of DC3s and two lane  highways. Newer technologies exist, we just aren't using them.

Why? By the 1950s new technoloties for all modes of transportation were emerging. Public funding went into highways and airports. But since the railroads were traditionally self sufficient they were left out  of the public funding trough. This was not a conspiracy so much as mere neglect. Many railroads wanted to invest  in new passenger technology to stay competitive, but they didn't have the capital. They certainly couldn't compete against the government on funding, so they lost business to highways and airlines. So they turned their passenger operations over to the government, the competition, with predictable results.

[oltmannd]

Flying to Richmond?  I'd figure 1 hour to drive, park and get to terminal, 2 hours for security and checkin, 1:30 in the plane (of which about 40 minutes is actually flying), 30 minutes to get baggage and 30 minute to get seated in car rental.  That's 5 - 1/2 hours for a 350 mile trip.  Avg speed = 64 mph.  And, no decent chunks of uninterrupted time to read a book or take a nap.  Whoopee. 

A couple of minor flaws in your logic.  Amtrak doesn't service my street in my town -- it takes as long to get to Amtrak as Newark's Liberty Airport.   .  Both require parking and getting to the "terminal" -- so that's a wash either way. 

Also, with very few exceptions (holidays or certain bizzarre airports) its a myth that security takes two hours.  I use EWR regularly and I arrive in the parking lot one hour before flight time and end up waiting at the gate for them to call boarding. 

When I use NEC at NWK, I am at the parking lot about 30 minutes prior to train time to allow for walking thru concourse, finding proper platform (maybe I'm the only one that needs this much time to board a train - go figure), getting tickets at the ticket machine, etc.  So a thirty minute victory for Amtrak (which I love and use as often as possible).

Baggage is baggage -- I check bags once or twice out of every thirty-fourty flights so that's a wash.  And I'll even consider the rental car to be a wash (even though airports make it much easier to get to the car than most train stations.)

In reality, it IS a big difference -- I love trains, but I love my family more -- if I can get home a little quicker, I'd rather spend time with them. 

I do appreciate your comments and fervent support of using Amtrak. 

Paul F.

Newark must be a whole lot better than Phila, SF, Denver, Las Vegas or Atlanta!  In Atlanta, from an off-site lot to the gate will take you an hour even if there is no TSA line.....and from the gate to putting your rear end in a rental car is about the same.  In Atlanta, the break even point for fly/drive is around 300 miles

I flew out of Newark years ago...on People Express (remember them?) 

Not so sure "baggage is baggage".  A carry-on is a lot easier to deal with on train than a plane - wider aisles, more storage space - and the distance a checked bag has to move in a train station is typically a few hundred feet, not more than a mile.  I haven't gotten a bag in less than 30 minutes at any airport anywhere in the past couple of years.  Amtrak checked bags are typically available 5 or ten minutes after train arrival most places.

[f14aplusfl]

I would love to see more use of our rail network.  I use ACELA whenever I can.  I take regional service to Baltimore for meetings.  I just don't know how a business person in Denver, Dallas, San Fransisco, Portland (ie. outside the NEC) can make Amtrak work for business.  Also, while I'd love to use Amtrak to visit Florida or the Grand Canyon, I just don't see the practicality when my time is precious and flying gets me there so much faster at about the same cost (including transfers and door step to door step analysis.)

Yeah they probably could make a killing if they had Disney meet and greet the train too. Just think of all the tourists going to Disney World alone. But on getting from the northeast to Florida, just look at arguably the flagship for that regional travel, the Auto-Train. Might need to have a little talk with CSX about that!

[paulsafety]

Flying to Richmond?  I'd figure 1 hour to drive, park and get to terminal, 2 hours for security and checkin, 1:30 in the plane (of which about 40 minutes is actually flying), 30 minutes to get baggage and 30 minute to get seated in car rental.  That's 5 - 1/2 hours for a 350 mile trip.  Avg speed = 64 mph.  And, no decent chunks of uninterrupted time to read a book or take a nap.  Whoopee. 

A couple of minor flaws in your logic.  Amtrak doesn't service my street in my town -- it takes as long to get to Amtrak as Newark's Liberty Airport.  Both require parking and getting to the "terminal" -- so that's a wash either way. 

Also, with very few exceptions (holidays or certain bizzarre airports) its a myth that security takes two hours.  I use EWR regularly and I arrive in the parking lot one hour before flight time and end up waiting at the gate for them to call boarding. 

When I use NEC at NWK, I am at the parking lot about 30 minutes prior to train time to allow for walking thru concourse, finding proper platform (maybe I'm the only one that needs this much time to board a train - go figure), getting tickets at the ticket machine, etc.  So a thirty minute victory for Amtrak (which I love and use as often as possible).

Baggage is baggage -- I check bags once or twice out of every thirty-fourty flights so that's a wash.  And I'll even consider the rental car to be a wash (even though airports make it much easier to get to the car than most train stations.)

In reality, it IS a big difference -- I love trains, but I love my family more -- if I can get home a little quicker, I'd rather spend time with them. 

I do appreciate your comments and fervent support of using Amtrak. 

Paul F.