Here's an opinion about McCain http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/vernon/080128
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
I think Weyrich is anti-McCain because McCain has been an outspoken Amtrak critic and is not a dyed-in-the-wool, true blue conservative, so he has two strikes against him.
Can't find much of on the others. Obama seems to be "for", Clinton, too, but her hubby said lots of wonderful things in 1992 and delivered exactly zilch. Romney is a complete mystery. All I can find is that "he'd have an open mind."
The only real, true, pro-passenger rail candidates in recent history that I can think of are Dukakis and Thompson.
In the end, I don't think it will matter which of these 4 gets elected. There is too much Senate and House support for the LD trains for even McCain to do much, except to whack his favorite punching bag - the Sunset (and no, the savings won't go for corridor development). The Dems will spend too much on healthcare et. al. for there to be enough in the coffers to do anything more than limp on with a status-quo Amtrak.
It's interesting to me that McCain has the endorsement of Tom Kean, the almost liberal Republican ex-gov of NJ who spent like a drunken sailor on NJT! I guess there's more to an endorsement than transportation policy....
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
30 years and counting with one president after another.
No it does not matter. I think that passenger era ended with the Truman Presidency.
The Presidential candidates = Ringling Bros. Barnum & Bailey....without the circus.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACD wrote: The Presidential candidates = Ringling Bros. Barnum & Bailey....without the circus.
... or the train!
motard98 wrote:McCain will be the next president IMO and that's a good thing
What momentum? The Democrats demonstrated a failure in Congress all of 2007 to pass the 14 or so most necessary budget bills that is required to run the Government. Oh no, no momentum here except for a last minute omnibus bill.
As thier body language indicated looks like after the State of Union speech, they intend to sit on thier behinds until Bush is out of there in 2009.
I say Huckabee will do it but I do concede that he has a long shot. We already put up our votes in the early elections last week.
The way things are going, I think it will be GOOD that Hillary and company can run this USA and finish our downward spiral.
Here is one example:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080203/ap_on_el_pr/campaign_rdp_33
That will increase the unemployment because the only defense against Garnishment is quitting your work. (That I know of and was a Garnisher once long ago until we wrote it off)
So much for freedom of choice.
Another thing to consider is that Spouse is a Vet and only goes to the VA for medical care of any kind when necessary, we dont even participate in health care such as it is hardly at all.
The State of Arizona's economy has been the beneficiary of rail tourism for over 100 years, from the old AT&SF and SP to Amtrak today.
The state understands the dollar impact of passenger rail, even if their senior US senator does not.
Why keep on lookin' to east? Governors and state legislatures are getting more done close to home. They are better atuned to what the political market will bear when it comes to taxing for services.
Most of the activity regarding passenger rail is coming from the states. Some states are even working in concert on interstate projects. Let the 50 laboratories of government see what works and what does not.
Amtrak needs to remain as a national system. It should remain as a skeleton bringing the various pieces together. As the flesh grows, so will demand to strengthen the tie that binds.
Thus far I have seen only one news organization even ask the candidates about their positions on transportation. That one being the the St. Paul Pioneer Press, and their curiousity might have had something to do with a highly publicized bridge incident in their neighborhood.
Each of the candidates responded to their question, but only one, Obama, mentioned rail. The paper said he would "support the development of high-speed rail networks across the country."
I think transportation in general is not getting the attention it deserves in this or any campaign. After all, transportation affects so many other things, including energy, the environment, economics, land use, national security, mobility and quality of life. And given that in the last year we've seen a major bridge collapse, airline passengers stranded for hours on planes going nowhere without food or functioning toilets, an Amtrak train stranded on Donner Pass and another that can't cross the Cascades for at least a month, you'd think that transportation would be getting more attention in this campaign.
Thanks to lattasnip9 for bringing up this topic. What I can say is that, yes, McCain hates Amtrak. This is enough of a reason for me NOT to vote for him (I haven't decided yet whether to support a Democrat candidate or to vote against all of them for different reasons). However, it is important to remember that the U.S. President does not have an absolute power. As mentioned above, Congress has much more power over Amtrak issues than President does. Of course, if President is supportive, it is easier for Congress to come up with various pro-Amtrak legislations. But even if President is anti-rail, he can't just block an appropriations bill for this reason only. That would be politically irresponsible. President can threaten to veto a nice authorization or any other kind of a bill specifically addressed to Amtrak if he does not like it - that's why it's better to have a pro-rail President who would not do that. But, you know something, Congress has power to override a veto - if the bill is supported by a significant majority of both houses (I don't remember what's the minimum percentage qualifying for that). But, as far as annual appropriations is concerned, the Congressional support for Amtrak is big enough to provide at least a minimum level needed. Besides, the Bush administration has been proposing inadequate figures every year every year since Bush became president. Three years ago he even proposed a ZERO amount to Amtrak (as Reagan did every year during his second term). But common sense prevails in Congress, and the figure is always raised to what Amtrak needs.
Another important thing to remember is that it's virtually impossible to shut down Amtrak immediately in its present form, since this would cause chaos in the entire Northeast corridor, as well as in some other places where Amtrak shares its stations with commuter rail (e.g. Chicago). During the 2002 crisis, the Bush administration did extend a helping hand to prevent such a shutdown (even McCain offered some encouraging words at that time). Also, the same Bush administration recently helped Amtrak reach an agreement with its unions, thus preventing a strike that would have a similar effect. So you see that proposing an shut-down amount is more a political gesture than a real threat, which may not be taken seriously (as nobody wants a responsibility for a chaos it can cause). President (or any Senator or Congressman) can also propose some kind of an anti-rail legislation, trying to undermine the long-distance trains in particular. But, again, Congress is very unlikely to follow up on it, as there is a lot of support to Amtrak.
However, there is another thing to remember, I believe the most important one. This Congressional support to passenger rail should not be taken for granted. We do have to remind our leigslators that we are interested in having Amtrak as a nationwide system. This is especially important if McCain (or any other anti-rail politician) becomes a President. Of course, even under the most pro-rail President (such as Clinton) it is still important to express our support. After all, highway and aviation lobbies are still very strong. If not for these lobbies, America might possibly have followed Europe and Japan in high-speed rail technology, which is not happening so far. But, with growing gas prices and congestion, this should not last forever. I hope that, sooner or later, we will have real high-speed rail in this country. Meanwhile, it is important to preserve what we have, that is Amtrak with all types of trains it has (including the long-distance ones). So, feel free to write to the legislators to express your support. Moreover, I guess it makes sense to write a letter to McCain's campaign, letting him know that you do support passenger rail and he should better keep this in mind. The mailing address can be found at his website: www.johnmccain.com
So, let's not panic for no reason, but stand up to protect Amtrak!
In addressing the issue, remember that:
An improved Amtrak can improve the USA's energy efficiency and reduce dependence of imported oil. While Amtrak without improvement is only marginally better than highway and/or air, the dislocations resulting from any shutdown would reduce the USA's energy efficiency markedly. (Affecting important commuter rail systems)
A clean face for tourists
Access for parts of the country for the handicapped and elderly and others who cannot fly.
Lifeline communications for some communities witihout other transportation alternative, especially in winter.
Unfortunately, a comprehensive transportation plan leading to an integrated system including roads, rails, waters, and skies is probably beyond the reach of our political system - even if it were on the top of the president's list. Most political leaders seem unable (or unwilling) to understand that our infrastructure is key to our prosperity, but it costs money to develop and maintain. It does not show directly on the balance sheet. But over time if our transportation, education, health care, etc. systems continue to degrade then our competitive edge in the world declines and our standard of living stagnates or declines. In this day of special interest politics/pork barrel politics/no tax politics we are unable to elect a statesman of vision who can enhance this country.
I don't see any of the candidates doing more than tolerating Amtrak. Amtrak is a rememberance from the past - a keepsake - that we'll hang on to until it gets too expensive.
Enjoy it while you can,
Paul
An improved Amtrak can improve the USA's energy efficiency and reduce dependence of imported oil.
The "Vision for the Future" report of the PRWG asks for 350 billion dollars (spread over 40 years) to increase Amtrak from .1 percent of auto passenger miles to 1 percent of auto passenger miles.
This is not contained in the report, but I contacted a State of Wisconsin policy analyst associated with the project about what kind of energy savings can be expected from the proposed trains, and I was quoted a figure of about 1.7 gallons per mile for a single locomotive with eight Amfleet-style train cars, and the train worked out to be about a third of the auto fuel usage.
So spending 350 billion saves 2/3 of one percent of auto fuel usage, where autos are using roughly 50 percent of oil usage. So, an expenditure of 350 billion on trains will have 1/3 of one percent of oil use. I don't think this constitutes a meaningful contribution to reducing the need for imported oil.
I still think that trains could make a meaningful contribution, but people need to go back an sharpen their pencils to devise better plans.
It's possible that at sometime in the future the development of a national transportation policy that includes Amtrak will become a priority in DC. I don't see it happening anytime in the future regardless of who sits in the oval office. With the exception of the NEC and regional services in California, Illinois and maybe North Carolina very few voters ride intercity trains. Face the fact that we are a nation committed to highway and air passenger travel. Those are the transportation modes used by the vast majority and that is where the public wants their tax dollars spent.
Long Distance travel via Amtrak is totally inconsequential and if all the LD trains were dropped overnight their loss would be noted only by railfans and the miniscule number of travelers who actually ride them. The long distance passenger train is merely an expensive anachronism that has hung on this long out of nostalgia rather than necessity. The bigest impediment to meaningful LD rail passenger service is not the federal government but the railroads themselves that see them only as an nuisance that interfers with their bread and butter business of hauling freight.
Corridor service as opposed to long distance is another matter. I think there is increasing interest in corridor services as a result of demonstrated success in the few areas where it has actually been implemented. In the near future at least the impetus for new corridor services is going to come from the various state houses rather than the federal govenment or any one presidential administration.
These are the realities of the here and now and anyone who believes differently is merely engaged in wishful thinking. The oil may be in Texas but the dipsticks are in DC.
Mark
Candidates for the President have not mentioned Amtrak when I have listened to their speeches. It the topic too mundane for the candidates?
If all the wasteful spending for unneeded Air Force parts were immediately cut and that money was transferred to the National Rail Passenger Corporation, Amtrak could be completely renewed for several years to come.
The reason to keep AMTRAK around is high speed commuter rail like the Aclea.
Andrew
Watch my videos on-line at https://www.youtube.com/user/AndrewNeilFalconer
Andrew Falconer wrote: Candidates for the President have not mentioned Amtrak when I have listened to their speeches. It the topic too mundane for the candidates?If all the wasteful spending for unneeded Air Force parts were immediately cut and that money was transferred to the National Rail Passenger Corporation, Amtrak could be completely renewed for several years to come.The reason to keep AMTRAK around is high speed commuter rail like the Aclea. Andrew
You dont cut anything Military.
Lives are lost because of budget cuts.
The Aclea is nothing more than a compromise and a attempt to overcome exisiting problems in that rusted, wore out and unmaintained corridor.
The report on CBS showed millions of dollars of unneeded Air Force parts and many more on order that are no longer needed. If the contractors need to build something, why not build something advanced for AMTRAK.
Big cities in the Northeast like New York and Boston are apparently condemned and they need to be torn down, that is why projects like the Aclea will never work.
Here is the story on CBS news about how Air Force department heads end up over ordering just to show they can spend money and spend $19 Billion without the President or the Congress watching closely.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/12/21/eveningnews/main3640606.shtml
Meanwhile the $11 Billion Dollars over 6 years budget for Amtrak has to go through the House, the Senate, and the President before being approved.
What makes AMTRAK a boring topic for the Presidential Candidates? There have been no terrorist attacks on AMTRAK trains.
Presidential Candidates have taken trains when were giving speeches even in the last 3 three elections. Unfortunately, most of those were expensive private trains for security purposes. They should have to ride on all the all the major types of Amtrak trains at least once during the election and again while in office so they have a perspective on the service provided.
Face the fact that we are a nation committed to highway and air passenger travel.
The nation is not "committed". The highway and aviation lobby is. In fact, public DOES want trains. That's what helps preserving them.
Long Distance travel via Amtrak is totally inconsequential and if all the LD trains were dropped overnight their loss would be noted only by railfans and the miniscule number of travelers who actually ride them.
This is false! Did you ever ride any of the Amtrak's LD trains? If you did, you would notice that they are usually filled and are often sold out. If these trains were shut down "overnignt", the impact would be felt by MILLIOINS of VOTERS in remote communities where airline services are either unavailiable or unaffordable. Besides, what about those people who cannot drive? You may argue that intercity bus is the most efficient way of travel, but it is not. That's what is standing behind the political force supporting Amtrak in general and long-distance trains in particular! Nationwide rail system (presently represented by Amtrak) is not an anachronism. It's a necessary national asset.
abenm613 wrote:Quote:"Face the fact that we are a nation committed to highway and air passenger travel." The nation is not "committed". The highway and aviation lobby is. In fact, public DOES want trains. That's what helps preserving them. Quote: "Long Distance travel via Amtrak is totally inconsequential and if all the LD trains were dropped overnight their loss would be noted only by railfans and the miniscule number of travelers who actually ride them." This is false! Did you ever ride any of the Amtrak's LD trains? If you did, you would notice that they are usually filled and are often sold out. If these trains were shut down "overnignt", the impact would be felt by MILLIOINS of VOTERS in remote communities where airline services are either unavailiable or unaffordable. Besides, what about those people who cannot drive? You may argue that intercity bus is the most efficient way of travel, but it is not. That's what is standing behind the political force supporting Amtrak in general and long-distance trains in particular! Nationwide rail system (presently represented by Amtrak) is not an anachronism. It's a necessary national asset.
Quote:"Face the fact that we are a nation committed to highway and air passenger travel."
Quote: "Long Distance travel via Amtrak is totally inconsequential and if all the LD trains were dropped overnight their loss would be noted only by railfans and the miniscule number of travelers who actually ride them."
daveklepper wrote: Access for parts of the country for the handicapped and elderly and others who cannot fly.
Proponents of long distance passenger trains argue frequently that they are necessary for people who are handicapped, ill, unable to fly and unwilling to take a motor coach.
If this premise is sound, then it is incumbent on the government to run long distance passenger trains to every town and village in the country. Just serving those along the current routes leaves out the greater part of the population.
Amtrak relies on buses for numerous connections. Why are buses, which presumably are used by the handicapped, ill, etc., okay to connect with the train but not as replacements for the long distance trains that are used by a tiny percentage of the traveling public.
cprted wrote: abenm613 wrote: KCSfan wrote:Face the fact that we are a nation committed to highway and air passenger travelThe nation is not "committed". The highway and aviation lobby is. In fact, public DOES want trains. That's what helps preserving them. KCSfan wrote:Long Distance travel via Amtrak is totally inconsequential and if all the LD trains were dropped overnight their loss would be noted only by railfans and the miniscule number of travelers who actually ride them.This is false! Did you ever ride any of the Amtrak's LD trains? If you did, you would notice that they are usually filled and are often sold out. If these trains were shut down "overnignt", the impact would be felt by MILLIONS of VOTERS in remote communities where airline services are either unavailiable or unaffordable. Besides, what about those people who cannot drive? You may argue that intercity bus is the most efficient way of travel, but it is not. That's what is standing behind the political force supporting Amtrak in general and long-distance trains in particular! Nationwide rail system (presently represented by Amtrak) is not an anachronism. It's a necessary national asset.You're BSing yourself. LD rail travel is not an integral component of the national transportation infrastructure. Yes, remote communities are hit hardest by passenger rail closures, but the thing about remote communities is, not very many people live there. Selling out a daily train that carries 200-400 people is inconsequential. If you want to look at a passenger rail network that actual moves people, look across the Atlantic. You'll notice busy railway stations like the main terminal in Frankfurt Germany typically handles 70-85 departures per hour through the day during the week. Each train is carrying between 150-750 people. There is a rail system which forms the backbone of a continental transportation network.
abenm613 wrote: KCSfan wrote:Face the fact that we are a nation committed to highway and air passenger travelThe nation is not "committed". The highway and aviation lobby is. In fact, public DOES want trains. That's what helps preserving them. KCSfan wrote:Long Distance travel via Amtrak is totally inconsequential and if all the LD trains were dropped overnight their loss would be noted only by railfans and the miniscule number of travelers who actually ride them.This is false! Did you ever ride any of the Amtrak's LD trains? If you did, you would notice that they are usually filled and are often sold out. If these trains were shut down "overnignt", the impact would be felt by MILLIONS of VOTERS in remote communities where airline services are either unavailiable or unaffordable. Besides, what about those people who cannot drive? You may argue that intercity bus is the most efficient way of travel, but it is not. That's what is standing behind the political force supporting Amtrak in general and long-distance trains in particular! Nationwide rail system (presently represented by Amtrak) is not an anachronism. It's a necessary national asset.
KCSfan wrote:Face the fact that we are a nation committed to highway and air passenger travel
KCSfan wrote:Long Distance travel via Amtrak is totally inconsequential and if all the LD trains were dropped overnight their loss would be noted only by railfans and the miniscule number of travelers who actually ride them.
(Then again, I'm pointing this out to someone who called the Camelback locomotive "just silly".)
And I'd like to ask KCSfan, exactly when did the public get to vote on where they want their tax dollars spent? It's not like other countries are not dedicated to road transportation; indeed, the countries that are building high-speed rail networks have had highways long before the USA built its highway network.Furthermore, abenm613's assessment of LD train ridership is correct. More trains translate to more seat-miles and subsequently to more passenger miles.
Paul Milenkovic wrote:The "Vision for the Future" report of the PRWG asks for 350 billion dollars (spread over 40 years) to increase Amtrak from .1 percent of auto passenger miles to 1 percent of auto passenger miles.This is not contained in the report, but I contacted a State of Wisconsin policy analyst associated with the project about what kind of energy savings can be expected from the proposed trains, and I was quoted a figure of about 1.7 gallons per mile for a single locomotive with eight Amfleet-style train cars, and the train worked out to be about a third of the auto fuel usage.So spending 350 billion saves 2/3 of one percent of auto fuel usage, where autos are using roughly 50 percent of oil usage. So, an expenditure of 350 billion on trains will have 1/3 of one percent of oil use. I don't think this constitutes a meaningful contribution to reducing the need for imported oil.I still think that trains could make a meaningful contribution, but people need to go back an sharpen their pencils to devise better plans
Samantha wrote:Proponents of long distance passenger trains argue frequently that they are necessary for people who are handicapped, ill, unable to fly and unwilling to take a motor coach.
MCI likes to brag that they get 148 passenger miles per gallon and that is lower than intercity trains. However, invert that figure and you're burning 0.0068 gallons per passenger mile, which is 190 percent the consumption per passenger mile of the eight-car long-distance train cited above.
Comparing gallons per passenger mile (let's assume eight Amfleet IIs with 59 seats each), you've burned 0.014 gallons per passenger-mile for the plane and 0.0036 gallons per passenger-mile for the train.
This 8-Amfleet 1-locomotive train, the basis for the fuel economy projections of the Vision report, gets 278 seat miles per gallon of #2 Diesel according to numbers we agree on. That corresponds to 250 seat miles per gallon of gasoline equivalent, which is 100 passenger miles per gallon at 40 percent load factor. That load factor may not sound like much, but it is a reasonable assumption given fixed consists, intermediate stops, enough frequency of service at both peak and off-peak times, and so on.
Those 100 passenger miles per gallon still sound like a lot, but it is about equal to what buses achieve in intercity service, although with more cramped seats and fewer amenities. Compare that with the 46 passenger miles per gallon average of the Amtrak system average. Amtrak runs trains with baggage cars, crew dorm, lounge, diner, and in many cases, an 8-car train gets a second locomotive. Many corridor trains have shorter consists and they add heavy, draggy cabbage cars for push-pull operation.
If there are corridor trains getting much more than 46 passenger miles per gallon, that means there must be LD trains getting much less than the average of 46 passenger miles per gallon (cough, Sunset Limited).
My evil plan is to dominate the world by getting mastery over oil consumption. Amtrak is quasi-evil, it is semi-evil, it is the margarine of evil, it is the Diet Coke of evil, only one calorie -- not . . . evil . . . enough.
JT22CW wrote:CPRTED: You're contradicting yourself. First you're saying that long-distance rail travel is not an integral component of national transportation infrastructure, and then you cite a long-distance rail network that is?(Then again, I'm pointing this out to someone who called the Camelback locomotive "just silly".)
cprted wrote: JT22CW wrote:CPRTED: You're contradicting yourself. First you're saying that long-distance rail travel is not an integral component of national transportation infrastructure, and then you cite a long-distance rail network that is?(Then again, I'm pointing this out to someone who called the Camelback locomotive "just silly".) I'm not contradicting myself. My argument is that LD passenger rail travel is not an integral component of the North American transportation network. My European example was to illustrate what a rail network that is integral looks like. Too many people think that North American railways are the pinnacle of everything without knowing what exists elsewhere.Yes, I did call camel-backs silly looking, and they still are.
I have to agree about the European trains. When I was stationed in Heidleburg, Germany, I would just go down to the station and buy a ticket on the next train to Frankfurt. They ran so often I never bothered with schedules and reservations weren't needed. Quite a contrast with Amtrak especially outside the NE corridor.
Of course Camel-backs are silly looking, that's why they are so charming.
Enjoy
Yes, remote communities are hit hardest by passenger rail closures, but the thing about remote communities is, not very many people live there.
Apparently many enough for their Congressmen to fight for the trains serving their areas.
If you want to look at a passenger rail network that actual moves people, look across the Atlantic. You'll notice busy railway stations like the main terminal in Frankfurt Germany typically handles 70-85 departures per hour through the day during the week.
That's true. But the fact that most parts of our country don't have such frequent train services does not mean that the limited number of existing trains are not integral part of the national transportation system. And the reason that we don't have such an extensive network is not because public doesn't want it (as I said before, it does), but because highway and aviation lobbies have done a "good" job. I don't know what you mean by saying that selling out an LD train is 'inconsequential', but the fact remains the fact. The trains are running full. I'm not saying that they are filled by same people for the entire length of the route. But that's exactly the point. A flight from New York to New Orleans serves just these two cities, while Amtrak's "Crescent" serves Charlottsville, Charlotte, Atlanta, Birmingham, and many other smaller locations - all in one run! A Chicago-to-Seattle flight does not stop in Twin Cities or many little places such as Havre MT. But Amtrak's Empire Builder does.
Ideally, there would be nothing wrong with this :) In reality, however, it's impossible for railroads (even in Europe) to cover every little spot. Buses and cars exist everywhere in the world. But for the lucky towns and villages that are located along the major railroad lines, it's noteworthy that many of those locations (e.g. Havre MT) are not even served by Greyhound. Even though Greyhound serves much more locations than Amtrak, it does not go everywhere either. And, as a private company, Greyhound is more market-based. Therefore, Amtrak is critical at least as a public service to the locations that are not served by other transportation providers.
Amtrak relies on buses for numerous connections. Why buses, which presumably are used by the handicapped, ill, etc., are okay to connect with the train but not as replacements for the long distance trains that are used by a tiny percentage of the traveling public.
Again, I never said that buses have no place in transportation system. However, they only make sense for short-distance connection, but not for long-distance overnight travel.
Also, let's look at efficiency of both modes. Let's say an average bus carries 55 passengers and is operated by one driver. It means, seven drivers are needed to carry 385 passengers. To carry the same number of passengers on a train with a same level of service requires only one motorman (okay, let's say two, including an assistant) and, say, two conductors (total of four people). Now, the level of service on most Amtrak trains is significantly higher. Besides the dining and/or cafe cars, as well as the sleepers, which do employ extra staff, look at overall comfort of travel, even in a coach class. I don't remember the last time I saw a running water in a bus lavatory, while train restrooms always have water and soap. And it's much more convenient to relax and read a book on a train than on a bus. Therefore, replacing LD trains with buses would not only be unfair, but also inefficient.
Speaking of the comfort of service vs. "waste" of money, let's face another thing. Do you want America to be totally unattractive and unpleasant to live in, just in exchange of a little less taxes? I wouldn't want that! Europeans don't want that for their countries either. That's why they invest in trains. So should we.
cprted wrote: JT22CW wrote:CPRTED: You're contradicting yourself. First you're saying that long-distance rail travel is not an integral component of national transportation infrastructure, and then you cite a long-distance rail network that is?(Then again, I'm pointing this out to someone who called the Camelback locomotive "just silly".) I'm not contradicting myself. My argument is that LD passenger rail travel is not an integral component of the North American transportation network. My European example was to illustrate what a rail network that is integral looks like
Too many people think that North American railways are the pinnacle of everything without knowing what exists elsewhere
Yes, I did call camel-backs silly looking, and they still are.
JT22CW wrote: cprted wrote: JT22CW wrote:CPRTED: You're contradicting yourself. First you're saying that long-distance rail travel is not an integral component of national transportation infrastructure, and then you cite a long-distance rail network that is?(Then again, I'm pointing this out to someone who called the Camelback locomotive "just silly".) I'm not contradicting myself. My argument is that LD passenger rail travel is not an integral component of the North American transportation network. My European example was to illustrate what a rail network that is integral looks likeApples and oranges comparisons, like I said already, do not work. Nor are they proof of whether a transportation component is "integral" to its particular transportation network.
If people are using it (and they are), then its integrity cannot be questioned.
Yes, I did call camel-backs silly looking, and they still are.If you want to deprecate your own credibility with statements like that, go right ahead. The facts about camelback locomotives will always fly in the face of petty appraisals like that.
I don't think it matters much whether we call LD trains "integral" or not. They move some people (even though it's only a tiny percentage of all intercity travelers), therefore they do have place in our transportation system (although this place is far from being the most major). And, whatever way we put it, these trains are part of national landscape (even in the areas served by one round-trip pair of trains per day).
There is another market, however, that Amtrak does not seem to be serving so much though it should. That is, more long-distance-style overnight trains running over medium distances (about 500 miles). For example, Amtrak currently runs a daily train from New York to Toronto. The trip lasts from about 7am to about 7pm. Yes, people do ride this train. But these people are probably not business travelers. I think Amtrak can easily run another NYC-to-Toronto train departing at 7pm and arriving at 7am - specifically for business-oriented market. If such a train will have sleeping accomodation, large comfortable coach seats, lounge, and diner - all LD amenities - it would undoubtfully attract business people by allowing them to spend a night comfortably en-route without losing productive daytime. The same model can work between New York and Pittsburgh. Private companies do run overnight buses from NY to Toronto, so this approach makes a good sense. I'll probably write a letter to Amtrak's management regarding this idea.
Ya hafta pity the poor republicans, they have a candidate that the very vocal far right elite wing of the party cant stand, but the "other" 70%" of the party continues to vigorously support. I call it the revenge of the moderates. I wouldnt be surprised if the far right runs Huckabee as an independant, and end up Naderize the entire republican vote. Personally I wont mind a McCain presidency, I think he'd be OK. As for Amtrak, is he's a supporter???, and may even have enough vision to try to at least overhaul the system.
Obama/Clinton are two sides of the same coin, we all know Amtrak was well supported under the 1st Clinton administration, that would continue again, but I would hope there would be a concerted serious effort to finally once and for all figure out a cohesive national passenger rail policy, and not the left over policy mess from the 1970's.
Nader this time around will just be a noise in the wind ignored by almost everyone.
Have fun with your trains
abenm613 wrote:I don't think it matters much whether we call LD trains "integral" or not. They move some people (even though it's only a tiny percentage of all intercity travelers), therefore they do have place in our transportation system (although this place is far from being the most major). And, whatever way we put it, these trains are part of national landscape (even in the areas served by one round-trip pair of trains per day).
abenm613 wrote:There is another market, however, that Amtrak does not seem to be serving so much though it should. That is, more long-distance-style overnight trains running over medium distances (about 500 miles). For example, Amtrak currently runs a daily train from New York to Toronto. The trip lasts from about 7am to about 7pm. Yes, people do ride this train. But these people are probably not business travelers. I think Amtrak can easily run another NYC-to-Toronto train departing at 7pm and arriving at 7am - specifically for business-oriented market. If such a train will have sleeping accomodation, large comfortable coach seats, lounge, and diner - all LD amenities - it would undoubtfully attract business people by allowing them to spend a night comfortably en-route without losing productive daytime. The same model can work between New York and Pittsburgh. Private companies do run overnight buses from NY to Toronto, so this approach makes a good sense. I'll probably write a letter to Amtrak's management regarding this idea.
abenm613 wrote: I don't think it matters much whether we call LD trains "integral" or not. They move some people (even though it's only a tiny percentage of all intercity travelers), therefore they do have place in our transportation system (although this place is far from being the most major). And, whatever way we put it, these trains are part of national landscape (even in the areas served by one round-trip pair of trains per day).There is another market, however, that Amtrak does not seem to be serving so much though it should. That is, more long-distance-style overnight trains running over medium distances (about 500 miles). For example, Amtrak currently runs a daily train from New York to Toronto. The trip lasts from about 7am to about 7pm. Yes, people do ride this train. But these people are probably not business travelers. I think Amtrak can easily run another NYC-to-Toronto train departing at 7pm and arriving at 7am - specifically for business-oriented market. If such a train will have sleeping accomodation, large comfortable coach seats, lounge, and diner - all LD amenities - it would undoubtfully attract business people by allowing them to spend a night comfortably en-route without losing productive daytime. The same model can work between New York and Pittsburgh. Private companies do run overnight buses from NY to Toronto, so this approach makes a good sense. I'll probably write a letter to Amtrak's management regarding this idea.
I'm not sure that the overnight business traveller is a good target market for Amtrak. This business was lost to air and auto in the early 50s and improvements in speed, comfort and cost in air and auto travel since then have probably worsened the competitiveness for rail - which has no better speed and no better cost structure than it did in the early 50s. The "last stand" was the Night Owl.
There was at least ONE business traveller who used the Maple Leaf a couple of times...me! I used it at twice to get from Phila to London, ON, to visit EMD, back when Conrail would "ban" flying in order to try to cut back on travel expense as the year end approached. Had to take a 5-something train out of 30th St to make connection at Penn and then hope and pray that we'd make the Aldershot connection to the Via train (we did). The back up plan was to continue to Toronto and catch a morning train to London.
The flying ban also worked to my advantage making a round trip to Tampa to visit CSX.
oltmannd wrote: abenm613 wrote: I don't think it matters much whether we call LD trains "integral" or not. They move some people (even though it's only a tiny percentage of all intercity travelers), therefore they do have place in our transportation system (although this place is far from being the most major). And, whatever way we put it, these trains are part of national landscape (even in the areas served by one round-trip pair of trains per day).There is another market, however, that Amtrak does not seem to be serving so much though it should. That is, more long-distance-style overnight trains running over medium distances (about 500 miles). For example, Amtrak currently runs a daily train from New York to Toronto. The trip lasts from about 7am to about 7pm. Yes, people do ride this train. But these people are probably not business travelers. I think Amtrak can easily run another NYC-to-Toronto train departing at 7pm and arriving at 7am - specifically for business-oriented market. If such a train will have sleeping accomodation, large comfortable coach seats, lounge, and diner - all LD amenities - it would undoubtfully attract business people by allowing them to spend a night comfortably en-route without losing productive daytime. The same model can work between New York and Pittsburgh. Private companies do run overnight buses from NY to Toronto, so this approach makes a good sense. I'll probably write a letter to Amtrak's management regarding this idea.I'm not sure that the overnight business traveller is a good target market for Amtrak. This business was lost to air and auto in the early 50s and improvements in speed, comfort and cost in air and auto travel since then have probably worsened the competitiveness for rail - which has no better speed and no better cost structure than it did in the early 50s. The "last stand" was the Night Owl.There was at least ONE business traveller who used the Maple Leaf a couple of times...me! I used it at twice to get from Phila to London, ON, to visit EMD, back when Conrail would "ban" flying in order to try to cut back on travel expense as the year end approached. Had to take a 5-something train out of 30th St to make connection at Penn and then hope and pray that we'd make the Aldershot connection to the Via train (we did). The back up plan was to continue to Toronto and catch a morning train to London.The flying ban also worked to my advantage making a round trip to Tampa to visit CSX.
As a frequent overnight business traveler (200 or so out-of-town nights last year) and certifiable train nut, the chances for me of an overnight train being a better choice than flying I think is highly limited. I can't take the risk of being late, and the nice thing about flying is that if the weather looks bad enough that the flight might be cancelled there's lots of time to come up with a Plan B -- fly to another city and rent a car for the last leg, rent a car and drive altogether, or just cancel the meeting and substitute something else that's productive. My total time committed to the transportation system is small with an airplane, whereas once I get on the train, I'm committed for a long time, and who knows if wherever the train might fall down there will be good cell phone service. There's a great deal of the hinterland where cell phone service is extremely poor. Air travel over 500-1500 mile legs is quite flexible whereas train travel is not.
Daytime corridor trips in the 100-300 mile range are often a good choice for business travel and I use them as often as I can.
If we had a huge, extensively networked, multiple-daily-departure, comprehensive rail passenger system, overnight trains would start to become viable for business travel for departures after 1800 and arrivals by 0600. But schedule-keeping would have to be in the 99% or better range (up to one hour late is OK) to match my experience with airlines. Out of 300-odd flights in the last two years, almost all of them two-leg and some three-leg, I have never had the airline cause me to miss a meeting.
RWM
Railway Man wrote: oltmannd wrote: abenm613 wrote: I don't think it matters much whether we call LD trains "integral" or not. They move some people (even though it's only a tiny percentage of all intercity travelers), therefore they do have place in our transportation system (although this place is far from being the most major). And, whatever way we put it, these trains are part of national landscape (even in the areas served by one round-trip pair of trains per day).There is another market, however, that Amtrak does not seem to be serving so much though it should. That is, more long-distance-style overnight trains running over medium distances (about 500 miles). For example, Amtrak currently runs a daily train from New York to Toronto. The trip lasts from about 7am to about 7pm. Yes, people do ride this train. But these people are probably not business travelers. I think Amtrak can easily run another NYC-to-Toronto train departing at 7pm and arriving at 7am - specifically for business-oriented market. If such a train will have sleeping accomodation, large comfortable coach seats, lounge, and diner - all LD amenities - it would undoubtfully attract business people by allowing them to spend a night comfortably en-route without losing productive daytime. The same model can work between New York and Pittsburgh. Private companies do run overnight buses from NY to Toronto, so this approach makes a good sense. I'll probably write a letter to Amtrak's management regarding this idea.I'm not sure that the overnight business traveller is a good target market for Amtrak. This business was lost to air and auto in the early 50s and improvements in speed, comfort and cost in air and auto travel since then have probably worsened the competitiveness for rail - which has no better speed and no better cost structure than it did in the early 50s. The "last stand" was the Night Owl.There was at least ONE business traveller who used the Maple Leaf a couple of times...me! I used it at twice to get from Phila to London, ON, to visit EMD, back when Conrail would "ban" flying in order to try to cut back on travel expense as the year end approached. Had to take a 5-something train out of 30th St to make connection at Penn and then hope and pray that we'd make the Aldershot connection to the Via train (we did). The back up plan was to continue to Toronto and catch a morning train to London.The flying ban also worked to my advantage making a round trip to Tampa to visit CSX.As a frequent overnight business traveler (200 or so out-of-town nights last year) and certifiable train nut, the chances for me of an overnight train being a better choice than flying I think is highly limited. I can't take the risk of being late, and the nice thing about flying is that if the weather looks bad enough that the flight might be cancelled there's lots of time to come up with a Plan B -- fly to another city and rent a car for the last leg, rent a car and drive altogether, or just cancel the meeting and substitute something else that's productive. My total time committed to the transportation system is small with an airplane, whereas once I get on the train, I'm committed for a long time, and who knows if wherever the train might fall down there will be good cell phone service. There's a great deal of the hinterland where cell phone service is extremely poor. Air travel over 500-1500 mile legs is quite flexible whereas train travel is not.Daytime corridor trips in the 100-300 mile range are often a good choice for business travel and I use them as often as I can.If we had a huge, extensively networked, multiple-daily-departure, comprehensive rail passenger system, overnight trains would start to become viable for business travel for departures after 1800 and arrivals by 0600. But schedule-keeping would have to be in the 99% or better range (up to one hour late is OK) to match my experience with airlines. Out of 300-odd flights in the last two years, almost all of them two-leg and some three-leg, I have never had the airline cause me to miss a meeting. RWM
I was quite lucky to be able to afford a whole day down to Tampa and then a whole day back. I took a laptop with me to do some tedious document work (converting loco specs from mainframe word processor to PC-based word processor). (this was in the day before air-cards, et. al.)
I would occasionally risk taking the Broadway or Lake Shore to Chicago for meetings. Timekeeping back then on Conrail made arrivals >1 hour late a fairly rare event. Would also use Lake Shore to Erie on occasion. 5AM arrival gave good cushion for morning meetings - I would just walk up to the Holiday Inn a couple of blocks away and have breakfast.
Once took the day off and flew to Chicago in the AM. Railfanned Roosevelt Rd then took SW Chief to KC for a couple of days of meetings there. Overall fare was equivalent to flying, so I got no flack on expenses.
The other thing beginning to happen here in Australia is that for the first time, there is talks about options for airport expansion in Sydney (the Sydney-Melbourne corridor is the third busiest air corridor in the world, at about 600 miles long). One of the options that has reared its head is the option of using high speed trains to link Sydney, Canberra (the national capital) and Melbourne, thus allowing Sydney airport to dedicate more of its capacity to the international routes and the other domestic routes.
Since the new airport was going to cost multiple billions of dollars, that same money could go on to develop the high speed rail system, which not only benefits Sydney, but also Canberra and Melbourne as well. By using short-to-medium haul high speed trains to replace those aircraft, thus freeing up slots at major airports, minimises the need for expansion or duplication of those facilities, generally at a cost that would pay for the whole of Amtrak for a couple of years at least. Multiply that by the number of new or expanded airports underway or in the planning stage (of which a lot of this is to service those short-to-medium haul corridors), and you have quite a fund there to implement a high speed train service from centre to centre.
In this case, the trains act as part of an integrated transport solution, in a capacity that they are quite well suited to. There is no need for the high speed trains to service the intermediate towns, etc, since the planes do not either. The trains will serve as a bulk mover of people (as the airlines do) between the endpoints and very selected mid-points.
abenm613 wrote:Well, the distance between Providence to Boston, or Washington to Richmond, is too trivial to bother with overnight service. New York to Boston (or New York to Washington) may be considered, but, again, it's short enough to save a day not only with high-speed service, but with a regular four-hour daytime trip. What I said makes sense for travel more than six-hours long. In fact, there is one train running through the entire NEC overnight. Although the stop in New York is not at passenger-friendly hour, passenger traveling the entire length of the route (Richmond to Boston) probably benefit from this service.
In the relatively recent past, they used to drop a sleeper in NY and let passengers occupy it until morning. I don't think they got too many takers as the 1st Metroliner in the AM would get you there in time for a 9AM meeting in the city.
Personally I wont mind a McCain presidency, I think he'd be OK. As for Amtrak he's a supporter, and may even have enough vision to try to expand or at least overhaul the system.
Hmm, I wish this was true. But his rhetorics so far has shown the opposite. Surely, he doesn't mind "overhauling" Amtrak. The only problem that it means different things to different people. Actually, he did come up with some positive actions once in a while. Shortly after 9-11, McCain introduced some kind of a security bill that would specifically provide funds to protect Amtrak from "railroad terrorists". Also, during the 2002 crisis he offered an encouraging word that we must do everything possible to prevent a shutdown. But, as far as supporting some nice pro-Amtrak legislation, it seems that under McCain it would be much harder to make it through than, say, under Clinton or Obama. But you never know... Maybe McCain as a President would treat Amtrak more favorable than McCain as a Senator. I hope so... But the anti-Amtrak reputation that he has made so far does not make him look as a big supporter of passenger rail. Therefore, it is imperative to let him know that we are interested in having Amtrak. It is also imperative to keep our legislators aware that Amtrak is important to us.
I'm not sure that the overnight business traveller is a good target market for Amtrak. This business was lost to air and auto in the early 50s and improvements in speed, comfort and cost in air and auto travel since then have probably worsened the competitiveness for rail - which has no better speed and no better cost structure than it did in the early 50s.
First of all, traveling 500 miles by car, especially for one person, is currently much more expensive than traveling by train. I guess, flying from New York to Toronto, Montreal, or Pittsburgh, is unlikely to be cheaper than traveling by train. The only reason I hear from business travelers who prefer to fly over these distances is that it saves them a day. Now, if overnight service was available, it would have its market. That's why I'm saying that Amtrak has to work in this direction. Trains are already competing with planes within the Northeast Corridor. If more overnight trains with LD-style amenities become available for distances of 500-600 miles, these trains would very well compete with planes, too. The point here is to serve as many business travelers as possible. Of course, true long-distance trains (over 800 miles) are not meant to compete with aviation - they have rather different purpose. Planes provide fast point-to-point transcontinental service, while trains serve numerous locations along the way, where airline service is not available. By the way, since this thread is about presidential candidates (or rather about politics in general), I'm curious where most of you guys live and who your legislators are. I live in New York, and my address is represented by Congressman Nadler. I still have to find out if he is pro-rail. Of course, both NY Senators are pro-rail (and, if Hillary does become President, her substitute is likely to be pro-rail, too). If you find out that your legislatiors don't like Amtrak, please takes special care to make them aware that you don't share their view.
abenm613:
There is no market to speak of anymore for overnight business travel by train in the US. That's why that service disappeared in the first place. I very much doubt that one could be re-established. Overnight travel by coach is more of a possibility but bus service tends to have control of that market due to ticket prices.
PA years ago looked into an overnight train between Philly/NYC and Pittsburgh to complement the then 2 day trips but determined that it wasn't feasible. Then Amtrak years later dropped the Chicago/Pittsburgh/Philadelphia/NYC service because of low passenger volume past Pittsburgh and Gov. Rendell wouldn't come up with $2M Amtrak requested annually to fund theHarrisburg-Pittsburgh leg of it. (Not all Democrats are Amtrak friendly.) A few lawmakers, mainly Republicans representing intermediate stops in the western half of the state that aren't on or near the turnpike, objected but it wasn't enough. You also have to keep in mind that NYC to Pittsburgh doesn't resonate in Harrisburg, but Philadelphia to Pittsburgh does. And Phily to Pittsburgh is only 308 miles by turnpike so the express buses can make it in 5 hours unless they stop in Harrisburgh.
I've driven from the Valley Forge turnpike exit, main exit to/from Philly coming from/going to the west and about 20 miles from downtown Philly (for those who don't know), to downtown Pittsburgh in about 4 hours and 15 minutes, including a brief rest stop on the way. Driving was definitely cheaper by far than taking a train--about $38 for gas and toll each way the last time I did it, probably about $45 today, and with EZay Pass I didn't even have to stop at the toll booths. Add another $3 if you were coming from downtown Philly. In other words, I doubt that its currently cheaper to take the train than have one person in a car driving 300 miles, even considering indirect costs. Especially if Amtrak's subsidy is added in to the actual ticket cost.
oltmannd wrote:I'm not sure that the overnight business traveller is a good target market for Amtrak. This business was lost to air and auto in the early 50s and improvements in speed, comfort and cost in air and auto travel since then have probably worsened the competitiveness for rail - which has no better speed and no better cost structure than it did in the early 50s. The "last stand" was the Night Owl
U.S. is not different from any other country in terms of travel preference. Whether a person travels from New York to Toronto, or Berlin to Madrid, or New Delhi to Mumbay, or Minsk to Moscow, a convenient way of travel is always what it is - a convenient way of travel. Intercity buses can never compete with trains by comfort. Whoever claims otherwise has either never ridden a passenger train, or simply doesn't know what s/he is talking about. It's a good question why business-oriented overnight medium-distance train services in this country have been phased out for the most part. But it was probably NOT due to a lack of demand. In general, the reason why passenger rail in the U.S. is inferior to its foreign counterparts has nothing to do with demand. The problem is unwillingness of the government to share as much of the cost of train travel as it does with other modes. Also, it can simply be something Amtrak management overlooks. Nobody says Amtrak is perfect. They do make mistakes. Another change Amtrak should implement, I believe, is to make the New York-Miami and New York-New Orleans long-distance trains open to passengers who travel within the Northeast Corridor. Currently, a train can be running 80% emply from NYC to Philadelphia, then about 50% empty to DC, until it finally fills up. On the way back, a train can unload a good deal of its passengers in DC and Philadelphia and arrive in New York with just about 20% of its capacity. Allowing NE-corridor passengers to ride these trains can save Amtrak a lot of money!
I think it is a lack of demand because isn't it that the lack of passengers in the late 60's and early 70's caused the railraods to want to give up their passenger service because it wasn't making a profit?
Also, I have no mean to be a jerk but this discussion has come a long way from the initial question regarding presidential candidates.
No, it was not the lack of demand. Or, in a way it was, if you consider the availability of "cheap" airfares. I put "cheap" in quotation mark as because nothing is really cheap or free. Private railroads owned and maintained their own right-of-way, which was not the case with airlines (they didn't own airports and, therefore, had relatively low capital expenses). With no other modes available, and no subsidies provided to any kind of transportation service whatsoever, private railroads had no problem paying for themselves. As publicly funded airports started coming up, which made it possible for commercial airlines to offer low fares, the unfunded railroads were unable to withstand this unfair competition, and, even though demand still existed, it was not sufficient for the railroad companies to make profit (or even to cover the expenses). At least theoretically, the problem could have been solved by establishing some kind of a trust fund, or any other major funding program, for railroads. I don't know if any such proposal ever came up at that time. But establishing Amtrak was a compromise, which, as some people thought, would not require subsidies for more than three years. But it's a fantasy! It's simply impossible to run a public transportation system (railroad in particular) without adequate funding. The fact that Amtrak keeps running for already a fourth decade is largely due to the fact that demand still exists. And even though this demand cannot be expected to make Amtrak "profitable", this demand does result in growing political support to Amtrak.
As for presidential candidates, the bottomline is that McCain has earned the most negative reputation as a Senator with regards to Amtrak. Hillary Clinton has much better record. But it may or may not make a difference in terms of how each of them would behave as a President. Anyway, Congress seems to have even more power with these issues.
The points to be made to McCain should include:
Handicapped and elderly access to the entire country
Boosting foreign tourism, giving visitors a chance to see the country
Rescue in times of disaster, what Minetta should have done for New Orleans
Tieing the regional systems (including commuter and high-speed), which are absolutely necessary in terms of relieving airport and highway congestion (and which McCain does approve), into a national system.
Most Americans, poles tell us, are willing to spend the $1.50 a year to have the above. McCain should be so informed.
Which of the readers of this thread can do it? Effectively?
daveklepper wrote: I think just to preserve the existing LD network, a concerted campaign must be mounted to convince McCain that he is wrong about long distance trains in general. He says $200 subsidy per passenger is wasteful. But what this means is a subsidy of $1.50 per USA citizen per year, for a standby, tourist promotion, alternative, that gives additional economic and military security for the country. Hospitals subsidize most patients and some of this is tax money.The points to be made to McCain should include:Handicapped and elderly access to the entire countryBoosting foreign tourism, giving visitors a chance to see the countryRescue in times of disaster, what Minetta should have done for New OrleansTieing the regional systems (including commuter and high-speed), which are absolutely necessary in terms of relieving airport and highway congestion (and which McCain does approve), into a national system.Most Americans, poles tell us, are willing to spend the $1.50 a year to have the above. McCain should be so informed.Which of the readers of this thread can do it? Effectively?
OK. That's a good list of benefits, but at what cost? A $4.00 per household per year subsidy doesn't sound bad, until you factor in that Amtrak only carries 0.1% of all intercity trips. And, that $200/trip subsidy is the dead pig in the living room.
Now, if Amtrak were a highly productive, best in class service provider I'd be happy to state the case for Amtrak. But, unfortunately, Amtrak has more in common with the USPS than they do UPS.
Here's an illustration of what's wrong with Amtrak.
Why does the Crescent run on the schedule it does and stop where it does? I'd suggest it's inertia.
Have the cities along the route changed over the past 30 years? You bet. Charlotte to Greensboro is a budding corridor and Atlanta has grown five-fold over that time period. In particular, the northern suburbs have boomed. There are 600,000+ people in Gwinnett Co. and a similar number in the northern half of Fulton Co. that were not there 30 years ago.
The route of the Crescent goes right through the heart of this area. Does it stop there? No. Passengers have to make a nasty 20 mile ride down the six lane wide, jam-packed river of I-85 to the Atlanta station (that has lousy parking, to boot) or a long 45 minute trip up to the scummy, wrong side of the tracks, Gainesville Station. The western suburbs of Atlata are similarly ill-served.
Worse, yet, is that the route parallels the MARTA NE line and there is no common station stop between the two.
Does anybody in suburban Atlanta even know that the Crescent exists? Not many. Most that do know, know by word of mouth from railfans. Meanwhile, over the past 30 years, the Crescent's consist has shrunk by nearly half - and I'd bet ridership to/from Atlanta is flat, at best.
This illustrates that Amtrak is more driven by inertia than any motive to provide service or be productive.
It's hard to be an advocate of something so badly broken.
But, I'd rather fix it than kill it.
abenm613 wrote: There is no market to speak of anymore for overnight business travel by train in the US. That's why that service disappeared in the first place. I very much doubt that one could be re-established. Overnight travel by coach is more of a possibility but bus service tends to have control of that market due to ticket prices.U.S. is not different from any other country in terms of travel preference. Whether a person travels from New York to Toronto, or Berlin to Madrid, or New Delhi to Mumbay, or Minsk to Moscow, a convenient way of travel is always what it is - a convenient way of travel. Intercity buses can never compete with trains by comfort. Whoever claims otherwise has either never ridden a passenger train, or simply doesn't know what s/he is talking about. It's a good question why business-oriented overnight medium-distance train services in this country have been phased out for the most part. But it was probably NOT due to a lack of demand. In general, the reason why passenger rail in the U.S. is inferior to its foreign counterparts has nothing to do with demand. The problem is unwillingness of the government to share as much of the cost of train travel as it does with other modes. Also, it can simply be something Amtrak management overlooks. Nobody says Amtrak is perfect. They do make mistakes. Another change Amtrak should implement, I believe, is to make the New York-Miami and New York-New Orleans long-distance trains open to passengers who travel within the Northeast Corridor. Currently, a train can be running 80% emply from NYC to Philadelphia, then about 50% empty to DC, until it finally fills up. On the way back, a train can unload a good deal of its passengers in DC and Philadelphia and arrive in New York with just about 20% of its capacity. Allowing NE-corridor passengers to ride these trains can save Amtrak a lot of money!
You'd risk a NY to Phila passenger turfing out a more profitable NY to Charlottesville passenger. Maybe the train should originate in DC?
lattasnip9 wrote: I think it is a lack of demand because isn't it that the lack of passengers in the late 60's and early 70's caused the railraods to want to give up their passenger service because it wasn't making a profit? Also, I have no mean to be a jerk but this discussion has come a long way from the initial question regarding presidential candidates.
I think the lack of passengers started in the early 50's. What was left by the late 60s was skin and bones. Amtrak, at start up made an attempt, with some degree of sucess, to rationalize what was left into bare-bones network. But, most changes to the network since have been onesy-twosy, ad-hoc nibbling around the edges. Amtrak is still basically running that 1971 LD train network with the same stations and route timings despite 50% growth in US population and shifting demographics.
The kind of problem you refer to regarding the Atlanta suburbs is the kind of problem David Gunn was just beginning to address when he was fired. Of course a station in the suburbs needs land, contruction costs, cooperation from NS, etc., but this is the kind of problem that is fixable.
Regarding the Florida service and the Crescent in the corridor, I would not want an overnight Washington or Baltimore to New Orleans or Florida coach passenger to put up with the disruption and lack of perfect cleanliness left by a short haul corridor passenger occupying the seat before his/her boarding. Northbound, you have a point. In fact, I once did pull that off. I think it was while the Flordia Special was still all-Pullman, but I rode it once Philly-NY with the conductor telling me to stay in the lounge car.
oltmannd wrote: daveklepper wrote:I think just to preserve the existing LD network, a concerted campaign must be mounted to convince McCain that he is wrong about long distance trains in general. He says $200 subsidy per passenger is wasteful. But what this means is a subsidy of $1.50 per USA citizen per year, for a standby, tourist promotion, alternative, that gives additional economic and military security for the country. Hospitals subsidize most patients and some of this is tax money.The points to be made to McCain should include:Handicapped and elderly access to the entire countryBoosting foreign tourism, giving visitors a chance to see the countryRescue in times of disaster, what Minetta should have done for New OrleansTieing the regional systems (including commuter and high-speed), which are absolutely necessary in terms of relieving airport and highway congestion (and which McCain does approve), into a national system.Most Americans, poles tell us, are willing to spend the $1.50 a year to have the above. McCain should be so informed.Which of the readers of this thread can do it? Effectively?OK. That's a good list of benefits, but at what cost? A $4.00 per household per year subsidy doesn't sound bad, until you factor in that Amtrak only carries 0.1% of all intercity trips. And, that $200/trip subsidy is the dead pig in the living room.
daveklepper wrote:I think just to preserve the existing LD network, a concerted campaign must be mounted to convince McCain that he is wrong about long distance trains in general. He says $200 subsidy per passenger is wasteful. But what this means is a subsidy of $1.50 per USA citizen per year, for a standby, tourist promotion, alternative, that gives additional economic and military security for the country. Hospitals subsidize most patients and some of this is tax money.The points to be made to McCain should include:Handicapped and elderly access to the entire countryBoosting foreign tourism, giving visitors a chance to see the countryRescue in times of disaster, what Minetta should have done for New OrleansTieing the regional systems (including commuter and high-speed), which are absolutely necessary in terms of relieving airport and highway congestion (and which McCain does approve), into a national system.Most Americans, poles tell us, are willing to spend the $1.50 a year to have the above. McCain should be so informed.Which of the readers of this thread can do it? Effectively?
Now, if Amtrak were a highly productive, best in class service provider I'd be happy to state the case for Amtrak. But, unfortunately, Amtrak has more in common with the USPS than they do UPS
Here's an illustration of what's wrong with Amtrak. Why does the Crescent run on the schedule it does and stop where it does? I'd suggest it's inertia. Have the cities along the route changed over the past 30 years? You bet. Charlotte to Greensboro is a budding corridor and Atlanta has grown five-fold over that time period. In particular, the northern suburbs have boomed. There are 600,000+ people in Gwinnett Co. and a similar number in the northern half of Fulton Co. that were not there 30 years ago. The route of the Crescent goes right through the heart of this area. Does it stop there? No. Passengers have to make a nasty 20 mile ride down the six lane wide, jam-packed river of I-85 to the Atlanta station (that has lousy parking, to boot) or a long 45 minute trip up to the scummy, wrong side of the tracks, Gainesville Station. The western suburbs of Atlata are similarly ill-served. Worse, yet, is that the route parallels the MARTA NE line and there is no common station stop between the two. Does anybody in suburban Atlanta even know that the Crescent exists? Not many. Most that do know, know by word of mouth from railfans. Meanwhile, over the past 30 years, the Crescent's consist has shrunk by nearly half - and I'd bet ridership to/from Atlanta is flat, at best.This illustrates that Amtrak is more driven by inertia than any motive to provide service or be productive
It's hard to be an advocate of something so badly broken. But, I'd rather fix it than kill it.
JT22CW wrote: How do you explain the $133.33 per year per individual in the USA that is given to the highways?
Does that include fuel taxes collected?
alphas wrote:Any businessman with a reasonable expense account is not going to be interested in riding a slumbercoach all night!
Of course, he would rather pay a higher fare for a sleeper compartment :)
abenm613 wrote: alphas wrote:Any businessman with a reasonable expense account is not going to be interested in riding a slumbercoach all night!Of course, he would rather pay a higher fare for a sleeper compartment :)
Not so! I used go slumbercoach whenever possible.
Even a roomette was competitive with airfare 20 years ago, though.
There are deal killers for overnight non-railfan busniness travel. A normal, non-railfan, businessman is going to want a shower in his room and the fare has to be less than or equal to airfare.
JT22CW wrote: oltmannd wrote: daveklepper wrote:I think just to preserve the existing LD network, a concerted campaign must be mounted to convince McCain that he is wrong about long distance trains in general. He says $200 subsidy per passenger is wasteful. But what this means is a subsidy of $1.50 per USA citizen per year, for a standby, tourist promotion, alternative, that gives additional economic and military security for the country. Hospitals subsidize most patients and some of this is tax money.The points to be made to McCain should include:Handicapped and elderly access to the entire countryBoosting foreign tourism, giving visitors a chance to see the countryRescue in times of disaster, what Minetta should have done for New OrleansTieing the regional systems (including commuter and high-speed), which are absolutely necessary in terms of relieving airport and highway congestion (and which McCain does approve), into a national system.Most Americans, poles tell us, are willing to spend the $1.50 a year to have the above. McCain should be so informed.Which of the readers of this thread can do it? Effectively?OK. That's a good list of benefits, but at what cost? A $4.00 per household per year subsidy doesn't sound bad, until you factor in that Amtrak only carries 0.1% of all intercity trips. And, that $200/trip subsidy is the dead pig in the living room.Red herring. You're equating investment with non-growth, which is false, unless you can show and prove embezzlement. Amtrak has rarely to never seen genuine investment; most of its financial underpinning is to stave off infrastructure decay, and losses due to lack of available seat-miles in most of its markets save the Northeast.How do you explain the $133.33 per year per individual in the USA that is given to the highways? That is a 3,333.33% (three thousand, three hundred thirty-three and a third percent) higher annual subsidy than what Amtrak gets, which is $4 per year per individual, not household ($4 per household would be way, way lower, at 110 million households versus about 300 million people in the US). Think there's a correlation between subvention and number of intercity trips?Now, if Amtrak were a highly productive, best in class service provider I'd be happy to state the case for Amtrak. But, unfortunately, Amtrak has more in common with the USPS than they do UPSDo they? You saying that Amtrak serves every town in the USA? That's funny; Tobyhanna, Pennsylvania (where I'm currently living) has a post office, but it doesn't have an Amtrak station. Using that logic, you ought to be able to ride Amtrak to any location that you can mail a first-class letter to.(As far as the USPS goes, should they go back to seven-day-a-week delivery in order to increase revenue? They're already have a revenue stream of $70 billion, which is 32 times higher than Amtrak's revenue stream; but remember, that's based on volume, as noted in the prior paragraph. I wouldn't call that the opposite of being "highly productive", myself.)Is Amtrak not "highly productive" in the only market where it can run at competitive speeds? I'd say it is.Here's an illustration of what's wrong with Amtrak. Why does the Crescent run on the schedule it does and stop where it does? I'd suggest it's inertia. Have the cities along the route changed over the past 30 years? You bet. Charlotte to Greensboro is a budding corridor and Atlanta has grown five-fold over that time period. In particular, the northern suburbs have boomed. There are 600,000+ people in Gwinnett Co. and a similar number in the northern half of Fulton Co. that were not there 30 years ago. The route of the Crescent goes right through the heart of this area. Does it stop there? No. Passengers have to make a nasty 20 mile ride down the six lane wide, jam-packed river of I-85 to the Atlanta station (that has lousy parking, to boot) or a long 45 minute trip up to the scummy, wrong side of the tracks, Gainesville Station. The western suburbs of Atlata are similarly ill-served. Worse, yet, is that the route parallels the MARTA NE line and there is no common station stop between the two. Does anybody in suburban Atlanta even know that the Crescent exists? Not many. Most that do know, know by word of mouth from railfans. Meanwhile, over the past 30 years, the Crescent's consist has shrunk by nearly half - and I'd bet ridership to/from Atlanta is flat, at best.This illustrates that Amtrak is more driven by inertia than any motive to provide service or be productiveNo it does not. This illustrates, as is always the case, that Amtrak has not received capital in order to improve service in this market. Any inertia here is forced upon it by the investors (this happens in private business as well).Does Amtrak have cash on hand in order to invest in providing the service you are thinking of? Yes or no? (And if yes, where is it and how can it be reallocated?)It's hard to be an advocate of something so badly broken. But, I'd rather fix it than kill it.What's broken, though? It's government policy that's broken.
Gov't policy broken? Well assuming there actually IS a policy, that's true, too. But, this isn't an either/or situation.
My USPS vs UPS comparison was based on service, rates and costs. USPS often delivers my mail to the wrong address. UPS never does. UPS can only charge what the market will bear and is best in class at logistics and productivity. USPS can go and get rate increases to cover costs whenever they need them. A 1st class stamp was 5 cents in 1966 and is 8X that now. That's way, way over the inflation rate. Have they adjusted service to accomodate the new reality of communication? Really, who needs 6 day a week mail delivery at their residence in this age of email, text messaging, cell phones and web bill pay? 1950's business model trudges onward in an entrenched bureaucracy. Sound familiar?
But why should they try? What's in it for any of them?
As far as suburban Atlanta goes, Amtrak hasn't even made an attempt to ask the local counties or towns to step up. Nor, do they have any support mechanism for grassroots efforts. I'm not talking about gobs of money, just an effort. I see no effort. I've never seen any effort in this regard outside
As far as suburban Atlanta goes, Amtrak hasn't even made an attempt to ask the local counties or towns to step up. Nor, do they have any support mechanism for grassroots efforts. I'm not talking about gobs of money, just an effort. I see no effort. I've never seen any effort in this regard outside the NEC.
Just take a look at NARP website (www.narprail.org) to find that the opposite is true.
abenm613 wrote: As far as suburban Atlanta goes, Amtrak hasn't even made an attempt to ask the local counties or towns to step up. Nor, do they have any support mechanism for grassroots efforts. I'm not talking about gobs of money, just an effort. I see no effort. I've never seen any effort in this regard outside the NEC.Just take a look at NARP website (www.narprail.org) to find that the opposite is true.
Help me with this. NARP is doing a lot (or at least talking a lot). What is Amtrak doing (other than rearranging the deck chairs in the diners)?
Amtrak NEVER had decent investment. All investments were bandaids to keep something from falling apart. Even the Superliners were too few for a National System. Amfleet was a recycled Metroniliner shell and the windows are hardly tourism friendly. Even the Boston electrification was the lowest cost possible construction. Acela got loaded with a lot of Fed requirements and restrictions account of existing track structure . The Northeast Corridor is still stuck with the New Rochelle to New Haven Metro North operated commuter-pirority segment with its 19th Century track structure and curvature.
Okay, let's say that investing money in brand new high-speed rail infrastructure the way Europe has done is a complicated matter that requires a lot of studies and responsibility, in addition to costs. European countries have done a great job, and I only wish the U.S. could do the same.
But take a look at such countries as Russia, China, or India. They don't have European or Japanese high-speed trains, but they adequately invest in maintaining their old rail infrastructure. I have never been to China or India, but I can say that Russia has a reliable and passenger-friendly passenger rail system with frequent services, in spite of the country's large size. And, yes, they do have commercial airlines as well. But railroad's market share is high enough.
Speaking of the existing railroad infrastructure in America, whoever rode Amtrak's long-distance trains can say that the speed can be pretty high even on freight-owned tracks. You may complain about the average speed, which is a result of freight congestion. Those who travel from Denver to New Orleans via Chicago can claim that their average speed is too low, for an obvious reason. These are separate issues that can and should be addressed by those who care about Amtrak services. But, as long as there are no delays and you are traveling on a straight route between your own origin and destination, the train can run fast enough to compete with autos. Therefore, I believe that even if we take Russia/China/India (rather than Europe) as a role model for now, we will still benefit. Of course, European-style high-speed rail should eventually have its place in America as well. But, at least, it's worth to start with small things, which is bringing the existing rail infrastructure back to the state of a good repair, and expanding Amtrak services on it.
oltmannd wrote:Gov't policy broken? Well assuming there actually IS a policy, that's true, too. But, this isn't an either/or situation.
My USPS vs UPS comparison was based on service, rates and costs. USPS often delivers my mail to the wrong address. UPS never does. UPS can only charge what the market will bear and is best in class at logistics and productivity. USPS can go and get rate increases to cover costs whenever they need them. A 1st class stamp was 5 cents in 1966 and is 8X that now. That's way, way over the inflation rate. Have they adjusted service to accomodate the new reality of communication? Really, who needs 6 day a week mail delivery at their residence in this age of email, text messaging, cell phones and web bill pay? 1950's business model trudges onward in an entrenched bureaucracy. Sound familiar? But why should they try? What's in it for any of them?
Unless, of course, you're talking about the junk mailers. We get yet more of that in our online inbox.
BTW, do you think that the USPS ought to buy a large fleet of dedicated aircraft like UPS and FedEx have, or should they continue to contract to other private airlines to transport air mail? Which is the superior way to go, in terms of business model...? (We haven't had those special domestic airmail rates, which were higher than first-class mail rates, since 1975, IIRC.)
And frankly, I don't think it's fair to ask them to "step up". That's like the federal highway administration going to these same entities calling for them to "step up" as it were.
As for the NEC, Amtrak doesn't put pressure on the cities or states in that manner.
You make the point that Amtrak is productive and competitive in the NEC - because of speed. But, it's not just the speed. It's the whole picture, including population and population density (which are different animals), feeder transit systems, cost of alternatives ($$ and time) and the culture of the people who are surrounded by these circumstances
Population density is a bogus argument when it comes to intercity rail; that applies to the commuter rail along the NEC. (Based on population density, we ought to have TGVs in Ohio, connecting all their cities and towns with populations of 30K and above; France, whose population density is barely higher than Ohio's, has exactly that.)
It is unreasonable to get taxpayers to fund a high speed rail network on the "Field of Dreams" philosophy. It IS reasonable to get taxpayers to fund incremental improvments in local and intercity transportation based on reasonable cost/benefit analysis and comparison of alternatives. As parts of the US start to look and behave like the NEC, THEN incrementally higher speeds become economically justified
The highways were funded and built on the so-called "field of dreams" principle. The airports absolutely were funded in such a manner. Not funding technologically-advanced passenger rail in the same manner (especially during the era when the federal government was levying a 10% tax on all passenger rail tickets, and this money was going into the general fund at the time) is a double standard. "Incrementally higher" speed should have been done in the 50s and 60s; but all the work has been done for us by countries that actually have HSR, and it is puzzling (to say the least) why the country that originated the technology they are using is not only stagnating, but regressing (IOW, a leap right into 200-mph service, as well as 125-to-150-mph service on traditional corridors, ought to be a no-brainer).
What is a "reasonable cost-benefit analysis" and how can it be protected from being skewed? The basics that apply to passenger rail that I can see are its having the lowest energy use per passenger mile, and the faster you go, the better the numbers get in that respect. Making the modes fight against each other for funding insures that everybody loses.
Also, how come lots of airports get along without "feeder transit systems"? Even for the biggest metropolitan airports, for them to have the number of rail and bus feeders that serve Amtrak at its biggest urban train stations would take a dizzying amount of investment.
(P.S. Amtrak had plenty of investment $$ in the 1970s and early 80s. Do you remember? Was it successful?)
Even at that all-time high, Amtrak was still getting about an eighth of the subsidy an entity like Metro-North gets, based on route miles.
blue streak 1 wrote:The US's first priority is to get to the quick goal of 79MPH on all track. Then the useage will show if there is a demand for higher speeds. I believe that we (US) needs to get our speeds up. (79 M Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Monday, March 10, 2008 6:51 AM The 60 mph avg speed for the 20th Century was with some 90 mph running in spots where the inductive train stop system was installed.Does Acela beat flying trip times? What speed to do they sell? Frequency and access to stations have nothing to do with it? Feeder systems to Airports are generally automobiles. Airports are not in city centers - they were generally placed out in the "boonies" when built. Commercial aviation and highways grew up together. As sprawl and urbanization have overtaken airport locations, rail transit feeder systems have started to appear. SF, Newark, Friendship, Idlewild, National, O'Hare, Philly, Hartsfield...You really think that if SEPTA, NJT, MBTA, VRE, MARC, Metro, NYCTA and MNRR stopped running tomorrow that the NEC would remain as prosperous? Exactly how much parking is there at NYP?Population that the route serves is not a driver of frequency?You're too smart to be missing my point about UPS vs USPS. I'm not able to see how your comments pertain to the point I made, twice. I'll just have to assume your comments were just an attempt to get in the last word. It's yours. -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply Amtrak77 Member sinceFebruary 2008 From: Fontana, Ca 46 posts Posted by Amtrak77 on Monday, March 10, 2008 3:16 PM motard98 wrote:McCain will be the next president IMO and that's a good thingYou should take that McMain poster and place it on the outbound tracks of the passing UP freight coming! Americas do not want World War 3! Timothy D. Moore Take Amtrak! Flying is for upper class lazy people Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Monday, March 10, 2008 6:33 PM motard98 wrote:McCain will be the next president IMO and that's a good thingAs long as you consider a four-to-eight more years of anti-Amtrak hostility a good thing... Does Acela beat flying trip times? Yes, it does - if you keep in mind that DC Union Station, NYC Penn Station, and Boston South Station are all in central city areas, while airports are rather at the outskirts. Who need speed the most? Business travelers. Other people would look for cheaper options, that is a bus, especially a Chinatown bus. In fact, given that the distance is not very long, even bus makes it pretty fast, but the level of service on it is not up to business standards. So, besides the speed, Acela offers premium level of service, and other NEC trains, too, have higher standard of service than buses and, possibly, even airlines.You really think that if SEPTA, NJT, MBTA, VRE, MARC, Metro, NYCTA and MNRR stopped running tomorrow that the NEC would remain as prosperous?Here you're right. Commuter carriers do help Amtrak fund the old NEC infrastructure. And they are not slowing down Amtrak trains at all. First of all, commuter trains have passenger-oriented schedules, just like Amtrak. Secondly, Amtrak owns most of the NEC, so it has freedom to give priority to its own trains, but there's no need to do it. Even on the Metro North's Hudson Line, which is a part of Amtrak's Empire Corridor, there are no problems with commuter trains. Even if, by some chance, Metro North decides to give some priority to its train, rather than Amtrak's, remember that a commuter train is different from a freight train. It may take extra two or three minutes from Amtrak, not 10-15 minutes. Exactly how much parking is there at NYP?Well, NYP may not have a dedicated parking lot, but it has more transit services than any of the airports. Reply Edit oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Tuesday, March 11, 2008 1:05 PM abenm613 wrote: motard98 wrote:McCain will be the next president IMO and that's a good thingAs long as you consider a four-to-eight more years of anti-Amtrak hostility a good thing... Does Acela beat flying trip times? Yes, it does - if you keep in mind that DC Union Station, NYC Penn Station, and Boston South Station are all in central city areas, while airports are rather at the outskirts. Who need speed the most? Business travelers. Other people would look for cheaper options, that is a bus, especially a Chinatown bus. In fact, given that the distance is not very long, even bus makes it pretty fast, but the level of service on it is not up to business standards. So, besides the speed, Acela offers premium level of service, and other NEC trains, too, have higher standard of service than buses and, possibly, even airlines.You really think that if SEPTA, NJT, MBTA, VRE, MARC, Metro, NYCTA and MNRR stopped running tomorrow that the NEC would remain as prosperous?Here you're right. Commuter carriers do help Amtrak fund the old NEC infrastructure. And they are not slowing down Amtrak trains at all. First of all, commuter trains have passenger-oriented schedules, just like Amtrak. Secondly, Amtrak owns most of the NEC, so it has freedom to give priority to its own trains, but there's no need to do it. Even on the Metro North's Hudson Line, which is a part of Amtrak's Empire Corridor, there are no problems with commuter trains. Even if, by some chance, Metro North decides to give some priority to its train, rather than Amtrak's, remember that a commuter train is different from a freight train. It may take extra two or three minutes from Amtrak, not 10-15 minutes. Exactly how much parking is there at NYP?Well, NYP may not have a dedicated parking lot, but it has more transit services than any of the airports. I think the answer to my Acela speed question is "it depends". There was a nice article back at the dawn of Acela about a "race" bewteen two travellers who when Manhattan to Boston - Acela vs. LaGaurdia shuttle. The result was a tie. I think Acela wins the market share battle for it's other attributes, including easy accessibility from feeder systems. There is even the intangible "transit culture" that the feeder systems cultivate. A New Jersian will automatically consider NJT and Amtrak as a possible alternative for many trips where as a Georgian will never get past fly/drive. -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, March 11, 2008 10:58 PM Yes, I remember these races. The "aviator" came first, then came the Acela guy just a few minutes later, and they both waited for the motorist for about half-hour or little less. And, yes, as I pointed above I do agree that on a relatively short distance such as between New York and Boston, what makes a real difference is the level of service, not even the speed.A New Jersian will automatically consider NJT and Amtrak as a possible alternative for many trips where as a Georgian will never get past fly/drive.That's correct, too. But the fly/drive dependence of most Americans (outside of the Northeast) has come as a result of flawed policies biased towards these two modes. The sad outcome of these policies is harder to rectify now than it would be to prevent in the first place. A good question, though, is how it was possible to keep the Northeastern states in a relatively good shape (in terms of transportation options). Is it just because of the population density? Or maybe there are other reasons why New Jersey has its own statewide regional rail system (NJ Transit), while Georgia doesn't? Okay, let's say size makes a difference. But what about Pennsylvania? How come the Philadelphia region has well-developed commuter rail system (currently operated by SEPTA), while Pittsburgh doesn't? Two cities in one state are in a totaly different situation. Reply Edit oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Wednesday, March 12, 2008 5:55 AM blue streak 1 wrote:correct: The US's first priority is to get to the quick goal of 79MPH on all track. Then the useage will show if there is a demand for higher speeds. I believe that we (US) needs to get our speeds up. (79MPH constant speed will result in 70 average between stops not more than 2 an hour with dwell time of 3 minutes.Think how much better equippment utilization would be on the freight lines In a large part of the country, you'd be into some massive curve straightening projects -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Wednesday, March 12, 2008 6:33 AM abenm613 wrote: Yes, I remember these races. The "aviator" came first, then came the Acela guy just a few minutes later, and they both waited for the motorist for about half-hour or little less. And, yes, as I pointed above I do agree that on a relatively short distance such as between New York and Boston, what makes a real difference is the level of service, not even the speed.A New Jersian will automatically consider NJT and Amtrak as a possible alternative for many trips where as a Georgian will never get past fly/drive.That's correct, too. But the fly/drive dependence of most Americans (outside of the Northeast) has come as a result of flawed policies biased towards these two modes. The sad outcome of these policies is harder to rectify now than it would be to prevent in the first place. A good question, though, is how it was possible to keep the Northeastern states in a relatively good shape (in terms of transportation options). Is it just because of the population density? Or maybe there are other reasons why New Jersey has its own statewide regional rail system (NJ Transit), while Georgia doesn't? Okay, let's say size makes a difference. But what about Pennsylvania? How come the Philadelphia region has well-developed commuter rail system (currently operated by SEPTA), while Pittsburgh doesn't? Two cities in one state are in a totaly different situation. I think it comes down to how the state's politics governs funding. In NJ, the vast majority of the state is populated by suburbanites. Not too many rural folks, so there is great support at the state level for transit funding. Even the more conservative governors (Kean, Whitman) were big supporters. NJT grew fastest under Kean.In PA, transit funding is done at the county level, but counties are able to band together to fund regional efforts. This is SEPTA's structure. PA politics at the state level always seems to teeter between the rural interests and that of Pittsburgh and Philly, so state funding for transit is not very well supported. In fact, bickering between the conservative 'burbs and the liberal city in Phila often leave SEPTA in the lurch.In GA, most of the state is still trying to get used to the fact that Atlanta is a) very large and b) very important economically to the state. Consequently, there are virtually no mechanisms in place to fund transit on other than a county basis - and GA has really small counties. The Atlanta 'burbs are just now starting to realize that transit does have a place in suburbia and it appears that a mechanism to allow counties to from a regional funding district to assess a penny sales tax for transit will make it out of the legislature this winter. There is still a lot of political silliness down here with it's roots in reconstruction, bowl weevils and Southern/Scots-Irish stubborness. -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply daveklepper Member sinceJune 2002 20,096 posts Posted by daveklepper on Wednesday, March 12, 2008 7:20 AM Amtrak does have an occasional problem with commuter train interference, particularly at New Rochelle and between there and New Haven, but it has not been a major issue for some time. When trains are running on time, it isn't a problem, and need not be a problem at other times when the best dispatching occurs. There have been a few sporadic complaints from New Jersey commuters about delays due to priority for Amtrak. But Amtrak's long distance passenger on most frieght lines would not even consider these delays as real delays!I think someone should make the effort to talk to McCain. The National Defense argument might be the best, with Amtrak's usefulness after 11 Sep. '01 on ideology permitting a catastophy at Katrina two examples. Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, March 12, 2008 11:14 PM daveklepper wrote: Amtrak does have an occasional problem with commuter train interference, particularly at New Rochelle and between there and New Haven, but it has not been a major issue for some time. When trains are running on time, it isn't a problem, and need not be a problem at other times when the best dispatching occurs. There have been a few sporadic complaints from New Jersey commuters about delays due to priority for Amtrak. But Amtrak's long distance passenger on most frieght lines would not even consider these delays as real delays! I think someone should make the effort to talk to McCain. The National Defense argument might be the best, with Amtrak's usefulness after 11 Sep. '01 on ideology permitting a catastophy at Katrina two examples.Agreeing with every words. That's exactly what I meant. Any "conflict" between Amtrak and a commuter line on tracks controlled by either of the two entities is too trivial to even be considered, at least comparing with conflicts between Amtrak and freight railroads on freight-owned tracks. It's mainly because freight trains tend to be much longer and move much slower than passenger ones. As for McCain, yes, it is now time to let him know that his anti-Amtrak reputation largely discourages us from supporting his candidacy. And, if he does become a President, then we'll definitely have to keep pressuring him to keep his hands off Amtrak. But it's at least just as important to reach out to legislators, as they may have even more power with respect to Amtrak issues. It may or may not be possible to convince McCain that Amtrak funding is an important investment rather than a "pork", especially if he becomes a Presideint, and especially if he happens to be eventually re-elected for the second term. But it's certainly possible to let our Senators and Congressmen know that we are interested in having Amtrak and they must fight strongly for it, in order to enjoy our support. Their job is to prevent Bush's or McCain's anti-Amtrak (read: anti-rail) ideas from being implemented. Reply Edit daveklepper Member sinceJune 2002 20,096 posts Posted by daveklepper on Thursday, March 13, 2008 4:31 AM But McCain has shown some support at times for light rail and commuter rail. And freight congestion relief. This may mean he can be talked to. Reply blue streak 1 Member sinceDecember 2007 From: Georgia USA SW of Atlanta 11,919 posts Posted by blue streak 1 on Thursday, March 13, 2008 9:12 AM Guys: We need the public to recognize the importance of a balanced transportation system. Today's oil price of $110 + is going to ripple through the driving public. Tell non railfans the importance of less oil consumption to their own driving and consumer goods. Each 10,000 people taking public transportation will cut demand and (maybe) lowere the cost of heating oil, gas, electricity, plastics, etc. I'm trying to convince every one I know of this fact. Then our politicians will meekly follow the public. Right now they do not have the courage and political will to tell us the truth. (ie W's There is no $4 gal gasoline. diesel is now $3.99 a gallon in the southeast) Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Thursday, March 13, 2008 1:23 PM daveklepper wrote: But McCain has shown some support at times for light rail and commuter rail. And freight congestion relief. This may mean he can be talked to.I think you are right. I think he is reasonable. But, you better have your ducks in a row before you speak! Some of us have asked some very "hard" questions about Amtrak in general and the LD trains in particular. It's not that Amtrak and the LD trains don't serve any useful purpose - the do - but at what cost?We haven't gotten any "hard" answers from anyone. Mostly we get quibbling over the questions! I am surprised that there are no Amtrak insiders around these forums - only Amtrak appologists.You can't just say "the Empire Builder is a vital transportation link in Montana". That's like putting lipstick on a pig. It's still pork. You have to back it up with cost/benefit numbers, showing it's the best, or at least a good way to provide the service. Amtrak's own monthly numbers show big time red ink, so there have to be quantifiable benefits to offset - even if they are soft, like improved air quality or reduced oil consumption or lessened CO2 emissions. Something! Anything! -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, March 13, 2008 11:44 PM But McCain has shown some support at times for light rail and commuter rail. And freight congestion relief. This may mean he can be talked to. Maybe it's true to some extent. Indeed, as I mentioned above, McCain did give an encouraging word during the 2002 crisis that he'll do what he can to avoid a shutdown of Amtrak. In other words, if anyone accuses him in being completely anti-rail, there are some points in his defense. who knows, maybe he can even propose some useful ideas that would actually improve nationwide passenger rail in the U.S. But his reputation as Amtrak's critic cannot just be ignored. And, since Weyrich quotes McCain as saying that shutting Amtrak down would be a "non-negotiable issue", it is hard to imagine the Arizona-Senator-turned-US-President becoming an active supporter of national passenger rail. Maybe Weyrich exaggerates the real picture. Maybe McCain never spoke about his "non-negotiable" issues with Amtrak. I don't know. McCain's campain website does not list any items on a keyword search for Amtrak. That might be because he realizes that his view on this issue is extremely unpopular and would chase away potential voters. Some of us have asked some very "hard" questions about Amtrak in general and the LD trains in particular. It's not that Amtrak and the LD trains don't serve any useful purpose - the do - but at what cost? At what cost? At a very low one. The small percentage of all transportation funds Amtrak receives is quite proportional to its market share. Divide the current year's $1.3 billion by the number of taxpayers in the U.S. An average taxpayer, even if his town is not served by Amtrak, probably does not even feel this silly amount being taken away from him, forget about being a "burden". True, cost efficiency is important, and Amtrak should not be an exception. But micromanaging and threatening to cut funding is not of any help. Since 2003 (or rather since the near-shutdown experience of summer-2002), Amtrak is at least getting enough money not to throw itself into any further debt. That is good. But this amount is still too small for real expansion. Also, the operating portion of these funds is not that big - some $300 million (out of $1.3 billion). You can't just say "the Empire Builder is a vital transportation link in Montana". That's like putting lipstick on a pig. It's still pork. You have to back it up with cost/benefit numbers, showing it's the best, or at least a good way to provide the service. Just read NARP website more carefully. It has a lot of useful analytical data. Reply Edit oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Friday, March 14, 2008 6:53 AM "Hi, President McCain? Meet my pet pig, Amtrak. Doesn't he look cute in his blue and silver lipstick? What does he do? Well, I hitch him up to my Radio Flyer wagon my Uncle Sam gave me and he takes me to the Piggly Wiggly. I could drive. It's faster, but it's just not as much fun. But just look at how cute he is! How much does he eat? Well, he eats quite a bit more than the gas costs to drive to the Piggly Wiggly, but I extort a nickel a day from all my neighbors to pay for his food. After all, they do get to see how cute he looks. And, three years ago, when it snowed, I hitched him up to my Flexible Flyer and got milk and bread for all my neighbors - even though they told me they could wait for the plow to come by the next day. I think he is a good model for a national transportation policy, don't you?"If every taxpayer was an occasional Amtrak LD train rider or even if it could be shown that Amtrak's LD trains provide a net societal benefit relative to their subsidy, then the "per taxpayer" arguement would be a good one. But, I've never seen any sort of cost/benefit analysis. Why? Because, I suspect, the case can't be made! I've never seen it - and I've been looking and reading for decades.I've been all over the NARP web site. Lots of interesting thoughts, but not much meat.I'd sure like to see NARP hold Amtrak as accountable for productivity as they do for service levels. -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply nanaimo73 Member sinceApril 2005 From: Nanaimo BC Canada 4,117 posts Posted by nanaimo73 on Friday, March 14, 2008 9:46 AM I have the feeling that President McCain's top priority will be trying to win in Iraq, and spending $500 billion a year to accomplish that aim. If these funds were instead being used to catch up on the defered maintenance on the country's infrastructure, America would not be entering a recession. With the depleted manufacturing base, and a large wave of retirements starting in two years, Amtrak's future does not look too bright with McCain in the White House. Dale Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Friday, March 14, 2008 5:22 PM nanaimo73 wrote:With the depleted manufacturing base, and a large wave of retirements starting in two years, Amtrak's future does not look too bright with McCain in the White House.Amtrak has survived even Reagan who tried really hard to shut it down. If Reagan had no power to accomplish that, McCain has no power either. What does it have to do with retirements? Some people retire, others step into their positions. Sometimes a company may announce a hire freeze for the positions that it can survive without. President can't change that by his desire alone. Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Friday, March 14, 2008 5:23 PM oltmannd wrote: If every taxpayer was an occasional Amtrak LD train rider or even if it could be shown that Amtrak's LD trains provide a net societal benefit relative to their subsidy, then the "per taxpayer" arguement would be a good one. But, I've never seen any sort of cost/benefit analysis. Why? Because, I suspect, the case can't be made! I've never seen it - and I've been looking and reading for decades. I've been all over the NARP web site. Lots of interesting thoughts, but not much meat.I'd sure like to see NARP hold Amtrak as accountable for productivity as they do for service levels.If so, how did Amtrak manage to stay on since 1971, in spite of Reagan's and others' attempts to destroy it? Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Friday, March 14, 2008 6:40 PM Amtrak has stumbled along since 1971 for three primary reasons. A dedicated group of enthusiasts have successfully lobbied Congress to provide enough money to keep it running. They know how to press the right political (emotional) hot buttons to garner the needed support. Amtrak provides a viable, arguably important service in the NEC, which has fielded a powerful congressional delegation that supports it. Perhaps most importantly, in the scheme of things, Amtrak's federal funding is a miniscule per cent of the federal budget. It does not even hit most radar screens. I suspect that many of those in Congress who vote to support it have little idea of whether Amtrak provides an important service, how it is funded, and where passenger trains could be viable.NARP, like most rail advocates, when pressed for hard nosed data to support the continuation of rail services that lose heaps of money while providing a marginal social benefit, i.e. long distance passenger trains, cannot produce any numbers that a reasonable person could accept. They ignore any data that does not support their argument, which is what I would do if I was being paid to advocate for a point of view. The information presented on NARP's website is frequently wrong, incomplete, or misleading. For example, they claim that general aviation received a federal subsidy of $1,453 billion for 2007. They are wrong. During 2007 FAA expenditures were $14.8 billion, of which $2.3 billion was transferred from the general fund. Most of the $14.8 billion was covered by ticket and fuel taxes. NARP's website leaves the reader with the impression that the entire federal aviation subsidy ($1.453 billion) went to the airlines. Again they are wrong. Airline flights account for approximately 30 per cent of the FAA workload. Most of workload involves controlling general aviation (includes business aviation), air taxis, and military flights in civilian airspace. Thus, approximately 70 per cent of the subsidy went to general and military aviation. Most people, who fly their own plane, ride around the country in the company jet, or jockey a military plane, are not candidates for taking the train. Reply Edit nanaimo73 Member sinceApril 2005 From: Nanaimo BC Canada 4,117 posts Posted by nanaimo73 on Saturday, March 15, 2008 11:52 AM abenm613 wrote: What does it have to do with retirements? Some people retire, others step into their positions. Generally speaking, people contribute taxes into the system until they retire, and take benefits out of the system after they retire. With the end of WWII almost 65 years away, this will affect Government programs such as Amtrak in the future. Dale Reply MichaelSol Member sinceOctober 2004 3,190 posts Posted by MichaelSol on Saturday, March 15, 2008 7:30 PM abenm613 wrote: nanaimo73 wrote:With the depleted manufacturing base, and a large wave of retirements starting in two years, Amtrak's future does not look too bright with McCain in the White House.Amtrak has survived even Reagan who tried really hard to shut it down. Reagan appointed Graham Claytor President of Amtrak, arguably the best CEO Amtrak has ever had ... Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, March 15, 2008 8:24 PM They ignore any data that does not support their argument, which is what I would do if I was being paid to advocate for a point of view. The data provided by those "experts" who would like to kill Amtrak is easily disproved by NARP (and other enthusasts). For example, the previous DOT Secretary Norman Mineta compared the passenger-mile costs of the Sunset Limited with those of a typical Orlando-LA flight. Obviously, a flight would seem much more economical, especially considering the difference between 5 hours and 3 days. But Mineta simply ignored the fact that most passengers on the Sunset Limited do not travel the entire length of the route. An Orlando-to-LA flight does not stop at New Orleans, Houston, Phoenix, and numerous points in between. NARP website in fact discloses many myths created by those who don't want passenger trains to be around. By the way, I don't know if NARP or any other group has ever mentioned it, but my opinion is that increasing Amtrak service on medium distances (up to 500-600 miles), especially with overnight trains that would attract significant numbers of passengers, would relieve airports from handling short flights and provide more room for long-haul flights (transcontinental and international). My parents live a few miles away from JFK, and I see it for myself that airplanes are passing over our home about every two minutes. And large aircraft (B747, B767, A330, etc.) is NOT a majority. Yes, JetBlue does run small A320's even for coast-to-coast flights, but it's probably an exception. I suspect that most of smaller aircraft flying to/from JFK are some relatively short flights. If most passengers from these flights were transfered to trains, imagine how many more international or transcontinental flights could be there instead!The information presented on NARP's website is frequently wrong, incomplete, or misleading. For example, they claim that general aviation received a federal subsidy of $1,453 billion for 2007. They are wrong. During 2007 FAA expenditures were $14.8 billion, of which $2.3 billion was transferred from the general fund. Most of the $14.8 billion was covered by ticket and fuel taxes. You are not proving anything. You aren't saying that this $14.8 billion was NOT spent on aviation, are you? That's all NARP is saying, not getting into details what fund it came from. The very fact that there is no dedicated rail trust fund in the U.S. is already a shame! And $2.3 billion from the general fund is more than Amtrak has received annually ever during the past decade. NARP is not claiming that the entire aviation subsidy goes to airlines. It fully realizes that much of it also goes to other things, including airports. And they do advocate for adequate capital funding for rail infrastructure. The problem, however, is that Amtrak in its current structure so far seems to be the most realistic way of preserving passenger rail in the U.S., which is hard to change. If any politician proposes some other model that can realisticly earn Congressional support, without cutting the existing service, I'm sure NARP would embrace it. For right now, however, Amtrak seems to be the only way to save intercity passenger rail as a mode, therefore NARP supports it. So, don't blame this organization. After all, they are the most influential pro-rail group in the U.S. for already 41 years. In fact they often claim that they do support investment to highways and airports, only wanting the rail to be treated equally. What "hard-nosed" data are you talking about? Generally speaking, people contribute taxes into the system until they retire, and take benefits out of the system after they retire. With the end of WWII almost 65 years away, this will affect Government programs such as Amtrak in the future. I don't think Amtrak depends on this so much. The real issue is, as always, adequate funding by the government. Reagan appointed Graham Claytor President of Amtrak, arguably the best CEO Amtrak has ever had ... Hmmm... I was too young to know that, so I'm not disputing it. In fact, it's quite possible. As I said, Bush Administration did give Amtrak a loan guarantee necessary to survive the fiscal crisis of 2002. McCain proposed some security bill for Amtrak shortly after 9/11. That's encouraging news, meaning that common sense prevails even in most biased politicians. If every taxpayer was an occasional Amtrak LD train rider or even if it could be shown that Amtrak's LD trains provide a net societal benefit relative to their subsidy, then the "per taxpayer" arguement would be a good one. The "per-taxpayer" argument works for Amtrak not less than it does for funding the Iraq war, or financial aid to foreign countries. The funds used for rebuilding Iraq (including its railroads!) could just as well be used for expanding rail transportation in our country. Apparently, most taxpayers don't care, as long as the per-taxpayer amount is trivial enough. Reply Edit oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Sunday, March 16, 2008 7:17 AM Small blurb in the paper yesterday - McCain rode Amtrak from DC to Philly on Friday. -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Sunday, March 16, 2008 9:26 AM abenm613 wrote: They ignore any data that does not support their argument, which is what I would do if I was being paid to advocate for a point of view. The data provided by those "experts" who would like to kill Amtrak is easily disproved by NARP (and other enthusasts). For example, the previous DOT Secretary Norman Mineta compared the passenger-mile costs of the Sunset Limited with those of a typical Orlando-LA flight. Obviously, a flight would seem much more economical, especially considering the difference between 5 hours and 3 days. But Mineta simply ignored the fact that most passengers on the Sunset Limited do not travel the entire length of the route. An Orlando-to-LA flight does not stop at New Orleans, Houston, Phoenix, and numerous points in between. NARP website in fact discloses many myths created by those who don't want passenger trains to be around. By the way, I don't know if NARP or any other group has ever mentioned it, but my opinion is that increasing Amtrak service on medium distances (up to 500-600 miles), especially with overnight trains that would attract significant numbers of passengers, would relieve airports from handling short flights and provide more room for long-haul flights (transcontinental and international). My parents live a few miles away from JFK, and I see it for myself that airplanes are passing over our home about every two minutes. And large aircraft (B747, B767, A330, etc.) is NOT a majority. Yes, JetBlue does run small A320's even for coast-to-coast flights, but it's probably an exception. I suspect that most of smaller aircraft flying to/from JFK are some relatively short flights. If most passengers from these flights were transfered to trains, imagine how many more international or transcontinental flights could be there instead!The information presented on NARP's website is frequently wrong, incomplete, or misleading. For example, they claim that general aviation received a federal subsidy of $1,453 billion for 2007. They are wrong. During 2007 FAA expenditures were $14.8 billion, of which $2.3 billion was transferred from the general fund. Most of the $14.8 billion was covered by ticket and fuel taxes. You are not proving anything. You aren't saying that this $14.8 billion was NOT spent on aviation, are you? That's all NARP is saying, not getting into details what fund it came from. The very fact that there is no dedicated rail trust fund in the U.S. is already a shame! And $2.3 billion from the general fund is more than Amtrak has received annually ever during the past decade. NARP is not claiming that the entire aviation subsidy goes to airlines. It fully realizes that much of it also goes to other things, including airports. And they do advocate for adequate capital funding for rail infrastructure. The problem, however, is that Amtrak in its current structure so far seems to be the most realistic way of preserving passenger rail in the U.S., which is hard to change. If any politician proposes some other model that can realisticly earn Congressional support, without cutting the existing service, I'm sure NARP would embrace it. For right now, however, Amtrak seems to be the only way to save intercity passenger rail as a mode, therefore NARP supports it. So, don't blame this organization. After all, they are the most influential pro-rail group in the U.S. for already 41 years. In fact they often claim that they do support investment to highways and airports, only wanting the rail to be treated equally. What "hard-nosed" data are you talking about? Generally speaking, people contribute taxes into the system until they retire, and take benefits out of the system after they retire. With the end of WWII almost 65 years away, this will affect Government programs such as Amtrak in the future. I don't think Amtrak depends on this so much. The real issue is, as always, adequate funding by the government. Reagan appointed Graham Claytor President of Amtrak, arguably the best CEO Amtrak has ever had ... Hmmm... I was too young to know that, so I'm not disputing it. In fact, it's quite possible. As I said, Bush Administration did give Amtrak a loan guarantee necessary to survive the fiscal crisis of 2002. McCain proposed some security bill for Amtrak shortly after 9/11. That's encouraging news, meaning that common sense prevails even in most biased politicians. If every taxpayer was an occasional Amtrak LD train rider or even if it could be shown that Amtrak's LD trains provide a net societal benefit relative to their subsidy, then the "per taxpayer" arguement would be a good one. The "per-taxpayer" argument works for Amtrak not less than it does for funding the Iraq war, or financial aid to foreign countries. The funds used for rebuilding Iraq (including its railroads!) could just as well be used for expanding rail transportation in our country. Apparently, most taxpayers don't care, as long as the per-taxpayer amount is trivial enough. Poking holes in the other guy's arguments is not the same as proving yours - they are not mutually exclusive. They could both be wrong. Counting the airline ticket taxes collected as a subsidy is a stretch. Defense spending and foreign aid are much easier to see as a "common good" than Amtrak. Providing for 0.1% of intercity trips and calling that "common" really bends the definition of the word "common".The proof for support of Amtrak would be a solid (or even squishy) cost/benefit analysis. None exist. Why? The answer comes out "wrong"! -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, March 16, 2008 11:56 AM The data comes from official documents, i.e. the budget and performance reports of the Department of Transportation, FAA, Homeland Security, etc. There is nothing in these reports that suggests anyone even cares about Amtrak let alone have a motive to kill it. The data also comes from Amtrak's financial statements and performance reports. All data is audited by internal and external auditors.For the fiscal year ended September 30, 2007, Amtrak's passengers received an average subsidy of $40.68 or 18.6 cents a passenger mile based on a federal subsidy of $1.051 billion to cover its operating loss. The subsidy was higher if the total federal and state government payments of $1.4 billion are considered. The average subsidy for long distance passengers was nearly $130, while the subsidy for NEC and other corridor passengers was $3.02 and $16.00. The money provided to Amtrak by the federal government, when viewed on an average per passenger and per passenger mile basis, is the largest subsidy received by any form of transport in the United States, with the exception of some local transit subsidies. Domestic airline passengers, by comparison, received an average federal subsidy of $1.03 or .12 cents per passenger mile in 2007. My point is this; passenger train advocates tend to present only the information that helps make their case, i.e. increase in number of riders and revenues without mentioning the costs or the loss per passenger mile; comparing gross numbers, i.e. federal spend on highways vs. federal spend on Amtrak without breaking it down to passenger seat miles or vehicle miles traveled, which is the honest way to compare the spends. NARP says that, "FAA Operations get general funds as well as funding from the aviation trust fund", i.e. $1.453 billion in fiscal year 2007. They don't point out that the monies received from the aviation trust fund are generated by air carrier ticket and fuel taxes. Nor do they point out that the intra-governmental transfer represents approximately 15 per cent of the FAA's budget. They don't break out the categories of general aviation, i.e. commercial airlines, air taxis, general aviation, military operations in civilian airspace, etc., thereby creating the impression that most if not all of the federal transfer (subsidy) goes to the airlines or aviation operations that compete with trains. They don't mention that only 30 per cent of FAA operations involve controlling commercial airline flights, and people who fly around the country in their own plane or the company jet are not candidates for taking a train. NARP pointed out recently that the number of riders on the Sunset Limited, for example, increased significantly in 2007. And they pointed to a corresponding increase in revenue. What they did not mention is that a Sunset passenger traveling from Los Angles to New Orleans gets a federal subsidy of nearly $1,000 or that a passenger traveling from Los Angles to anywhere on the Sunset route gets a subsidy of 48.5 cents a passenger mile before interest and depreciation. This data is verifiable. NARP may be an influential pro-rail group; it may even be the most influential. But its clout has not been over whelming. It was not able to prevent the discontinuance of the Three Rivers. It has not been able to force Amtrak to restore the Sunset Limited between New Orleans and Orlando. And it has not been able to get Amtrak to restore the Coast Starlight between Sacramento and Portland as quickly as it wants. The reason, I suspect, is because the real decision makers don't spend a lot of time worrying about passenger train enthusiasts of any stripe. Trains make sense in relatively short, high density corridors. They can help relieve air and highway congestion in these corridors under select circumstances. Hoping on a train from New York to Wilmington or Washington is a viable option for people close to the corridor. But long distance trains do not make any sense, as suggested by the amount of the subsidy per passenger mile that they require and the tiny percentage of the public that uses them. Riding a train overnight from New York to Cleveland does not make sense, especially for time constrained business persons. There is very little market for it. The railroads learned this lesson decades ago. Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, March 16, 2008 11:26 PM For the fiscal year ended September 30, 2007, Amtrak's passengers received an average subsidy of $40.68 or 18.6 cents a passenger mile based on a federal subsidy of $1.051 billion to cover its operating loss. False! For FY2006 (that ended September 30, 2007) Amtrak received the total of $1.315 million. Here is NARP's report from Nov.18,2005 (as the appropriation for FY2006 was finally enacted):The bill shows the following breakdown: $495 million operations, of which $5 million is to be used for development of a "managerial cost accounting system" (from Senate bill) $780 million for capital and debt service payments, with no more than $280 million for debt service and thus no less than $500 million for capital. $ 40 million "for a new Efficiency Incentive Grant program." These funds are to be used at the discretion of the Secretary and may be used at any time during the fiscal year to make additional operating assistance available to Amtrak if the Secretary determines such assistance is necessary to maintain the operation of existing Amtrak routes...[or] for Amtrak to stay out of bankruptcy and the Secretary and Inspector General have certified that an emergency situation exists." Any funds not spent by September 1, 2006, the Secretary should use "for capital grants to Amtrak for investments that will have a direct and measurable short-term impact on operating efficiencies."This disproves Samantha's statement about 1.05 billion operating subsidy. My point is this; passenger train advocates tend to present only the information that helps make their case, i.e. increase in number of riders and revenues without mentioning the costs or the loss per passenger mile; comparing gross numbers, i.e. federal spend on highways vs. federal spend on Amtrak without breaking it down to passenger seat miles or vehicle miles traveled, which is the honest way to compare the spends.Okay, anybody who wants to prove himself right would quote data that is "fitting" the most. So, NARP is not an exception. Who can deny the increase in ridership? Nobody. Who can deny that overall spendings on highway and aviation are substantially higher than spending on railroads? Nobody. As far as breakdown, that's another issue. The fact is that railroad transportation does not receive even close to the amount of capital received by other modes. So, before any claim against operating subsidies could be made, the real issue is to establish adequate capital funding source. I don't think NARP would disagree with that.What they did not mention is that a Sunset passenger traveling from Los Angles to New Orleans gets a federal subsidy of nearly $1,000 or that a passenger traveling from Los Angles to anywhere on the Sunset route gets a subsidy of 48.5 cents a passenger mile before interest and depreciation. This data is verifiable. Where is the link to the source?It was not able to prevent the discontinuance of the Three Rivers. It has not been able to force Amtrak to restore the Sunset Limited between New Orleans and Orlando. And it has not been able to get Amtrak to restore the Coast Starlight between Sacramento and Portland as quickly as it wants.Closing the Three Rivers was the decision of Amtrak (not Congress or Administration). True, NARP discouraged Amtrak from this action and, unfortunately, Amtrak did it anyway. What can I say about this? Some things are easier to promote than others. And, I suspect, it's easier for NARP to influence the elected officials than to influence Amtrak itself. As for resuming the Sunset Limited east of New Orleans, the discontinuance is not official, at least now. Apparently, Amtrak is not in a rush to restore it, for one reason or another. But the official discontinuance notices has never been issued! Which means, the discontinuance is still deemed "temporary". Time will show what will come out of it. Meanwhile, both NARP and local officials are fighting for restoring the service. But the bottomline is, again, at this point this is under Amtrak's (not the government's) control. As for Coast Starlight, there are technical issues that neither NARP, nor Amtrak, nor government, is in control of. This is not a good example because Coast Starlight is much more likely to be shortly restored than both Three Rivers and the eastern portion of Sunset Limited. But long distance trains do not make any sense, as suggested by the amount of the subsidy per passenger mile that they require and the tiny percentage of the public that uses them.So, why do they make sense in Russia or China or India? True, overthere much more people are riding them. But why? Because those countrues don't hesitate to provide generous funds (both operating and capital) for these trains. Nobody questions their necessity and viability. If U.S. government decided to inject huge funds to LD trains, more and more people would ride them, possibly even to the extent of reducing the necessity of operating grants. Of course, this pattern would be much easier to establish 50 years ago than it is now. It is always easier to protect something that is intact than to rebuild something that is damaged or partially destroyed. So, now that the LD trains are running, the first step in providing the ground for future expanding passenger rail network is to preserve them as an essential national asset. Riding a train overnight from New York to Cleveland does not make sense, especially for time constrained business persons. There is very little market for it. The railroads learned this lesson decades ago. It's a fallacy. Nobody learned any "lesson". Getting from New York to Cleveland on the existing Lake Shore Limited does not seem marketable primarily because of the schedule. The train serves Cleveland in a non-passenger-friendly hour. In fact, most of the Lake Shore Limited passengers travel either to Chicago itself, or to transfer to other LD trains serving the points west (and it runs full, proving that people do ride long-distance trains). If there was another overnight train - between New York and Cleveland only - departing at 7pm and arriving at 7am, it would be marketable. Simiarly to overnight flights, or to European overnight trains, or to some bus companies that offer overnight service (e.g. New York to Toronto). I don't believe the U.S. is in any way different from Europe, Russia, or China, as far as intercity transportation demand is concerned. The reason why most Americans rely on airlines rather than trains is that highway and aviation lobbyists did a "good" job convincing Americans in superiority of highway and air transportation. You may ask, why Amtrak is not realizing the marketability of 12-hour overnight travel (and not running this type of service). I don't know why. This is one of Amtrak's weaknesses. In fact, I never heard this idea from NARP. I'll try to bring up this idea and see what they think of it. Small blurb in the paper yesterday - McCain rode Amtrak from DC to Philly on Friday.That's nice of him. At least it shows that he is trying to make Amtrak riders believe he's on their side (even if he's not). If so, it means that he, at least, realizes that Amtrak makes a difference for some people. But the gesture would be more significant if McCain rode from DC not to Philly but all the way to his home state. Reply Edit daveklepper Member sinceJune 2002 20,096 posts Posted by daveklepper on Monday, March 17, 2008 4:00 AM IS there a sleeper on the overnight Richmond - Boston train? If not, why not? Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Monday, March 17, 2008 7:17 AM abenm613 wrote: For the fiscal year ended September 30, 2007, Amtrak's passengers received an average subsidy of $40.68 or 18.6 cents a passenger mile based on a federal subsidy of $1.051 billion to cover its operating loss. False! For FY2006 (that ended September 30, 2007) Amtrak received the total of $1.315 million. Here is NARP's report from Nov.18,2005 (as the appropriation for FY2006 was finally enacted):The bill shows the following breakdown: $495 million operations, of which $5 million is to be used for development of a "managerial cost accounting system" (from Senate bill) $780 million for capital and debt service payments, with no more than $280 million for debt service and thus no less than $500 million for capital. $ 40 million "for a new Efficiency Incentive Grant program." These funds are to be used at the discretion of the Secretary and may be used at any time during the fiscal year to make additional operating assistance available to Amtrak if the Secretary determines such assistance is necessary to maintain the operation of existing Amtrak routes...[or] for Amtrak to stay out of bankruptcy and the Secretary and Inspector General have certified that an emergency situation exists." Any funds not spent by September 1, 2006, the Secretary should use "for capital grants to Amtrak for investments that will have a direct and measurable short-term impact on operating efficiencies."This disproves Samantha's statement about 1.05 billion operating subsidy. My point is this; passenger train advocates tend to present only the information that helps make their case, i.e. increase in number of riders and revenues without mentioning the costs or the loss per passenger mile; comparing gross numbers, i.e. federal spend on highways vs. federal spend on Amtrak without breaking it down to passenger seat miles or vehicle miles traveled, which is the honest way to compare the spends.Okay, anybody who wants to prove himself right would quote data that is "fitting" the most. So, NARP is not an exception. Who can deny the increase in ridership? Nobody. Who can deny that overall spendings on highway and aviation are substantially higher than spending on railroads? Nobody. As far as breakdown, that's another issue. The fact is that railroad transportation does not receive even close to the amount of capital received by other modes. So, before any claim against operating subsidies could be made, the real issue is to establish adequate capital funding source. I don't think NARP would disagree with that.What they did not mention is that a Sunset passenger traveling from Los Angles to New Orleans gets a federal subsidy of nearly $1,000 or that a passenger traveling from Los Angles to anywhere on the Sunset route gets a subsidy of 48.5 cents a passenger mile before interest and depreciation. This data is verifiable. Where is the link to the source?It was not able to prevent the discontinuance of the Three Rivers. It has not been able to force Amtrak to restore the Sunset Limited between New Orleans and Orlando. And it has not been able to get Amtrak to restore the Coast Starlight between Sacramento and Portland as quickly as it wants.Closing the Three Rivers was the decision of Amtrak (not Congress or Administration). True, NARP discouraged Amtrak from this action and, unfortunately, Amtrak did it anyway. What can I say about this? Some things are easier to promote than others. And, I suspect, it's easier for NARP to influence the elected officials than to influence Amtrak itself. As for resuming the Sunset Limited east of New Orleans, the discontinuance is not official, at least now. Apparently, Amtrak is not in a rush to restore it, for one reason or another. But the official discontinuance notices has never been issued! Which means, the discontinuance is still deemed "temporary". Time will show what will come out of it. Meanwhile, both NARP and local officials are fighting for restoring the service. But the bottomline is, again, at this point this is under Amtrak's (not the government's) control. As for Coast Starlight, there are technical issues that neither NARP, nor Amtrak, nor government, is in control of. This is not a good example because Coast Starlight is much more likely to be shortly restored than both Three Rivers and the eastern portion of Sunset Limited. But long distance trains do not make any sense, as suggested by the amount of the subsidy per passenger mile that they require and the tiny percentage of the public that uses them.So, why do they make sense in Russia or China or India? True, overthere much more people are riding them. But why? Because those countrues don't hesitate to provide generous funds (both operating and capital) for these trains. Nobody questions their necessity and viability. If U.S. government decided to inject huge funds to LD trains, more and more people would ride them, possibly even to the extent of reducing the necessity of operating grants. Of course, this pattern would be much easier to establish 50 years ago than it is now. It is always easier to protect something that is intact than to rebuild something that is damaged or partially destroyed. So, now that the LD trains are running, the first step in providing the ground for future expanding passenger rail network is to preserve them as an essential national asset. Riding a train overnight from New York to Cleveland does not make sense, especially for time constrained business persons. There is very little market for it. The railroads learned this lesson decades ago. It's a fallacy. Nobody learned any "lesson". Getting from New York to Cleveland on the existing Lake Shore Limited does not seem marketable primarily because of the schedule. The train serves Cleveland in a non-passenger-friendly hour. In fact, most of the Lake Shore Limited passengers travel either to Chicago itself, or to transfer to other LD trains serving the points west (and it runs full, proving that people do ride long-distance trains). If there was another overnight train - between New York and Cleveland only - departing at 7pm and arriving at 7am, it would be marketable. Simiarly to overnight flights, or to European overnight trains. I don't believe the U.S. is in any way different from Europe, Russia, or China, as far as intercity transportation demand is concerned. The reason why most Americans rely on airlines rather than trains is that the policy makers did a "good" job. You may ask, why Amtrak is not realizing the marketability of 12-hour overnight travel (and not running this type of service). I don't know why. This is one of Amtrak's weaknesses. In fact, I never heard this idea from NARP. I'll try to bring up this idea and see what they think of it. Samantha is right. The overnight rail travel market dried up over 50 years ago. The RRs invested mightily in streamliners just after WWII, betting on a return to "normal" rail travel. It worked for a few years until the airlines took the business traveller and the highways took the leisure traveller away. RRs recognized this and took what capital was available and tried to get into the short haul market - even tried some inovation. Aerotrain, Train X, Xplorer, Roger Williams, Keystone, Merchant's Express, for example. You might be able to argue that the gov't missed the boat in the mid 50s to invest in the short haul mkt. But, the overnight market was gone and dead.What LD trains remained were operated primarily out of corporate pride (Broadway, 20th Century, Super Chief, Empire Builder, Cal. Zephyr.) or because there was enough $$ in the mail and head end business.And, while the country has grown over 50% in population since the inception of Amtrak, most of the LD trains are running equal or less capacity and ridership has not kept pace. Example:The Crescent is down to 3 coaches mid-week these days. Less than 10 years ago, it used to run 5 coaches north of Altanta every day. And, only two sleepers - despite near perfect timing for an overnight train between Atlanta and DC and the Northeast - in both directions! And, the Crescent keeps decent time - and pretty much always has. And, Atlanta has added nearly a million residents in that time. Explanation? -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply blue streak 1 Member sinceDecember 2007 From: Georgia USA SW of Atlanta 11,919 posts Posted by blue streak 1 on Monday, March 17, 2008 2:31 PM Is it a lack of equipment? Reply Paul Milenkovic Member sinceJuly 2004 2,741 posts Posted by Paul Milenkovic on Monday, March 17, 2008 5:45 PM OK, the Amtrak operating subsidy is only 500 million instead of a cool billion. You still have to count 280 million debt service towards the cost of operating trains some how, unless you don't think that the interest on loan payments is a cost of driving a car.So 500 million is budget towards capital. Does that mean that Amtrak is paying down the principal on the loans for those Amfleet and Superliner cars at that rate? If so, that reflects the rate of depreciation, the rate at which those cars are used up, and that too is an operating expense. We are up to 1.3 billion and Samantha is starting to look smarter with each passing dollar.If that 500 million is really a capital appropriation, where are the 100-200 Superliner cars in the Fiscal 2006 budget?No one is suggesting people won't ride the trains. The issue is that if it costs 1 billion in rough round numbers out of Congress to move 5 billion Amtrak passenger miles, will it cost an even trillion to replace the 5 trillion passenger miles carried by cars? Yes, yes, cars get a whole lot more money than trains, at least 30 times as much in the Federal highway budget. But 30 times increase in the Amtrak appropriation would give us European trains, increasing the rail share from .1 percent of total passenger miles to 3 percent of passenger miles, not that far off the European ridership on trains. Would the passenger train advocacy community be happy with the energy savings and social benefits of 3 percent of passenger miles carried by train at the cost of the whole highway budget? Would we be able to sell this to voters who are not passenger-train advocates? 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 Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, March 18, 2008 3:38 PM For the fiscal years ended September 30, 2007, as per the 2007 Amtrak Annual Report, the railroad received a total of $1,391,620,000 in federal paid in capital and proceeds from federal and state capital payments. The subsidy required to cover the attributable operating expenses, including interest and depreciation, as per the Financial Performance of Routes - Strategic Business Line (SBL) Report for September YTD, Page C-1 of the Monthly Performance Report for September 2007, was $1,051,500,000. The direct loss from operations before interest and depreciation was $501,000,000. Interest was $95,900,000 and depreciation was $456,600,000. The $2,000,000 difference is attributable to Federal and State Capital Payments. Under Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, interest and depreciation attributable to an activity are ultimately shown in the statement of income, which reflects the total operations of an entity, including net income or net loss. It is the underlying activity, i.e. operation of rail passenger trains that drives the expense. Appropriations and expenditures, as well as amortization of interest and depreciation, are two different accounting phenomena. Many people who argue for a point of view slant the data to support their position. They cherry pick the points that support their argument and ignore the ones that don't support it. People of high integrity recognize both sides of the argument and state them. If they have a strong argument, showing both sides can be an effective tool for getting buy-in. If they have a weak argument, they understandably don't want to show the negatives.The information regarding the subsidy for the Sunset Limited can be found in the aforementioned report. Rail passenger advocacy groups, including NARP, probably don't carry much clout in the scheme of things. Amtrak management makes the major decisions, with the concurrence of the Board of Directors. Of course, given the nature of the organization, Amtrak management and the board are influenced by the politicians, as well as the freight railroad managements that they must interact with. Irrespective of how much the rail advocates push on Amtrak, the Coast Starlight will not be resumed north of Sacramento until the UP is ready to have it happen. As an aside, in 2007 the Crescent was on time at its end points 42.9 per cent of the time. The end point on-time performance record for the long distance trains was 41.6 per cent. So it appears that it turned in a pretty average performance. Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, March 18, 2008 11:46 PM daveklepper wrote:IS there a sleeper on the overnight Richmond - Boston train? If not, why not?There used to be one. Then they took it away, then put it back, then took it away again. To the best of my knowledge, it currently runs without a sleeper. You see, shortage of sleepers in general, and single-level Viewliners in particcular, is something beyond Amtrak's control. That's one of the capital expenses Amtrak really needs funds for. Currently, they distribute the existing sleepers in accordance with demand. Typically, there are two sleepers per long-distance train. But sometimes one train has only one sleeper, while another has three.At the same time, if you look at success of overnight flights or buses, it looks like Amtrak could succeed in similar service on some routes even without sleepers (obviously, if sleepers are available and in demand, they should definitely use them). Some people on this forum disagree with me, but I don't see any reason to believe otherwise. Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, March 19, 2008 12:02 AM And, while the country has grown over 50% in population since the inception of Amtrak, most of the LD trains are running equal or less capacity and ridership has not kept pace. Example:The Crescent is down to 3 coaches mid-week these days. Less than 10 years ago, it used to run 5 coaches north of Altanta every day. And, only two sleepers - despite near perfect timing for an overnight train between Atlanta and DC and the Northeast - in both directions! And, the Crescent keeps decent time - and pretty much always has. And, Atlanta has added nearly a million residents in that time. Explanation?Sometimes there are only three coaches on Crescent, other times there are normal four (or maybe even five, although you might be right - I haven't seen five lately). That depends on seasonal demand and availability of the equipment. The same is especially true for sleepers (see my previous message).As for ridership, the statistics shows that it's currently growing. Of course, it can only grow as much as Amtrak is able to handle. But less capacity does not mean less demand. 20 years ago, Amtrak got more money than it does now. Ten years ago it actually got less money, but at that time it was eager to demonstrate its "ability" to comply to the failed self-sufficiency mandate. So, it was getting deeper and deeper into debt, which almost caused a shutdown and bunkruptcy in summer of 2002. Since then, Amtrak is getting more money - but just enough to keep running without getting into further debt. Not surprisingly, sometimes this lack of funds manifests itself in some trains running with lower capacity. But, for the most part, demand is still growing. Reply Edit daveklepper Member sinceJune 2002 20,096 posts Posted by daveklepper on Wednesday, March 19, 2008 4:55 AM Possibly an overnight sleeper on this run might be an opportunity for a public-private partnership arrangement? A private owner with an appropriate sleeping car runs a regular deluxe never-on-Wednesday three times a week overnight Boston - Richmond service and shares in the additonal revenue? Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Wednesday, March 19, 2008 7:17 AM abenm613 wrote: And, while the country has grown over 50% in population since the inception of Amtrak, most of the LD trains are running equal or less capacity and ridership has not kept pace. Example:The Crescent is down to 3 coaches mid-week these days. Less than 10 years ago, it used to run 5 coaches north of Altanta every day. And, only two sleepers - despite near perfect timing for an overnight train between Atlanta and DC and the Northeast - in both directions! And, the Crescent keeps decent time - and pretty much always has. And, Atlanta has added nearly a million residents in that time. Explanation?Sometimes there are only three coaches on Crescent, other times there are normal four (or maybe even five, although you might be right - I haven't seen five lately). That depends on seasonal demand and availability of the equipment. The same is especially true for sleepers (see my previous message).As for ridership, the statistics shows that it's currently growing. Of course, it can only grow as much as Amtrak is able to handle. But less capacity does not mean less demand. 20 years ago, Amtrak got more money than it does now. Ten years ago it actually got less money, but at that time it was eager to demonstrate its "ability" to comply to the failed self-sufficiency mandate. So, it was getting deeper and deeper into debt, which almost caused a shutdown and bunkruptcy in summer of 2002. Since then, Amtrak is getting more money - but just enough to keep running without getting into further debt. Not surprisingly, sometimes this lack of funds manifests itself in some trains running with lower capacity. But, for the most part, demand is still growing.I'm OK with the equipment arguement for the sleepers, but not the coaches. There cannot be a shortage of Amfleet II coaches. There is one less FL train running these days than there was several years ago, plus the Mobile section of the Crescent was also dropped. And, there are the two cars they used to add/drop in Atlanta (10 years ago it ran 3 cars south of Atlanta and 5 north - every day)Seasonality may be a reason the consist varies over the year, but year over year with growing demand, shouldn't the train get longer?From now to the end of the month, the only day the the train is sold out between ATL and NYP is Easter Sunday. It isn't even sold out for Good Friday, or the Thurday before, yet. (that means that the college kids going home from UVA haven't even filled up the train at Charlotteville) -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Wednesday, March 19, 2008 7:55 AM daveklepper wrote: Possibly an overnight sleeper on this run might be an opportunity for a public-private partnership arrangement? A private owner with an appropriate sleeping car runs a regular deluxe never-on-Wednesday three times a week overnight Boston - Richmond service and shares in the additonal revenue?Grandluxe partnered with Amtrak for premium service on the Silver Meteor, SW Chief and Cal. Zephyr. The Cal Zephyr is doing OK, but the others have done poorly.I'd like to see Amtrak bid out the whole sleeping car/diner business, period. Amtrak would ask "How much do we have to pay you to provide this service - and you keep all the revenue, too." Qualified bidders would have to be existing, national hotel/hospitality providers and they'd be allowed to market, bundle and price the service any way they like. -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply blue streak 1 Member sinceDecember 2007 From: Georgia USA SW of Atlanta 11,919 posts Posted by blue streak 1 on Wednesday, March 19, 2008 2:53 PM What is the inventory of servicable and non servicable equipment that is not assigned?. That would indicate how much service can be increased Reply nanaimo73 Member sinceApril 2005 From: Nanaimo BC Canada 4,117 posts Posted by nanaimo73 on Wednesday, March 19, 2008 3:56 PM The April issue of Trains, on page 20, says there are 54 out of service coaches stored in Delaware.Much of this Delaware stash has been made available only to states that agree to pay for the cars' refurbishment. In a study released on Jan. 7, Illinois was quoted a price of $700,000 per car to overhaul the equipment required to launch two daily round trips on a proposed Chicago - Quad Cities service. For its national trains, management plans to fix just 5 stored Amfleet 1s this fiscal year.My guess is that the equipment shortage in Superliners is the main reason the Sunset Limited has not been extended back to Florida.This site might have more information-http://www.gobytrain.us/amtrak/notes/ Dale Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, March 19, 2008 8:54 PM I'd like to see Amtrak bid out the whole sleeping car/diner business, period. This would make a train less attractive, thus reducing the demand even more. Especially diners (since they are open to coach passengers as well). It seems that you would like to see Amtrak shrink to the Bush Administration's vision - a few disconnected regional corridors. Otherwise, what's the point in this whole argument? If you agree that long-distance trains should be around, then you have to realize that, given the way the things are right now in the U.S., the only way to keep them is through Amtrak in its current structure and funding system, however inefficient it is (or seems to be). I'm OK with the equipment arguement for the sleepers, but not the coaches. Coaches may also fluctuate from route to route based on the demand. Why not? Besides, coaches sometimes need repairs, too, which costs money. Have you seen the difference between the interiors of an average Amfleet-II coach ten years ago and now? Don't you agree that they have improved? Seasonality may be a reason the consist varies over the year, but year over year with growing demand, shouldn't the train get longer? Of couse, they should. Tell this to Bush Administration and to legislators who are responsible for funding. Besides, train equipment is a capital (rather than operating) expense, so there is nothing to complain about - this would not be "pork" by any standard.From now to the end of the month, the only day the the train is sold out between ATL and NYP is Easter Sunday. It isn't even sold out for Good Friday, or the Thurday before, yet. I'm too busy to go out and check how many cars Crescent will have on Friday and weekend. Actually, I will be traveling to Philadelphia on commuter trains that day. If, by some chance, I'll be on my way when Crescent passes by, I'll see it for myself. But I'm not going to plan my time specifically for that. Reply Edit oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Wednesday, March 19, 2008 9:39 PM You are putting words in my mouth. No, I'm not suggesting the LD trains go away. No, I'm not suggesting coach passengers be barred from the diner if it were a contract operation. I'm only suggesting that injecting some immediate profit motive might help the LD trains stop bleeding red ink like a stuck pig. I'd like them to stick around. I'd like Amtrak to really improve it's efficiency and grow. Amtrak doesn't really act like it's interested in anything more than limping along.If your demand grows and you own a surplus of coaches, then shouldn't the train length grow? An incremental car's revenue ought to be able to fund it's own capital refurbishment - or we're in worse trouble than I think. I'm guesing the demand isn't growing very fast - perhaps slower than population growth. The Crescent isn't growing.The Crescent will have 4 coaches on Friday. You can bet on it. Capstone Amfleet II isn't any better than when the cars were new, IMHO. But what's the point here?If you's like an interesting read, check out Amtrak's internal inspector general's report on their web site. Looks like they're the only ones who give a hoot about efficiency and customer service. -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply daveklepper Member sinceJune 2002 20,096 posts Posted by daveklepper on Thursday, March 20, 2008 3:07 AM Possibly there might be some economies of scale and economies of tourist promotion (including internationally) if the entire sleeping car and dining onboard operations were handled by a hotel chain that has a reputation for good service. Isn't that basically what Pullman was all about and what Fred Harvey was all about? Under the right circumstances it might work again.And maybe the overnight trip between Richmond-Washington-Baltimore and Providence-Boston is the market to test? Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, March 20, 2008 5:59 AM You are putting words in my mouth. No, I'm not suggesting the LD trains go away.Good. At least, we agree on that. But how do you envision running the LD trains other than by Amtrak with subsidies? Unfortunately, there are no better models available just now. Indeed, government has kind of missed the boat in establishing a dedicated funding source. Of course, it's never too late. With gas prices soaring, it seems that America will sooner or later have to make some adjustments of its policies and lean towards the rail side. But it would be certainly easier to achieve in the 50's (or even before) as all these highway and aviation programs were just starting to emerge. No, I'm not suggesting coach passengers be barred from the diner if it were a contract operation. It might be more complicated than we think. I'm not expert in that, but it seems that Amtrak knows what it's doing regarding the way of providing the diner service and sleeper accomodations. If some better options were available, it would probably follow them up. As for Amtrak being interesting in limping along rather than doing a real business, between 1998 and 2002 it did try to be more aggressive in its attempt to demonstrate to officials that it is on its way to operational self-sufficiency by 2003, as was mandated in 1997. Unfortunately, it was not more than a beautiful facade. The system almost ran out of cash in mid-2002, and Administration had to provide a loan guarantee to avoid a shutdown. I'm sure Amtrak is interested in more than just limping alone. Recently, Kummant appeared on TV, saying that the system could expand between 50% and 100%. But let's be realistic: this is only possible with adequate capital funds. The Crescent will have 4 coaches on Friday. You can bet on it. That's normal. Of course, it's not as good as five, but definitely better than three. :) Reply Edit blue streak 1 Member sinceDecember 2007 From: Georgia USA SW of Atlanta 11,919 posts Posted by blue streak 1 on Thursday, March 20, 2008 7:40 AM Guess what guys: Cresent sold out both ways on Thursday-Monday except Sunday southbound.. Yes Amtrak has enough equipment??? (Not my quote) Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, March 20, 2008 9:50 AM Recently, Kummant appeared on TV, saying that the system could expand between 50% and 100%. But let's be realistic: this is only possible with adequate capital funds. As tends to be the case with sound bites, Kummant's comments did not completely reflect his views. He repeatedly has told the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure that the future for rail passenger services in the U.S. is in high density corridors. Thus, most of the growth that he was alluding to will be in the corridors.Passenger trains are a solution to a transportation problem. They fit best in relatively short, high density corridors, since amongst other things trains are designed to move large numbers of people. Kummant is a savvy business executive. Like most successful business executives, he is also politically astute. I suspect that he is going along with the long distance passenger advocates because of political pressures. Given a choice, I'll bet he would love to be out of the long distance passenger train business. Well, given the tons of money long distance trains lose, calling it a business is a stretch. Reply Edit oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Thursday, March 20, 2008 11:40 AM blue streak 1 wrote:Guess what guys: Cresent sold out both ways on Thursday-Monday except Sunday southbound.. Yes Amtrak has enough equipment??? (Not my quote) They HAVE it, they just can't afford to USE it a couple days a year and have it sit around the rest of the time. So, it sits around, unservicable.BTW, the northbound still has seats available south of Charlottesville Fri, Sat and Sun. Guess the college students woke up and got their reservations in for the Thurs (Fri AM) train. South Atlanta - there are seats everyday.If you compare the train's size from the post 1971 Southern operation thru to today, you'll see the train's capacity hasn't budged, yet the population along the route, particularly Atlanta to DC, has skyrocketed. -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Thursday, March 20, 2008 11:51 AM Samantha wrote: Recently, Kummant appeared on TV, saying that the system could expand between 50% and 100%. But let's be realistic: this is only possible with adequate capital funds. As tends to be the case with sound bites, Kummant's comments did not completely reflect his views. He repeatedly has told the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure that the future for rail passenger services in the U.S. is in high density corridors. Thus, most of the growth that he was alluding to will be in the corridors.Passenger trains are a solution to a transportation problem. They fit best in relatively short, high density corridors, since amongst other things trains are designed to move large numbers of people. Kummant is a savvy business executive. Like most successful business executives, he is also politically astute. I suspect that he is going along with the long distance passenger advocates because of political pressures. Given a choice, I'll bet he would love to be out of the long distance passenger train business. Well, given the tons of money long distance trains lose, calling it a business is a stretch. You are right. The LD trains cannot be viewed a business. They are a service - and a political necessity.They could be a more cost effective service, should Amtrak ever arrange itself so that pressure and ideas came from the inside instead of just reacting to external pressure (e.g. GAO reports, Amtrak Reform Council, Amtrak IG office, Amtrak Board, etc.) and the employees stood to gain if performance and efficiency improved. They are running a 1950's business with 1980s' equipment. Name another industry that does that sucessfully? -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply blue streak 1 Member sinceDecember 2007 From: Georgia USA SW of Atlanta 11,919 posts Posted by blue streak 1 on Thursday, March 20, 2008 12:41 PM Since there is so much discussion of the Cresent being full from Charlottesville - Washington maybe it is time to add Carolinian equipment Charlotte - Washington - Charlotte. Carolinian crews are in Charlotte to operate its locomotive to position the passenger car(s) for this move. No more cars should be needed most times as car(s) that go Charlotte -Atlanta - New Orleans are usually not needed. Amtrak used to remove coaches in Atlanta southbound and add them northbound anyway when they were removing mail and coaches southbound and adding mail and coaches Atlanta- Washington (north). Coache(s) could be added Washington - Charlotte (Dropped in Charlotte) to be used on the northbound Carolinian. That crew that could pick them up. The layover times in Charlotte provides enough time for cleaning and restocking. Of course this procedure would only need to be done when the Cresent sold out north of Charlotte before train timel Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, March 20, 2008 10:09 PM They are running a 1950's business with 1980s' equipment. Name another industry that does that sucessfully?Similar statements are often heard from some critics. For example, Congressman John Mica claims that Amtrak runs "Soviet-style" trains. This may or may not be an accurate comparison. But, anyway, what's wrong with Soviet-style trains? In Russia (and neighboring ex-Soviet and Eastern European countries), the railroad industry has not changed much since Soviet times, and they are not complaining. The culture of passenger trains in Russia now is quite the same as decades ago. And it has always been good enough. Reply Edit oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Friday, March 21, 2008 8:36 AM blue streak 1 wrote: Since there is so much discussion of the Cresent being full from Charlottesville - Washington maybe it is time to add Carolinian equipment Charlotte - Washington - Charlotte. Carolinian crews are in Charlotte to operate its locomotive to position the passenger car(s) for this move. No more cars should be needed most times as car(s) that go Charlotte -Atlanta - New Orleans are usually not needed. Amtrak used to remove coaches in Atlanta southbound and add them northbound anyway when they were removing mail and coaches southbound and adding mail and coaches Atlanta- Washington (north). Coache(s) could be added Washington - Charlotte (Dropped in Charlotte) to be used on the northbound Carolinian. That crew that could pick them up. The layover times in Charlotte provides enough time for cleaning and restocking. Of course this procedure would only need to be done when the Cresent sold out north of Charlotte before train timelThey used to add/drop cars in Lynchburg on holidays for this reason. They also used to add/drop in Atlanta on a daily basis as recent as 10 years ago. Both are examples of tailoring the train size to the market. It reduces your equipment costs and increased you capacity. Your Charlotte/Carolinian idea is a good one, so why doesn't Amtrak do it?I'd guess it's because it's extra work that nobody would get rewarded for- so why bother. -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Friday, March 21, 2008 9:55 AM Another example - the Boston section of the Lake Shore Limited. For many years, it consisted of two coaches and a sleeper and was running on its own between Boston and Albany (as train ##449/448), where it was hooked to the main train (##49/48). As I was traveling from New York to Chicago six months ago, I was surprised to find out that nothing is being hooked to our train - instead Boston passengers simply transfer from the Boston shuttle train to the main Lake Shore Limited, which now runs from New York with all three Viewliners (!). What's your opinion about this? I think it has both advantages and disadvantages:Advantages:- Less time spent in Albany, particularly for the main train passengers.- Less costs for Amtrak, not having to run extra equipment for long distanceDisadvantages:- Boston passenger don't have thru service to Chicago- Boston passengers can only have sleeper/diner service west of Albany, rather than all the way from Boston- Less coach capacity for Bostn travelers.It depends how you look at it. A vessel can be both half-empty and half-full. Reply Edit AmtrakRider Member sinceMay 2007 82 posts Posted by AmtrakRider on Monday, March 24, 2008 2:04 AM Samantha wrote: Kummant is a savvy business executive. Like most successful business executives, he is also politically astute. I suspect that he is going along with the long distance passenger advocates because of political pressures. Given a choice, I'll bet he would love to be out of the long distance passenger train business. Well, given the tons of money long distance trains lose, calling it a business is a stretch. Maybe Kummant is a LD enthusiast who wants to see the LD trains "preserved for posterity". Of course, that has nothing to do with best business practices. My question is, if Amtrak DOESN'T operate the LD services, is it still eligible for government subsidies? Reply AmtrakRider Member sinceMay 2007 82 posts Posted by AmtrakRider on Monday, March 24, 2008 2:20 AM oltmannd wrote:You are right. The LD trains cannot be viewed a business. They are a service - and a political necessity.Consider as a case in point an example from the airline industry. In the Caribbean, several of the island nations operate "national flag carrier" airlines which serve primarily as tourist transporters. One particular case in point, Bahamasair, has never actually turned a profit. Because the Bahamas is a country of small islands spread out over thousands of square miles, the airline has become a vital link between large population centres and more rural areas. Without it, some rural communities would collapse. So government subsidies are what keep the airline in the air year after year. Cutting out these under-subscribed routes would likely lead to the airline making a profit. However, such an action would be remarkably unpopular.I think Amtrak's LD trains are like that; the service provided is not nearly as central to rural economies, but it certainly would be embarrassing for America, the land that train travel opened, to not have any trains at all. Even worse would be the international perception that the trains were shut down because <gasp> America couldn't afford it. What I am getting at is that like those Caribbean "flag-carriers" there is a certain amount of patriotism tied to the continued existance of Amtrak. Not to mention the jobs. Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Monday, March 24, 2008 8:24 AM AmtrakRider wrote: oltmannd wrote:You are right. The LD trains cannot be viewed a business. They are a service - and a political necessity.Consider as a case in point an example from the airline industry. In the Caribbean, several of the island nations operate "national flag carrier" airlines which serve primarily as tourist transporters. One particular case in point, Bahamasair, has never actually turned a profit. Because the Bahamas is a country of small islands spread out over thousands of square miles, the airline has become a vital link between large population centres and more rural areas. Without it, some rural communities would collapse. So government subsidies are what keep the airline in the air year after year. Cutting out these under-subscribed routes would likely lead to the airline making a profit. However, such an action would be remarkably unpopular.I think Amtrak's LD trains are like that; the service provided is not nearly as central to rural economies, but it certainly would be embarrassing for America, the land that train travel opened, to not have any trains at all. Even worse would be the international perception that the trains were shut down because <gasp> America couldn't afford it. What I am getting at is that like those Caribbean "flag-carriers" there is a certain amount of patriotism tied to the continued existance of Amtrak. Not to mention the jobs....a "Kinetic National Park", so to speak? -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply Paul Milenkovic Member sinceJuly 2004 2,741 posts Posted by Paul Milenkovic on Monday, March 24, 2008 12:51 PM but it certainly would be embarrassing for America, the land that train travel opened, to not have any trains at all. Embarrassing to whom? Of the many reasons to support trains and LD trains, national embarrassment is not one of them. You may be embarrassed to live in an America without LD trains, but I don't think any of your tax-paying neighbors, who would need to be persuaded of the merits of paying taxes towards Amtrak share that emotion.Embarrassment may hold sway from that segment of the public who actually watches PBS, continues to watch during Pledge Week, and actually writes a check in response to the annoying nagging. Outside of that segment, the embarrassment talking point has remarkably little political traction in securing the Amtrak appropriation.As to the "kinetic National Park" suggested by Don Oltmann, I think that is as good a reason as any for LD train subsidy -- we have static National Parks so why not railroad journeys as part of our national heritage, to share with foreign visitors and native-born travellers alike? But the "kinetic National Park" gets perilously close to the "cruise train" concept, which is un-PC in advocacy circles where one is supposed to emphasize the life-line aspect of the LD trains to persons living in East Crevass, Montana. But to the extent that the LD trains are kinetic National Parks, you get into the political problem of the multi-hundreds of dollars in subsidy, at least for some of the passengers. Yeah, we can fume all we want about those rascal politicians who bring this up, that they are in the pocket of the concrete lobby, but it is a political reality that as an advocacy community we need to take a fresh approach. And no, nationsl embarrassment is an old, stale approach going back to the NARP founding that isn't changing enough voter opinions. 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 AmtrakRider Member sinceMay 2007 82 posts Posted by AmtrakRider on Monday, March 24, 2008 1:32 PM Paul Milenkovic wrote: Embarrassing to whom? Of the many reasons to support trains and LD trains, national embarrassment is not one of them. I never said it was a logical or attractive reason. But we are thinking about politics and politicians here, not personal embarrassment. It's "egg on the face of America", which might cause some politician to be portrayed in a bad light. How many politicians are going to go out of the way to be the one to "kill" a "grand institution"? Most are more likely to maintain the status quo. Reply Paul Milenkovic Member sinceJuly 2004 2,741 posts Posted by Paul Milenkovic on Monday, March 24, 2008 4:45 PM Politicians? Embarrassed about cutting train service? You are talking about people who violate one of the Ten Commandments while wearing black knee-high support stockings. Whose recent use of Amtrak services got them in trouble with a Federal prosecutor.I can just picture this. Some Senator standing at a podium with his wife, "I am here to announce that I voted to reduce the Amtrak appropriation at the urging of my spouse of 24 years so I would not get any ideas regarding the convenience of Amtrak travel." 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 Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Monday, March 24, 2008 11:57 PM While preserving the image of America as a rail country is indeed one of the arguments that sound valid to me personally, as well as to most supporters, obviously this argument alone would not be strong enough to warrant federal funds. Even NARP does not bring up this reason so often. Well, if this was the only argument, maybe it would provide for one or two LD routes. But to fund the entire network (however skeletal it is) stronger case should be presented. Providng a transportation link to remote communites with no other alternatives to auto - that's a valid claim. By the way, a news came from NARP that a Florida Congressman John Mica has introduced some kind of a pro-high-speed rail bill. Just to note, Mica has earned a reputation as an outspoken critic of long-distance trains - similarly to McCain. Nevertheless, to his credit, Mica does support commuter rail and, as it has just turned out, he supports the development of high speed rail network in America! What I don't understand is how can these people (McCain, Mica, etc.) contradict themselves. High speed rail cannot be built on nothing. Europe did not destroy its conventional rail network in order to build high speed rail (even though they did build brand new tracks!) The biggest stupidity of Bushes, Micas, and McCains is that they view Amtrak (especially LD network) as impediment to modern high speed rail, while in reality it is not impediment but a necessary prerequisite. Speaking of commuter rail, it's noteworthy that the only metropolitan area that has commuter rail but not Amtrak is Nashville TN. The Music City Star was launched just about two years ago, and it's rather an exception than a rule. Virtually all other commuter rail systems in the U.S. either have a hub at an Amtrak station, or share some of the tracks with Amtrak, or both. Reply Edit oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Tuesday, March 25, 2008 6:54 AM Paul Milenkovic wrote: Politicians? You are talking about people who violate one of the Ten Commandments while wearing black knee-high support stockings. Only one? -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply blue streak 1 Member sinceDecember 2007 From: Georgia USA SW of Atlanta 11,919 posts Posted by blue streak 1 on Tuesday, March 25, 2008 7:21 PM Don't the politicians have a clue that high speed will help long distance? Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, March 25, 2008 10:22 PM The reference to the fact that Nashville is the only metropolitan area in the U.S. that does not have an Amtrak presence is difficult to understand. I don't get the point. Amtrak shares Dallas Union Station facilities with The Trinity Railway Express (TRE) and Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART). It shares station facilities with the TRE, "T", and Greyhound in Fort Worth. One or two Heartland Flyer passengers a day might connect with the TRE to get to Dallas, primarily because the Amtrak connection is unreliable. Otherwise, Amtrak is not a serious player in Fort Worth or Dallas.Austin's commuter rail system from Leander to downtown Austin will begin late this year. Its downtown termination point won't even be close to the Amtrak station. Amtrak played no role whatsoever in the development of the TRE or Austin's commuter rail system. Reply Edit oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Wednesday, March 26, 2008 12:04 PM blue streak 1 wrote:Don't the politicians have a clue that high speed will help long distance?They probably have a clue that it won't help enough compared to what it costs. They do have a clue that what money is available for speed should be spent on corridor type service to get the most benefit.They also have created a situation where social services/SS/healthcare + defense + debt service have just about turfed out any spending on anything else. They can't even spend enough to maintain what's been built. -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, March 26, 2008 11:43 PM They do have a clue that what money is available for speed should be spent on corridor type service to get the most benefit.But, in order for this kind of rail system to be truly nationwide, these corridors must be somehow connected, and the existing Amtrak network should be a foundation for future corridor developments across the country.They also have created a situation where social services/SS/healthcare + defense + debt service have just about turfed out any spending on anything else. They can't even spend enough to maintain what's been built.This is really a silly statements. The silliest part of it is the implication that America cannot afford what other, less wealthy countries do afford. The very fact that some politicians (and even some members of general public such as you are) think this way is shameful to America. As for defense, passenger rail should be a critical element when it comes to defense. Just remember how critical role the trains played in the Soviet Union during the Second World War, especially in evacuating the population from the western parts of the country. Of course, the geographical location of the U.S. makes such a scenario unlikely. But, hypothetically speaking, if, G-d forbid, coast guard fails to do its job, and a foreign army invades the United States from the east, and millions of people need to be evacuated westward as fast as possible. How do you imagine evacuation of millions of people from large Northeastern cities? Gridlocking the highways and airports? That's where trains come into play. In fact, in a scenario like this, not only Amtrak, but freight rail could prove helpful as well by letting people ride freight trains to safety. Of course, such a scenario is unlikely. But that's what defense truly means. Holding the U.S. troops in Iraq, establishing a democracy there, and rebuilding Iraqi railroads is not an excuse for cutting transportation spendings in our country. $1.3 (or even a desired $1.8) billion Amtrak receives per years is not even noticeable, comparing to several billions a day spent on Iraq. Therefore, no sane legislator in his/her right mind would even think about taking Bush's (or, potentially, McCain's) ambitions seriously. They can't even spend enough to maintain what's been built.What is it that's been built? You mean, highways and airports? Or the existing rail infrastructure? Reply Edit Paul Milenkovic Member sinceJuly 2004 2,741 posts Posted by Paul Milenkovic on Thursday, March 27, 2008 8:46 AM I am really tired of these shame-and-honor arguments. And I bet a lot of other people the advocacy community would need to get on its side feel the same way. I watch the newcomers at our local advocacy community rock in their seats when we start this up, and I never see those faces at meetings again.You have one Presidential candidate commenting that a bunch of rich dudes in the 18th Century didn't think through that the Declaration of Independence applied to the workers they held in bondage as being a stain on our founding, and you have another Presidential candidate hectoring us that giving these other dudes no more than 5 years to get their act together as a stain on our honor. And another bunch of people are telling me that I have reservations of spending 350 billion dollars of other people's money to increase train travel from .1 percent all the way to 1 percent of passenger miles means I am dishonorable.Don Oltmann is wrong on this score. If enough people thought that spending large amounts of money for a small slice of transportation passenger miles was something worth doing, we would go out and do it -- if we can find the money for Medicare D, we can find the money for this. Don Oltmann is right that passenger trains don't currently pass the cost-benefit-political priority test; nagging people about honor and shame and "all of those other countries are doing it" won't change anything. Serious consideration of costs and benefits will. But we won't give costs and benefits that consideration because that means we would have to take our critics seriously, which we won't do, so all we do is sit around and shame people who disagree with us and shame people who don't agree with us vigorously enough. 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 MichaelSol Member sinceOctober 2004 3,190 posts Posted by MichaelSol on Thursday, March 27, 2008 9:45 AM abenm613 wrote: This is really a silly statements. The silliest part of it is the implication that America cannot afford what other, less wealthy countries do afford. The United States was one of the first truly transcontinental entities and this is one reason the freight rail system is well developed. There is a cultural distinction that characterizes the United States in terms of passenger service.This doesn't fit anyone's current political narrative, so there's nothing to hear about it, but in fact rather than consume resources with expensive, daily commutes, Americans are much more likely to just move to wherever their job requires them to work, rather than commute. The average European executive or politician obtains absolution from his or her own daily consumption of natural resources by making the public sector consume them on his or her behalf, whereas the typical American is far more willing to pick up stakes and simply move closer to work. The statistic I have seen on this, many years ago, was that the average American executive changed jobs eight times and moved five times, whereas the average European executive changed jobs three times and moved less than (average) once.These are not factory workers lobbying for these high speed rail installations; these are invariably elites, and European elites have far more control over the direction of such spending than American elites who, as I say, in more cases are more practical about just simply moving, and probably are, in the great list of ironies, ultimately less abusive of both tax dollars and environmental consumption because of it. Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Thursday, March 27, 2008 10:08 AM Paul Milenkovic wrote: I am really tired of these shame-and-honor arguments. And I bet a lot of other people the advocacy community would need to get on its side feel the same way. I watch the newcomers at our local advocacy community rock in their seats when we start this up, and I never see those faces at meetings again.You have one Presidential candidate commenting that a bunch of rich dudes in the 18th Century didn't think through that the Declaration of Independence applied to the workers they held in bondage as being a stain on our founding, and you have another Presidential candidate hectoring us that giving these other dudes no more than 5 years to get their act together as a stain on our honor. And another bunch of people are telling me that I have reservations of spending 350 billion dollars of other people's money to increase train travel from .1 percent all the way to 1 percent of passenger miles means I am dishonorable.Don Oltmann is wrong on this score. If enough people thought that spending large amounts of money for a small slice of transportation passenger miles was something worth doing, we would go out and do it -- if we can find the money for Medicare D, we can find the money for this. Don Oltmann is right that passenger trains don't currently pass the cost-benefit-political priority test; nagging people about honor and shame and "all of those other countries are doing it" won't change anything. Serious consideration of costs and benefits will. But we won't give costs and benefits that consideration because that means we would have to take our critics seriously, which we won't do, so all we do is sit around and shame people who disagree with us and shame people who don't agree with us vigorously enough.Well, I sure hope I'm wrong...We SHOULD be able to pay for things like National Parks and Interstate Highways and Air travel and Trains, but, I'm not hopeful that we will. All things other than three big budget eaters I listed have been wallowing in neglect for decades.And, do any of these get any traction in this election? No. What is one of the big items being talked about? Healthcare - the gov't providing more of it. Anybody talking about raising taxes to pay it? No. In fact they are all blathering on about "middle class" tax relief. Anybody talking about adopting the recent recommendation to increase the gasoline tax? No. Do we even have a plan to keep Medicare from going bust in a couple decades? No. The gov't budget is growing faster than the economy - and has been for years. It is being eaten alive by the "big three" with other legitimate uses of tax money becoming increasingly marginalized. We aren't even able to maintain the old "works" projects (parks, roads, etc.), much less start any new ones. I would LOVE to be wrong about this - but I'm not seeing any evidence that I am. -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, March 27, 2008 8:17 PM This doesn't fit anyone's current political narrative, so there's nothing to hear about it, but in fact rather than consume resources with expensive, daily commutes, Americans are much more likely to just move to wherever their job requires them to work, rather than commute. While the average American may change its place of living more frequently than the average European, I'm sure that most Americans would think twice (or more) before deciding (or not deciding) to move thousands of miles away for just a few extra thousand per year. We SHOULD be able to pay for things like National Parks and Interstate Highways and Air travel and Trains, but, I'm not hopeful that we will. All things other than three big budget eaters I listed have been wallowing in neglect for decades.Do you think European countries can afford more than we do? Their social services are superior to ours, and this does not prevent them from having a decent passenger rail system. Are they wealthier than us? Maybe at this time they are somewhat in advantage due the rise of Euro and the fall of USD, but I don't think we are so broke that can't afford what they can. So, social security and medicare is not a concern at all - Europe spends much more on this type of things. Iraq war is more of a concern, since it does undermine overall financial well-being of the U.S. But, still, federal spendings are controlled by Congress. And Congress is really unlikely to sacrifice every social service that we have for presidential ambitions about Iraq. And Amtrak (especially long-distance trains) can also be considered a social service in a sense. Whatever way we slice it, this miniature chunk of funds (even if it grows from $1.3 billion to $2 billion) does not make much of a difference to federal budget. Anybody talking about raising taxes to pay it? No.Really? I'm sure this option is not the last resort. In fact, raising the taxes may be an easier thing for the government to do than cutting the programs that have been defining the image of America for long time. As for me, I don't mind paying more taxes, as long as it's necessary to preserve America as a livable country. I'm sure many people agree with that. Of course, there are some who don't care about the beauty and livability of their country, state, city, as long as their own bank account is filled. But it's government's responsibility to have common sense prevail. The threshold has probably not been reached yet. In other words, so far we haven't found ourselves in a dilemma between raising taxes and cutting valuable federal programs. With right people in power, this can hopefully be avoided. But if not, then common sense must prevail. And, I believe, raising taxes is more of a common sense than cutting the programs. And, the last but not the least, cutting the military presense in Iraq can make a lot of difference. Reply Edit oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Friday, March 28, 2008 4:27 AM abenm613 wrote: This doesn't fit anyone's current political narrative, so there's nothing to hear about it, but in fact rather than consume resources with expensive, daily commutes, Americans are much more likely to just move to wherever their job requires them to work, rather than commute. While the average American may change its place of living more frequently than the average European, I'm sure that most Americans would think twice (or more) before deciding (or not deciding) to move thousands of miles away for just a few extra thousand per year. We SHOULD be able to pay for things like National Parks and Interstate Highways and Air travel and Trains, but, I'm not hopeful that we will. All things other than three big budget eaters I listed have been wallowing in neglect for decades.Do you think European countries can afford more than we do? Their social services are superior to ours, and this does not prevent them from having a decent passenger rail system. Are they wealthier than us? Maybe at this time they are somewhat in advantage due the rise of Euro and the fall of USD, but I don't think we are so broke that can't afford what they can. So, social security and medicare is not a concern at all - Europe spends much more on this type of things. Iraq war is more of a concern, since it does undermine overall financial well-being of the U.S. But, still, federal spendings are controlled by Congress. And Congress is really unlikely to sacrifice every social service that we have for presidential ambitions about Iraq. And Amtrak (especially long-distance trains) can also be considered a social service in a sense. Whatever way we slice it, this miniature chunk of funds (even if it grows from $1.3 billion to $2 billion) does not make much of a difference to federal budget. Anybody talking about raising taxes to pay it? No.Really? I'm sure this option is not the last resort. In fact, raising the taxes may be an easier thing for the government to do than cutting the programs that have been defining the image of America for long time. As for me, I don't mind paying more taxes, as long as it's necessary to preserve America as a livable country. I'm sure many people agree with that. Of course, there are some who don't care about the beauty and livability of their country, state, city, as long as their own bank account is filled. But it's government's responsibility to have common sense prevail. The threshold has probably not been reached yet. In other words, so far we haven't found ourselves in a dilemma between raising taxes and cutting valuable federal programs. With right people in power, this can hopefully be avoided. But if not, then common sense must prevail. And, I believe, raising taxes is more of a common sense than cutting the programs. And, the last but not the least, cutting the military presense in Iraq can make a lot of difference. If you want "Eurpean Style" Government services, then you get "European Style" taxes, no?Last prez we had who raised taxes to try cover costs of some small changes in Gov't programs got booted out after one term.Do you really think a candidate can win with a platform that's "trains, planes, roads and universal health care, all for the low, low price of a 15% tax hike? (that would get into the Eurpean taxation mode) -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Friday, March 28, 2008 7:23 PM If "social service" is the justification for long distance trains, then large parts of the country are not being served properly. The system needs to be expanded greatly.In Texas, where I live, 15 large and medium size cities do not have daily train service, which presumably is the minimum required to meet this social need. Abilene, Amarillo, Beaumont, Brownsville, Corpus Christi, Denton, El Paso, Houston, Laredo, Lubbock, McAllen, Midland, Odessa, San Angelo, and Wichita Falls should have expanded or new passenger train service. Adequate service for the cities served by the Sunset Limited could be provided by daily operation of the Sunset. But new trains would be required for Abilene, Amarillo, Brownsville, Corpus Christi, Denton, Laredo, Lubbock, McAllen, Midland, Odessa, San Angelo, and Wichita Falls. Hmm! I wonder who would pay for it, since very few Texans use the two daily trains - Texas Eagle and Heartland Flyer - that serve Texas. Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, March 30, 2008 4:13 PM If you want "Eurpean Style" Government services, then you get "European Style" taxes, no?You're right on this. Nothing is free. You get what you pay for - whether in form of taxes, user fees, or simply higher fares. Unfortunately, we are too spoiled and, indeed, it would not be an easy thing to burden American people with some kind of "heavy duty" taxing on the exchange of finally getting the best multi-modal transportation system and the best universal health care system in the world. But this would be the great idea! It seems that Democrats would love to pursue it, if not for the Republican opposition. Even if Democrats do prevail, this process should definitely take quite some time, maybe decades, to reach European level. However, even with the existing structure of American economy, the fact is that all these funding programs (social security, national parks, etc., as well as highways, aviation, and, of course, Amtrak) have been arounds for decades. The economy has always had its ups and downs, but these programs did not seem to impose any serious problem to federal budget. At the time Clinton was leaving the office and Bush was just stepping in, the federal budget was having a surplus! Only for the past six or so years there is budget deficit. Iraqi war might be one of the biggest contributors to this situation. I'm not saying anything for or against Bush's starting of the Iraq war in the first place. Moreover, even Hillary Clinton seems to be admitting that some military presense in Iraq is still necessary. But the fact remains that this is a major (or the major) burden on taxpayers. And I believe that most citizens (and legislators) would strongly oppose sacrificing what we have to the questionable Iraqi war. As for McCain, his negative attitude to Amtrak (especially its long-distance network) has been known for long time. I'm sure there might be many republicans who strongly disagree with him on this issue and want Amtrak running, but still support McCain's presidential candidacy over that of Hillary or Obama. Politics is often far removed from real issues. The good thing is that President has no absolute power. One of our points against McCain's anti-Amtrak view is that Amtrak funding is too insignificant to the overall budget, comparing to Iraqi war. Even if, for the sake of argument, we assume for a moment that Amtrak is indeed not cost-efficient (which itself is a very quesitonable claim), the funding cut would be too small to make a difference in overall budget. So, the advantage of having Amtrak around (however cost-inefficient it may be) outweighs minuscule "saving" of money by destroying it. In fact, given the numerous benefits Amtrak employees enjoy, including railroad retirement benefits, it might be more costrly (in the short term) to shut-down long-distance routes than to keep them running. And, from social point of view, having long-distance trains around serves both as a service for millions of people who rely on it, and the image of America. By the way, speaking of the long-distance equipment in service, I specifically observed long-distance trains today on my way from Philadelphia to New York. So, southbound Crescent ran by with typical consist: a baggage car, two sleepers, a diner, a lounge, and four coaches. So was the southbound Silver Meteor, which, in addition to its regular consist, had a private railcar hooked to it. As I arrived at Penn Station, I saw the Lake Shore Limited receiving passengers with its typical consist: a baggage car, three sleepers, an Amfleet II diner, a Horizon lounge (although Horizon is not really typical to it), and four coaches. But what really impressed me is a really long line of passengers boarding the train. While most (if not all) passengers on the Crescent or the Silver trains travel within the distance covered by those trains, a good part of the Lake Shore Limited's passengers is heading west of Chicago. Note, that most of NY State is covered by other Empire corridor trains in much passenger-friendlier hours. This means, most of the Lake Shore Ltd passegners are heading to Chicago or beyond (I guess, including the locations served by the two Texas trains). That's speaking about the demand for long-distance travel. If "social service" is the justification for long distance trains, then large parts of the country are not being served properly. The system needs to be expanded greatly.Absolutely! Just tell this to John McCain, John Mica, and other "critics". Unfortunately, it's harder to bring things back to normal now than it would be to keep things normal back in the 50's-60's. But you're right, Amtrak network should be several times larger than it really is. Reply Edit oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Monday, March 31, 2008 10:32 AM The "peace dividend" was available in the early Clinton years. He had high speed rail as a plank in his platform. Did we get any? No, but we almost got universal, rationed health care.In "Iraq" dividend will be much smaller than the "peace dividend"....While Democrats may be more "spending friendly" than Republicans, HSR is way, way, way down the list for them.You have a long row to hoe to get to a point where even a simple majority of American taxpayers will opt for European style taxes and services, I think.None of the 3 candidates will be able to bring us HSR or much of an expanded Amtrak. But, the a more efficient Amtrak would sure improve the odds.... -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Monday, March 31, 2008 6:38 PM The "peace dividend" was available in the early Clinton years. He had high speed rail as a plank in his platform. Did we get any? No, but we almost got universal, rationed health care.Look at NARP's archive of weekly hotline reports throughouth the 2000. A fight for the High Speed Rail Investment Act (introduced by Sen. Frank Leutenberg of NJ) was intense. Unfortunately, two key Senators (including McCain) blocked it. At the end of the Congressional session, though, McCain did give a warm farewell to Lautenberg (who was leaving Senate for the time being). Here is McCain's speech (http://www.narprail.org/h0012.htm):Sen. John McCain (R.-Ariz.): "First of all, I thank [Sen. Lautenberg] for his advocacy and his strong and heartfelt support about the need for a viable railway system in the Northeast and around America. There has been no one in this body who has been more committed to that proposition than [he]. I congratulate him ... "We will go through a regular process next year to bring up an authorization bill for Amtrak which would then be followed by appropriations. I objected to an appropriation this year because it was $10 billion over 10 years stuck into an appropriations bill for which there had never been a hearing. I hope [Sen. Lautenberg] can understand that. "The second point is, I urge [Sen. Lautenberg] to consider that we have to make a fundamental choice about the national rail system in America -- not just an east coast rail system but a national rail system. There are many countries in the world, including European countries, that regularly subsidize their railway systems. I understand that. I don't dispute it. Perhaps that decision has to be made in the United States of America and in the Congress of the United States with the cooperation of the administration. "I remind the Senator from New Jersey that a few short years ago the decision was made to make Amtrak completely independent. Maybe that was not a wise decision. Last year, Amtrak lost, I think, 900 million and some dollars, and will lose another $900 million, or so. I think we need to make a fundamental decision: Is it a high enough national priority? "I am not prepared to make a decision yet that the taxpayers of America should subsidize a rail system for America. I think the Senator from New Jersey would agree with me that the west coast needs one probably almost as much as the east coast does. We need to make a fundamental decision about what the Government's role will be in a national railway system, and then we need to decide to what degree it is subsidized. "I think a strong argument can be made by anyone who has tried to fly to Newark, or to LaGuardia, or Kennedy lately that they recognize the difficulties in relying simply on air transportation. I think an argument can be made. But I think it deserves full debate and discussion. I thank [Sen. Lautenberg]. I understand his disappointment on this issue. But I would like to make a personal commitment that his spirit will live on, and we will fully examine and fully ventilate this issue and try to come up with a proposal that will satisfy the needs of his constituents and Americans all over this country. Again, I say that with profound admiration and respect for the Senator from New Jersey." This gives some insight on where McCain is standing in terms of Amtrak. Or, maybe it doesnt... Reply Edit oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Tuesday, April 1, 2008 12:37 PM abenm613 wrote: The "peace dividend" was available in the early Clinton years. He had high speed rail as a plank in his platform. Did we get any? No, but we almost got universal, rationed health care.Look at NARP's archive of weekly hotline reports throughouth the 2000. A fight for the High Speed Rail Investment Act (introduced by Sen. Frank Leutenberg of NJ) was intense. Unfortunately, two key Senators (including McCain) blocked it. At the end of the Congressional session, though, McCain did give a warm farewell to Lautenberg (who was leaving Senate for the time being). Here is McCain's speech (http://www.narprail.org/h0012.htm):Sen. John McCain (R.-Ariz.): "First of all, I thank [Sen. Lautenberg] for his advocacy and his strong and heartfelt support about the need for a viable railway system in the Northeast and around America. There has been no one in this body who has been more committed to that proposition than [he]. I congratulate him ... "We will go through a regular process next year to bring up an authorization bill for Amtrak which would then be followed by appropriations. I objected to an appropriation this year because it was $10 billion over 10 years stuck into an appropriations bill for which there had never been a hearing. I hope [Sen. Lautenberg] can understand that. "The second point is, I urge [Sen. Lautenberg] to consider that we have to make a fundamental choice about the national rail system in America -- not just an east coast rail system but a national rail system. There are many countries in the world, including European countries, that regularly subsidize their railway systems. I understand that. I don't dispute it. Perhaps that decision has to be made in the United States of America and in the Congress of the United States with the cooperation of the administration. "I remind the Senator from New Jersey that a few short years ago the decision was made to make Amtrak completely independent. Maybe that was not a wise decision. Last year, Amtrak lost, I think, 900 million and some dollars, and will lose another $900 million, or so. I think we need to make a fundamental decision: Is it a high enough national priority? "I am not prepared to make a decision yet that the taxpayers of America should subsidize a rail system for America. I think the Senator from New Jersey would agree with me that the west coast needs one probably almost as much as the east coast does. We need to make a fundamental decision about what the Government's role will be in a national railway system, and then we need to decide to what degree it is subsidized. "I think a strong argument can be made by anyone who has tried to fly to Newark, or to LaGuardia, or Kennedy lately that they recognize the difficulties in relying simply on air transportation. I think an argument can be made. But I think it deserves full debate and discussion. I thank [Sen. Lautenberg]. I understand his disappointment on this issue. But I would like to make a personal commitment that his spirit will live on, and we will fully examine and fully ventilate this issue and try to come up with a proposal that will satisfy the needs of his constituents and Americans all over this country. Again, I say that with profound admiration and respect for the Senator from New Jersey." This gives some insight on where McCain is standing in terms of Amtrak. Or, maybe it doesnt... The Senate has historically been very collegial. McCain's words fit that mold very well. To say that McCain "hates" Amtrak, or "hates" LD trains would be wrong. That supposes that his decision is made on emotion, when, clearly, he attempts to be rational and moderate. -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Wednesday, April 16, 2008 6:48 AM Actual policy statement from Obama!http://www.barackobama.com/issues/additional/Obama_FactSheet_Transportation.pdfAn almost actual policy statement from Clinton!http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=2760Both have some indication of how much spending will be done. Neither have any indication of where the money will come from.McCain's policy statement: (crickets chirping...) -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply JT22CW Member sinceDecember 2006 302 posts Posted by JT22CW on Friday, April 18, 2008 10:16 PM Samantha wrote:Hmm! I wonder who would pay for it, since very few Texans use the two daily trains - Texas Eagle and Heartland Flyer - that serve TexasI would imagine that you could fit only a very few Texans onto two daily trains, yes. Do they have to be standing-room only and people piled on the roof before train service should be expanded? oltmannd wrote:While Democrats may be more "spending friendly" than Republicans, HSR is way, way, way down the list for themOpposition to HSR has been quite bipartisan. Then again, there is no clear-cut line as to the political leanings of Democrats and Republicans either. And FTR, both GOP and Dems are just as "spending-friendly" as each other, just that one prefers to tax whereas the other prefers to borrow. Have we not yet reached the point where investment in HSR ought to have been the proverbial "no-brainer" yet? On top of the other airlines' woes, even the venerated-by-Amtrak-opponents "perfect airline" SWA has been caught with pants down trying to cover up the cracks in their planes' wings. And AFAICS, we don't need so-called "European-style taxes" to build HSR; but we do have to stop pretending that it costs more to build railroads than it does to build highways (latest offender is a one-mile segment of light rail in Bayonne, New Jersey, which is going to cost an unbelievable $58 million to build on an existing right of way-that's well over double the cost to build new high-speed rail alignments in France-so don't tell me that it's not purely political, because it surely is).BTW, blabbing about certain levels of taxation is an attempt to cast aspersions on standard of living in certain countries. Germany, though, seems to have it all-autobahns where you can drive at any speed you want, ICE trains that leave planes in the dust, a currency (yes, the Euro is a German currency) that other countries are taking on as a reserve currency more and more, falling unemployment, trade surpluses, expanding military (need I go on)...where is the USA in this picture? oltmannd wrote:The Senate has historically been very collegial. McCain's words fit that mold very well. To say that McCain "hates" Amtrak, or "hates" LD trains would be wrong. That supposes that his decision is made on emotion, when, clearly, he attempts to be rational and moderateTo assume that a politician lacks emotion is naïve. To assert that a politician will not take a particular stance based on emotion and/or self-interest implies a world view that rejects reality. Of course, that doesn't nullify the lip service that other candidates besides McCain are offering up.Should we then vote for Lyndon LaRouche because of his HSR promises? Naah...(and of course, neither Kay Bailey Hutchison nor Lautenberg are running) Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, April 20, 2008 3:06 PM I would imagine that you could fit only a very few Texans onto two daily trains, yes. Do they have to be standing-room only and people piled on the roof before train service should be expanded?Texans have demonstrated overwhelmingly a preference for the airplane for distances of more than 200 miles and the car for distances of less than 200 miles or for family outings. There is practically no market for passenger rail service in Texas, outside of commuter rail in the state's major cities. And a play on words will not change this fact. The state legislature will not consider funding rapid rail between the Lone Star state's big cities. There is a good reason for their stance. They know that it would lose buckets of money to support the travel preferences of a handful of people. It is also the reason why private investors are not lining up to fund passenger rail in Texas.The number of people who ride Amtrak's trains to and from Texas could be handled with a couple of buses. In fact, given the one constant for the Texas Eagle - it is usually late; putting people on buses to complete their journey is a common occurrence. For the fiscal year ended September 30, 2007, the Eagle sold approximately 51 per cent of its available seat miles. The Sunset Limited sold approximately 52 per cent of its available seat miles, and the Heartland Flyer sold nearly 38 per cent of its available seat miles. Moreover, in the case of the Eagle, the the load factor was considerably higher north of St. Louis than south of there. Not to worry; it will be a long time before anyone has to stand on Amtrak's or any trains in Texas. Reply Edit oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Sunday, April 20, 2008 6:15 PM JT22CW wrote: Samantha wrote:Hmm! I wonder who would pay for it, since very few Texans use the two daily trains - Texas Eagle and Heartland Flyer - that serve TexasI would imagine that you could fit only a very few Texans onto two daily trains, yes. Do they have to be standing-room only and people piled on the roof before train service should be expanded? oltmannd wrote:While Democrats may be more "spending friendly" than Republicans, HSR is way, way, way down the list for themOpposition to HSR has been quite bipartisan. Then again, there is no clear-cut line as to the political leanings of Democrats and Republicans either. And FTR, both GOP and Dems are just as "spending-friendly" as each other, just that one prefers to tax whereas the other prefers to borrow. Have we not yet reached the point where investment in HSR ought to have been the proverbial "no-brainer" yet? On top of the other airlines' woes, even the venerated-by-Amtrak-opponents "perfect airline" SWA has been caught with pants down trying to cover up the cracks in their planes' wings. And AFAICS, we don't need so-called "European-style taxes" to build HSR; but we do have to stop pretending that it costs more to build railroads than it does to build highways (latest offender is a one-mile segment of light rail in Bayonne, New Jersey, which is going to cost an unbelievable $58 million to build on an existing right of way-that's well over double the cost to build new high-speed rail alignments in France-so don't tell me that it's not purely political, because it surely is).BTW, blabbing about certain levels of taxation is an attempt to cast aspersions on standard of living in certain countries. Germany, though, seems to have it all-autobahns where you can drive at any speed you want, ICE trains that leave planes in the dust, a currency (yes, the Euro is a German currency) that other countries are taking on as a reserve currency more and more, falling unemployment, trade surpluses, expanding military (need I go on)...where is the USA in this picture? oltmannd wrote:The Senate has historically been very collegial. McCain's words fit that mold very well. To say that McCain "hates" Amtrak, or "hates" LD trains would be wrong. That supposes that his decision is made on emotion, when, clearly, he attempts to be rational and moderateTo assume that a politician lacks emotion is naïve. To assert that a politician will not take a particular stance based on emotion and/or self-interest implies a world view that rejects reality. Of course, that doesn't nullify the lip service that other candidates besides McCain are offering up.Should we then vote for Lyndon LaRouche because of his HSR promises? Naah...(and of course, neither Kay Bailey Hutchison nor Lautenberg are running)That a mile of urban railway could cost double that for a mile of rural railway means the cost of doing the urban mile is purely political?You are just leaping to conclusions....again.Ever find those Pittsburgh line track charts? Still wanna do HSR on the old PRR alignment? Or do you concede that one? -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply 12345 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
The 60 mph avg speed for the 20th Century was with some 90 mph running in spots where the inductive train stop system was installed.
Does Acela beat flying trip times? What speed to do they sell? Frequency and access to stations have nothing to do with it?
Feeder systems to Airports are generally automobiles. Airports are not in city centers - they were generally placed out in the "boonies" when built. Commercial aviation and highways grew up together. As sprawl and urbanization have overtaken airport locations, rail transit feeder systems have started to appear. SF, Newark, Friendship, Idlewild, National, O'Hare, Philly, Hartsfield...
You really think that if SEPTA, NJT, MBTA, VRE, MARC, Metro, NYCTA and MNRR stopped running tomorrow that the NEC would remain as prosperous? Exactly how much parking is there at NYP?
Population that the route serves is not a driver of frequency?
You're too smart to be missing my point about UPS vs USPS. I'm not able to see how your comments pertain to the point I made, twice. I'll just have to assume your comments were just an attempt to get in the last word. It's yours.
You should take that McMain poster and place it on the outbound tracks of the passing UP freight coming! Americas do not want World War 3!
As long as you consider a four-to-eight more years of anti-Amtrak hostility a good thing...
Does Acela beat flying trip times?
Yes, it does - if you keep in mind that DC Union Station, NYC Penn Station, and Boston South Station are all in central city areas, while airports are rather at the outskirts. Who need speed the most? Business travelers. Other people would look for cheaper options, that is a bus, especially a Chinatown bus. In fact, given that the distance is not very long, even bus makes it pretty fast, but the level of service on it is not up to business standards. So, besides the speed, Acela offers premium level of service, and other NEC trains, too, have higher standard of service than buses and, possibly, even airlines.
You really think that if SEPTA, NJT, MBTA, VRE, MARC, Metro, NYCTA and MNRR stopped running tomorrow that the NEC would remain as prosperous?
Here you're right. Commuter carriers do help Amtrak fund the old NEC infrastructure. And they are not slowing down Amtrak trains at all. First of all, commuter trains have passenger-oriented schedules, just like Amtrak. Secondly, Amtrak owns most of the NEC, so it has freedom to give priority to its own trains, but there's no need to do it. Even on the Metro North's Hudson Line, which is a part of Amtrak's Empire Corridor, there are no problems with commuter trains. Even if, by some chance, Metro North decides to give some priority to its train, rather than Amtrak's, remember that a commuter train is different from a freight train. It may take extra two or three minutes from Amtrak, not 10-15 minutes.
Exactly how much parking is there at NYP?
Well, NYP may not have a dedicated parking lot, but it has more transit services than any of the airports.
abenm613 wrote: motard98 wrote:McCain will be the next president IMO and that's a good thingAs long as you consider a four-to-eight more years of anti-Amtrak hostility a good thing... Does Acela beat flying trip times? Yes, it does - if you keep in mind that DC Union Station, NYC Penn Station, and Boston South Station are all in central city areas, while airports are rather at the outskirts. Who need speed the most? Business travelers. Other people would look for cheaper options, that is a bus, especially a Chinatown bus. In fact, given that the distance is not very long, even bus makes it pretty fast, but the level of service on it is not up to business standards. So, besides the speed, Acela offers premium level of service, and other NEC trains, too, have higher standard of service than buses and, possibly, even airlines.You really think that if SEPTA, NJT, MBTA, VRE, MARC, Metro, NYCTA and MNRR stopped running tomorrow that the NEC would remain as prosperous?Here you're right. Commuter carriers do help Amtrak fund the old NEC infrastructure. And they are not slowing down Amtrak trains at all. First of all, commuter trains have passenger-oriented schedules, just like Amtrak. Secondly, Amtrak owns most of the NEC, so it has freedom to give priority to its own trains, but there's no need to do it. Even on the Metro North's Hudson Line, which is a part of Amtrak's Empire Corridor, there are no problems with commuter trains. Even if, by some chance, Metro North decides to give some priority to its train, rather than Amtrak's, remember that a commuter train is different from a freight train. It may take extra two or three minutes from Amtrak, not 10-15 minutes. Exactly how much parking is there at NYP?Well, NYP may not have a dedicated parking lot, but it has more transit services than any of the airports.
I think the answer to my Acela speed question is "it depends". There was a nice article back at the dawn of Acela about a "race" bewteen two travellers who when Manhattan to Boston - Acela vs. LaGaurdia shuttle. The result was a tie. I think Acela wins the market share battle for it's other attributes, including easy accessibility from feeder systems. There is even the intangible "transit culture" that the feeder systems cultivate. A New Jersian will automatically consider NJT and Amtrak as a possible alternative for many trips where as a Georgian will never get past fly/drive.
Yes, I remember these races. The "aviator" came first, then came the Acela guy just a few minutes later, and they both waited for the motorist for about half-hour or little less. And, yes, as I pointed above I do agree that on a relatively short distance such as between New York and Boston, what makes a real difference is the level of service, not even the speed.
A New Jersian will automatically consider NJT and Amtrak as a possible alternative for many trips where as a Georgian will never get past fly/drive.
That's correct, too. But the fly/drive dependence of most Americans (outside of the Northeast) has come as a result of flawed policies biased towards these two modes. The sad outcome of these policies is harder to rectify now than it would be to prevent in the first place. A good question, though, is how it was possible to keep the Northeastern states in a relatively good shape (in terms of transportation options). Is it just because of the population density? Or maybe there are other reasons why New Jersey has its own statewide regional rail system (NJ Transit), while Georgia doesn't? Okay, let's say size makes a difference. But what about Pennsylvania? How come the Philadelphia region has well-developed commuter rail system (currently operated by SEPTA), while Pittsburgh doesn't? Two cities in one state are in a totaly different situation.
blue streak 1 wrote:correct: The US's first priority is to get to the quick goal of 79MPH on all track. Then the useage will show if there is a demand for higher speeds. I believe that we (US) needs to get our speeds up. (79MPH constant speed will result in 70 average between stops not more than 2 an hour with dwell time of 3 minutes.Think how much better equippment utilization would be on the freight lines
In a large part of the country, you'd be into some massive curve straightening projects
abenm613 wrote: Yes, I remember these races. The "aviator" came first, then came the Acela guy just a few minutes later, and they both waited for the motorist for about half-hour or little less. And, yes, as I pointed above I do agree that on a relatively short distance such as between New York and Boston, what makes a real difference is the level of service, not even the speed.A New Jersian will automatically consider NJT and Amtrak as a possible alternative for many trips where as a Georgian will never get past fly/drive.That's correct, too. But the fly/drive dependence of most Americans (outside of the Northeast) has come as a result of flawed policies biased towards these two modes. The sad outcome of these policies is harder to rectify now than it would be to prevent in the first place. A good question, though, is how it was possible to keep the Northeastern states in a relatively good shape (in terms of transportation options). Is it just because of the population density? Or maybe there are other reasons why New Jersey has its own statewide regional rail system (NJ Transit), while Georgia doesn't? Okay, let's say size makes a difference. But what about Pennsylvania? How come the Philadelphia region has well-developed commuter rail system (currently operated by SEPTA), while Pittsburgh doesn't? Two cities in one state are in a totaly different situation.
I think it comes down to how the state's politics governs funding. In NJ, the vast majority of the state is populated by suburbanites. Not too many rural folks, so there is great support at the state level for transit funding. Even the more conservative governors (Kean, Whitman) were big supporters. NJT grew fastest under Kean.
In PA, transit funding is done at the county level, but counties are able to band together to fund regional efforts. This is SEPTA's structure. PA politics at the state level always seems to teeter between the rural interests and that of Pittsburgh and Philly, so state funding for transit is not very well supported. In fact, bickering between the conservative 'burbs and the liberal city in Phila often leave SEPTA in the lurch.
In GA, most of the state is still trying to get used to the fact that Atlanta is a) very large and b) very important economically to the state. Consequently, there are virtually no mechanisms in place to fund transit on other than a county basis - and GA has really small counties. The Atlanta 'burbs are just now starting to realize that transit does have a place in suburbia and it appears that a mechanism to allow counties to from a regional funding district to assess a penny sales tax for transit will make it out of the legislature this winter. There is still a lot of political silliness down here with it's roots in reconstruction, bowl weevils and Southern/Scots-Irish stubborness.
Amtrak does have an occasional problem with commuter train interference, particularly at New Rochelle and between there and New Haven, but it has not been a major issue for some time. When trains are running on time, it isn't a problem, and need not be a problem at other times when the best dispatching occurs. There have been a few sporadic complaints from New Jersey commuters about delays due to priority for Amtrak. But Amtrak's long distance passenger on most frieght lines would not even consider these delays as real delays!
I think someone should make the effort to talk to McCain. The National Defense argument might be the best, with Amtrak's usefulness after 11 Sep. '01 on ideology permitting a catastophy at Katrina two examples.
daveklepper wrote: Amtrak does have an occasional problem with commuter train interference, particularly at New Rochelle and between there and New Haven, but it has not been a major issue for some time. When trains are running on time, it isn't a problem, and need not be a problem at other times when the best dispatching occurs. There have been a few sporadic complaints from New Jersey commuters about delays due to priority for Amtrak. But Amtrak's long distance passenger on most frieght lines would not even consider these delays as real delays! I think someone should make the effort to talk to McCain. The National Defense argument might be the best, with Amtrak's usefulness after 11 Sep. '01 on ideology permitting a catastophy at Katrina two examples.
Agreeing with every words. That's exactly what I meant. Any "conflict" between Amtrak and a commuter line on tracks controlled by either of the two entities is too trivial to even be considered, at least comparing with conflicts between Amtrak and freight railroads on freight-owned tracks. It's mainly because freight trains tend to be much longer and move much slower than passenger ones.
As for McCain, yes, it is now time to let him know that his anti-Amtrak reputation largely discourages us from supporting his candidacy. And, if he does become a President, then we'll definitely have to keep pressuring him to keep his hands off Amtrak. But it's at least just as important to reach out to legislators, as they may have even more power with respect to Amtrak issues. It may or may not be possible to convince McCain that Amtrak funding is an important investment rather than a "pork", especially if he becomes a Presideint, and especially if he happens to be eventually re-elected for the second term. But it's certainly possible to let our Senators and Congressmen know that we are interested in having Amtrak and they must fight strongly for it, in order to enjoy our support. Their job is to prevent Bush's or McCain's anti-Amtrak (read: anti-rail) ideas from being implemented.
But McCain has shown some support at times for light rail and commuter rail. And freight congestion relief. This may mean he can be talked to.
daveklepper wrote: But McCain has shown some support at times for light rail and commuter rail. And freight congestion relief. This may mean he can be talked to.
I think you are right. I think he is reasonable. But, you better have your ducks in a row before you speak! Some of us have asked some very "hard" questions about Amtrak in general and the LD trains in particular. It's not that Amtrak and the LD trains don't serve any useful purpose - the do - but at what cost?
We haven't gotten any "hard" answers from anyone. Mostly we get quibbling over the questions!
I am surprised that there are no Amtrak insiders around these forums - only Amtrak appologists.
You can't just say "the Empire Builder is a vital transportation link in Montana". That's like putting lipstick on a pig. It's still pork. You have to back it up with cost/benefit numbers, showing it's the best, or at least a good way to provide the service. Amtrak's own monthly numbers show big time red ink, so there have to be quantifiable benefits to offset - even if they are soft, like improved air quality or reduced oil consumption or lessened CO2 emissions.
Something! Anything!
Maybe it's true to some extent. Indeed, as I mentioned above, McCain did give an encouraging word during the 2002 crisis that he'll do what he can to avoid a shutdown of Amtrak. In other words, if anyone accuses him in being completely anti-rail, there are some points in his defense. who knows, maybe he can even propose some useful ideas that would actually improve nationwide passenger rail in the U.S. But his reputation as Amtrak's critic cannot just be ignored. And, since Weyrich quotes McCain as saying that shutting Amtrak down would be a "non-negotiable issue", it is hard to imagine the Arizona-Senator-turned-US-President becoming an active supporter of national passenger rail. Maybe Weyrich exaggerates the real picture. Maybe McCain never spoke about his "non-negotiable" issues with Amtrak. I don't know. McCain's campain website does not list any items on a keyword search for Amtrak. That might be because he realizes that his view on this issue is extremely unpopular and would chase away potential voters.
Some of us have asked some very "hard" questions about Amtrak in general and the LD trains in particular. It's not that Amtrak and the LD trains don't serve any useful purpose - the do - but at what cost?
At what cost? At a very low one. The small percentage of all transportation funds Amtrak receives is quite proportional to its market share. Divide the current year's $1.3 billion by the number of taxpayers in the U.S. An average taxpayer, even if his town is not served by Amtrak, probably does not even feel this silly amount being taken away from him, forget about being a "burden". True, cost efficiency is important, and Amtrak should not be an exception. But micromanaging and threatening to cut funding is not of any help. Since 2003 (or rather since the near-shutdown experience of summer-2002), Amtrak is at least getting enough money not to throw itself into any further debt. That is good. But this amount is still too small for real expansion. Also, the operating portion of these funds is not that big - some $300 million (out of $1.3 billion).
You can't just say "the Empire Builder is a vital transportation link in Montana". That's like putting lipstick on a pig. It's still pork. You have to back it up with cost/benefit numbers, showing it's the best, or at least a good way to provide the service.
"Hi, President McCain? Meet my pet pig, Amtrak. Doesn't he look cute in his blue and silver lipstick? What does he do? Well, I hitch him up to my Radio Flyer wagon my Uncle Sam gave me and he takes me to the Piggly Wiggly. I could drive. It's faster, but it's just not as much fun. But just look at how cute he is! How much does he eat? Well, he eats quite a bit more than the gas costs to drive to the Piggly Wiggly, but I extort a nickel a day from all my neighbors to pay for his food. After all, they do get to see how cute he looks. And, three years ago, when it snowed, I hitched him up to my Flexible Flyer and got milk and bread for all my neighbors - even though they told me they could wait for the plow to come by the next day. I think he is a good model for a national transportation policy, don't you?"
If every taxpayer was an occasional Amtrak LD train rider or even if it could be shown that Amtrak's LD trains provide a net societal benefit relative to their subsidy, then the "per taxpayer" arguement would be a good one. But, I've never seen any sort of cost/benefit analysis. Why? Because, I suspect, the case can't be made! I've never seen it - and I've been looking and reading for decades.
I've been all over the NARP web site. Lots of interesting thoughts, but not much meat.
I'd sure like to see NARP hold Amtrak as accountable for productivity as they do for service levels.
nanaimo73 wrote:With the depleted manufacturing base, and a large wave of retirements starting in two years, Amtrak's future does not look too bright with McCain in the White House.
Amtrak has survived even Reagan who tried really hard to shut it down. If Reagan had no power to accomplish that, McCain has no power either. What does it have to do with retirements? Some people retire, others step into their positions. Sometimes a company may announce a hire freeze for the positions that it can survive without. President can't change that by his desire alone.
oltmannd wrote: If every taxpayer was an occasional Amtrak LD train rider or even if it could be shown that Amtrak's LD trains provide a net societal benefit relative to their subsidy, then the "per taxpayer" arguement would be a good one. But, I've never seen any sort of cost/benefit analysis. Why? Because, I suspect, the case can't be made! I've never seen it - and I've been looking and reading for decades. I've been all over the NARP web site. Lots of interesting thoughts, but not much meat.I'd sure like to see NARP hold Amtrak as accountable for productivity as they do for service levels.
If so, how did Amtrak manage to stay on since 1971, in spite of Reagan's and others' attempts to destroy it?
Amtrak has stumbled along since 1971 for three primary reasons. A dedicated group of enthusiasts have successfully lobbied Congress to provide enough money to keep it running. They know how to press the right political (emotional) hot buttons to garner the needed support. Amtrak provides a viable, arguably important service in the NEC, which has fielded a powerful congressional delegation that supports it. Perhaps most importantly, in the scheme of things, Amtrak's federal funding is a miniscule per cent of the federal budget. It does not even hit most radar screens. I suspect that many of those in Congress who vote to support it have little idea of whether Amtrak provides an important service, how it is funded, and where passenger trains could be viable.
NARP, like most rail advocates, when pressed for hard nosed data to support the continuation of rail services that lose heaps of money while providing a marginal social benefit, i.e. long distance passenger trains, cannot produce any numbers that a reasonable person could accept. They ignore any data that does not support their argument, which is what I would do if I was being paid to advocate for a point of view.
The information presented on NARP's website is frequently wrong, incomplete, or misleading. For example, they claim that general aviation received a federal subsidy of $1,453 billion for 2007. They are wrong. During 2007 FAA expenditures were $14.8 billion, of which $2.3 billion was transferred from the general fund. Most of the $14.8 billion was covered by ticket and fuel taxes.
NARP's website leaves the reader with the impression that the entire federal aviation subsidy ($1.453 billion) went to the airlines. Again they are wrong. Airline flights account for approximately 30 per cent of the FAA workload. Most of workload involves controlling general aviation (includes business aviation), air taxis, and military flights in civilian airspace. Thus, approximately 70 per cent of the subsidy went to general and military aviation. Most people, who fly their own plane, ride around the country in the company jet, or jockey a military plane, are not candidates for taking the train.
abenm613 wrote: What does it have to do with retirements? Some people retire, others step into their positions.
Generally speaking, people contribute taxes into the system until they retire, and take benefits out of the system after they retire. With the end of WWII almost 65 years away, this will affect Government programs such as Amtrak in the future.
abenm613 wrote: nanaimo73 wrote:With the depleted manufacturing base, and a large wave of retirements starting in two years, Amtrak's future does not look too bright with McCain in the White House.Amtrak has survived even Reagan who tried really hard to shut it down.
Amtrak has survived even Reagan who tried really hard to shut it down.
Reagan appointed Graham Claytor President of Amtrak, arguably the best CEO Amtrak has ever had ...
They ignore any data that does not support their argument, which is what I would do if I was being paid to advocate for a point of view.
The data provided by those "experts" who would like to kill Amtrak is easily disproved by NARP (and other enthusasts). For example, the previous DOT Secretary Norman Mineta compared the passenger-mile costs of the Sunset Limited with those of a typical Orlando-LA flight. Obviously, a flight would seem much more economical, especially considering the difference between 5 hours and 3 days. But Mineta simply ignored the fact that most passengers on the Sunset Limited do not travel the entire length of the route. An Orlando-to-LA flight does not stop at New Orleans, Houston, Phoenix, and numerous points in between. NARP website in fact discloses many myths created by those who don't want passenger trains to be around. By the way, I don't know if NARP or any other group has ever mentioned it, but my opinion is that increasing Amtrak service on medium distances (up to 500-600 miles), especially with overnight trains that would attract significant numbers of passengers, would relieve airports from handling short flights and provide more room for long-haul flights (transcontinental and international). My parents live a few miles away from JFK, and I see it for myself that airplanes are passing over our home about every two minutes. And large aircraft (B747, B767, A330, etc.) is NOT a majority. Yes, JetBlue does run small A320's even for coast-to-coast flights, but it's probably an exception. I suspect that most of smaller aircraft flying to/from JFK are some relatively short flights. If most passengers from these flights were transfered to trains, imagine how many more international or transcontinental flights could be there instead!
You are not proving anything. You aren't saying that this $14.8 billion was NOT spent on aviation, are you? That's all NARP is saying, not getting into details what fund it came from. The very fact that there is no dedicated rail trust fund in the U.S. is already a shame! And $2.3 billion from the general fund is more than Amtrak has received annually ever during the past decade. NARP is not claiming that the entire aviation subsidy goes to airlines. It fully realizes that much of it also goes to other things, including airports. And they do advocate for adequate capital funding for rail infrastructure. The problem, however, is that Amtrak in its current structure so far seems to be the most realistic way of preserving passenger rail in the U.S., which is hard to change. If any politician proposes some other model that can realisticly earn Congressional support, without cutting the existing service, I'm sure NARP would embrace it. For right now, however, Amtrak seems to be the only way to save intercity passenger rail as a mode, therefore NARP supports it. So, don't blame this organization. After all, they are the most influential pro-rail group in the U.S. for already 41 years. In fact they often claim that they do support investment to highways and airports, only wanting the rail to be treated equally. What "hard-nosed" data are you talking about?
I don't think Amtrak depends on this so much. The real issue is, as always, adequate funding by the government.
Hmmm... I was too young to know that, so I'm not disputing it. In fact, it's quite possible. As I said, Bush Administration did give Amtrak a loan guarantee necessary to survive the fiscal crisis of 2002. McCain proposed some security bill for Amtrak shortly after 9/11. That's encouraging news, meaning that common sense prevails even in most biased politicians.
If every taxpayer was an occasional Amtrak LD train rider or even if it could be shown that Amtrak's LD trains provide a net societal benefit relative to their subsidy, then the "per taxpayer" arguement would be a good one.
The "per-taxpayer" argument works for Amtrak not less than it does for funding the Iraq war, or financial aid to foreign countries. The funds used for rebuilding Iraq (including its railroads!) could just as well be used for expanding rail transportation in our country. Apparently, most taxpayers don't care, as long as the per-taxpayer amount is trivial enough.
Small blurb in the paper yesterday - McCain rode Amtrak from DC to Philly on Friday.
abenm613 wrote: They ignore any data that does not support their argument, which is what I would do if I was being paid to advocate for a point of view. The data provided by those "experts" who would like to kill Amtrak is easily disproved by NARP (and other enthusasts). For example, the previous DOT Secretary Norman Mineta compared the passenger-mile costs of the Sunset Limited with those of a typical Orlando-LA flight. Obviously, a flight would seem much more economical, especially considering the difference between 5 hours and 3 days. But Mineta simply ignored the fact that most passengers on the Sunset Limited do not travel the entire length of the route. An Orlando-to-LA flight does not stop at New Orleans, Houston, Phoenix, and numerous points in between. NARP website in fact discloses many myths created by those who don't want passenger trains to be around. By the way, I don't know if NARP or any other group has ever mentioned it, but my opinion is that increasing Amtrak service on medium distances (up to 500-600 miles), especially with overnight trains that would attract significant numbers of passengers, would relieve airports from handling short flights and provide more room for long-haul flights (transcontinental and international). My parents live a few miles away from JFK, and I see it for myself that airplanes are passing over our home about every two minutes. And large aircraft (B747, B767, A330, etc.) is NOT a majority. Yes, JetBlue does run small A320's even for coast-to-coast flights, but it's probably an exception. I suspect that most of smaller aircraft flying to/from JFK are some relatively short flights. If most passengers from these flights were transfered to trains, imagine how many more international or transcontinental flights could be there instead!The information presented on NARP's website is frequently wrong, incomplete, or misleading. For example, they claim that general aviation received a federal subsidy of $1,453 billion for 2007. They are wrong. During 2007 FAA expenditures were $14.8 billion, of which $2.3 billion was transferred from the general fund. Most of the $14.8 billion was covered by ticket and fuel taxes. You are not proving anything. You aren't saying that this $14.8 billion was NOT spent on aviation, are you? That's all NARP is saying, not getting into details what fund it came from. The very fact that there is no dedicated rail trust fund in the U.S. is already a shame! And $2.3 billion from the general fund is more than Amtrak has received annually ever during the past decade. NARP is not claiming that the entire aviation subsidy goes to airlines. It fully realizes that much of it also goes to other things, including airports. And they do advocate for adequate capital funding for rail infrastructure. The problem, however, is that Amtrak in its current structure so far seems to be the most realistic way of preserving passenger rail in the U.S., which is hard to change. If any politician proposes some other model that can realisticly earn Congressional support, without cutting the existing service, I'm sure NARP would embrace it. For right now, however, Amtrak seems to be the only way to save intercity passenger rail as a mode, therefore NARP supports it. So, don't blame this organization. After all, they are the most influential pro-rail group in the U.S. for already 41 years. In fact they often claim that they do support investment to highways and airports, only wanting the rail to be treated equally. What "hard-nosed" data are you talking about? Generally speaking, people contribute taxes into the system until they retire, and take benefits out of the system after they retire. With the end of WWII almost 65 years away, this will affect Government programs such as Amtrak in the future. I don't think Amtrak depends on this so much. The real issue is, as always, adequate funding by the government. Reagan appointed Graham Claytor President of Amtrak, arguably the best CEO Amtrak has ever had ... Hmmm... I was too young to know that, so I'm not disputing it. In fact, it's quite possible. As I said, Bush Administration did give Amtrak a loan guarantee necessary to survive the fiscal crisis of 2002. McCain proposed some security bill for Amtrak shortly after 9/11. That's encouraging news, meaning that common sense prevails even in most biased politicians. If every taxpayer was an occasional Amtrak LD train rider or even if it could be shown that Amtrak's LD trains provide a net societal benefit relative to their subsidy, then the "per taxpayer" arguement would be a good one. The "per-taxpayer" argument works for Amtrak not less than it does for funding the Iraq war, or financial aid to foreign countries. The funds used for rebuilding Iraq (including its railroads!) could just as well be used for expanding rail transportation in our country. Apparently, most taxpayers don't care, as long as the per-taxpayer amount is trivial enough.
Poking holes in the other guy's arguments is not the same as proving yours - they are not mutually exclusive. They could both be wrong.
Counting the airline ticket taxes collected as a subsidy is a stretch.
Defense spending and foreign aid are much easier to see as a "common good" than Amtrak. Providing for 0.1% of intercity trips and calling that "common" really bends the definition of the word "common".
The proof for support of Amtrak would be a solid (or even squishy) cost/benefit analysis. None exist. Why? The answer comes out "wrong"!
The data comes from official documents, i.e. the budget and performance reports of the Department of Transportation, FAA, Homeland Security, etc. There is nothing in these reports that suggests anyone even cares about Amtrak let alone have a motive to kill it. The data also comes from Amtrak's financial statements and performance reports. All data is audited by internal and external auditors.
For the fiscal year ended September 30, 2007, Amtrak's passengers received an average subsidy of $40.68 or 18.6 cents a passenger mile based on a federal subsidy of $1.051 billion to cover its operating loss. The subsidy was higher if the total federal and state government payments of $1.4 billion are considered. The average subsidy for long distance passengers was nearly $130, while the subsidy for NEC and other corridor passengers was $3.02 and $16.00.
The money provided to Amtrak by the federal government, when viewed on an average per passenger and per passenger mile basis, is the largest subsidy received by any form of transport in the United States, with the exception of some local transit subsidies. Domestic airline passengers, by comparison, received an average federal subsidy of $1.03 or .12 cents per passenger mile in 2007.
My point is this; passenger train advocates tend to present only the information that helps make their case, i.e. increase in number of riders and revenues without mentioning the costs or the loss per passenger mile; comparing gross numbers, i.e. federal spend on highways vs. federal spend on Amtrak without breaking it down to passenger seat miles or vehicle miles traveled, which is the honest way to compare the spends.
NARP says that, "FAA Operations get general funds as well as funding from the aviation trust fund", i.e. $1.453 billion in fiscal year 2007. They don't point out that the monies received from the aviation trust fund are generated by air carrier ticket and fuel taxes. Nor do they point out that the intra-governmental transfer represents approximately 15 per cent of the FAA's budget. They don't break out the categories of general aviation, i.e. commercial airlines, air taxis, general aviation, military operations in civilian airspace, etc., thereby creating the impression that most if not all of the federal transfer (subsidy) goes to the airlines or aviation operations that compete with trains. They don't mention that only 30 per cent of FAA operations involve controlling commercial airline flights, and people who fly around the country in their own plane or the company jet are not candidates for taking a train.
NARP pointed out recently that the number of riders on the Sunset Limited, for example, increased significantly in 2007. And they pointed to a corresponding increase in revenue. What they did not mention is that a Sunset passenger traveling from Los Angles to New Orleans gets a federal subsidy of nearly $1,000 or that a passenger traveling from Los Angles to anywhere on the Sunset route gets a subsidy of 48.5 cents a passenger mile before interest and depreciation. This data is verifiable.
NARP may be an influential pro-rail group; it may even be the most influential. But its clout has not been over whelming. It was not able to prevent the discontinuance of the Three Rivers. It has not been able to force Amtrak to restore the Sunset Limited between New Orleans and Orlando. And it has not been able to get Amtrak to restore the Coast Starlight between Sacramento and Portland as quickly as it wants. The reason, I suspect, is because the real decision makers don't spend a lot of time worrying about passenger train enthusiasts of any stripe.
Trains make sense in relatively short, high density corridors. They can help relieve air and highway congestion in these corridors under select circumstances. Hoping on a train from New York to Wilmington or Washington is a viable option for people close to the corridor. But long distance trains do not make any sense, as suggested by the amount of the subsidy per passenger mile that they require and the tiny percentage of the public that uses them. Riding a train overnight from New York to Cleveland does not make sense, especially for time constrained business persons. There is very little market for it. The railroads learned this lesson decades ago.
For the fiscal year ended September 30, 2007, Amtrak's passengers received an average subsidy of $40.68 or 18.6 cents a passenger mile based on a federal subsidy of $1.051 billion to cover its operating loss.
False! For FY2006 (that ended September 30, 2007) Amtrak received the total of $1.315 million. Here is NARP's report from Nov.18,2005 (as the appropriation for FY2006 was finally enacted):
The bill shows the following breakdown: $495 million operations, of which $5 million is to be used for development of a "managerial cost accounting system" (from Senate bill) $780 million for capital and debt service payments, with no more than $280 million for debt service and thus no less than $500 million for capital. $ 40 million "for a new Efficiency Incentive Grant program." These funds are to be used at the discretion of the Secretary and may be used at any time during the fiscal year to make additional operating assistance available to Amtrak if the Secretary determines such assistance is necessary to maintain the operation of existing Amtrak routes...[or] for Amtrak to stay out of bankruptcy and the Secretary and Inspector General have certified that an emergency situation exists." Any funds not spent by September 1, 2006, the Secretary should use "for capital grants to Amtrak for investments that will have a direct and measurable short-term impact on operating efficiencies."
$495 million operations, of which $5 million is to be used for development of a "managerial cost accounting system" (from Senate bill) $780 million for capital and debt service payments, with no more than $280 million for debt service and thus no less than $500 million for capital. $ 40 million "for a new Efficiency Incentive Grant program." These funds are to be used at the discretion of the Secretary and may be used at any time during the fiscal year to make additional operating assistance available to Amtrak if the Secretary determines such assistance is necessary to maintain the operation of existing Amtrak routes...[or] for Amtrak to stay out of bankruptcy and the Secretary and Inspector General have certified that an emergency situation exists." Any funds not spent by September 1, 2006, the Secretary should use "for capital grants to Amtrak for investments that will have a direct and measurable short-term impact on operating efficiencies."
This disproves Samantha's statement about 1.05 billion operating subsidy.
Okay, anybody who wants to prove himself right would quote data that is "fitting" the most. So, NARP is not an exception. Who can deny the increase in ridership? Nobody. Who can deny that overall spendings on highway and aviation are substantially higher than spending on railroads? Nobody. As far as breakdown, that's another issue. The fact is that railroad transportation does not receive even close to the amount of capital received by other modes. So, before any claim against operating subsidies could be made, the real issue is to establish adequate capital funding source. I don't think NARP would disagree with that.
What they did not mention is that a Sunset passenger traveling from Los Angles to New Orleans gets a federal subsidy of nearly $1,000 or that a passenger traveling from Los Angles to anywhere on the Sunset route gets a subsidy of 48.5 cents a passenger mile before interest and depreciation. This data is verifiable.
Where is the link to the source?
It was not able to prevent the discontinuance of the Three Rivers. It has not been able to force Amtrak to restore the Sunset Limited between New Orleans and Orlando. And it has not been able to get Amtrak to restore the Coast Starlight between Sacramento and Portland as quickly as it wants.
Closing the Three Rivers was the decision of Amtrak (not Congress or Administration). True, NARP discouraged Amtrak from this action and, unfortunately, Amtrak did it anyway. What can I say about this? Some things are easier to promote than others. And, I suspect, it's easier for NARP to influence the elected officials than to influence Amtrak itself. As for resuming the Sunset Limited east of New Orleans, the discontinuance is not official, at least now. Apparently, Amtrak is not in a rush to restore it, for one reason or another. But the official discontinuance notices has never been issued! Which means, the discontinuance is still deemed "temporary". Time will show what will come out of it. Meanwhile, both NARP and local officials are fighting for restoring the service. But the bottomline is, again, at this point this is under Amtrak's (not the government's) control. As for Coast Starlight, there are technical issues that neither NARP, nor Amtrak, nor government, is in control of. This is not a good example because Coast Starlight is much more likely to be shortly restored than both Three Rivers and the eastern portion of Sunset Limited.
But long distance trains do not make any sense, as suggested by the amount of the subsidy per passenger mile that they require and the tiny percentage of the public that uses them.
So, why do they make sense in Russia or China or India? True, overthere much more people are riding them. But why? Because those countrues don't hesitate to provide generous funds (both operating and capital) for these trains. Nobody questions their necessity and viability. If U.S. government decided to inject huge funds to LD trains, more and more people would ride them, possibly even to the extent of reducing the necessity of operating grants. Of course, this pattern would be much easier to establish 50 years ago than it is now. It is always easier to protect something that is intact than to rebuild something that is damaged or partially destroyed. So, now that the LD trains are running, the first step in providing the ground for future expanding passenger rail network is to preserve them as an essential national asset.
Riding a train overnight from New York to Cleveland does not make sense, especially for time constrained business persons. There is very little market for it. The railroads learned this lesson decades ago.
It's a fallacy. Nobody learned any "lesson". Getting from New York to Cleveland on the existing Lake Shore Limited does not seem marketable primarily because of the schedule. The train serves Cleveland in a non-passenger-friendly hour. In fact, most of the Lake Shore Limited passengers travel either to Chicago itself, or to transfer to other LD trains serving the points west (and it runs full, proving that people do ride long-distance trains). If there was another overnight train - between New York and Cleveland only - departing at 7pm and arriving at 7am, it would be marketable. Simiarly to overnight flights, or to European overnight trains, or to some bus companies that offer overnight service (e.g. New York to Toronto). I don't believe the U.S. is in any way different from Europe, Russia, or China, as far as intercity transportation demand is concerned. The reason why most Americans rely on airlines rather than trains is that highway and aviation lobbyists did a "good" job convincing Americans in superiority of highway and air transportation.
You may ask, why Amtrak is not realizing the marketability of 12-hour overnight travel (and not running this type of service). I don't know why. This is one of Amtrak's weaknesses. In fact, I never heard this idea from NARP. I'll try to bring up this idea and see what they think of it.
That's nice of him. At least it shows that he is trying to make Amtrak riders believe he's on their side (even if he's not). If so, it means that he, at least, realizes that Amtrak makes a difference for some people. But the gesture would be more significant if McCain rode from DC not to Philly but all the way to his home state.
abenm613 wrote: For the fiscal year ended September 30, 2007, Amtrak's passengers received an average subsidy of $40.68 or 18.6 cents a passenger mile based on a federal subsidy of $1.051 billion to cover its operating loss. False! For FY2006 (that ended September 30, 2007) Amtrak received the total of $1.315 million. Here is NARP's report from Nov.18,2005 (as the appropriation for FY2006 was finally enacted):The bill shows the following breakdown: $495 million operations, of which $5 million is to be used for development of a "managerial cost accounting system" (from Senate bill) $780 million for capital and debt service payments, with no more than $280 million for debt service and thus no less than $500 million for capital. $ 40 million "for a new Efficiency Incentive Grant program." These funds are to be used at the discretion of the Secretary and may be used at any time during the fiscal year to make additional operating assistance available to Amtrak if the Secretary determines such assistance is necessary to maintain the operation of existing Amtrak routes...[or] for Amtrak to stay out of bankruptcy and the Secretary and Inspector General have certified that an emergency situation exists." Any funds not spent by September 1, 2006, the Secretary should use "for capital grants to Amtrak for investments that will have a direct and measurable short-term impact on operating efficiencies."This disproves Samantha's statement about 1.05 billion operating subsidy. My point is this; passenger train advocates tend to present only the information that helps make their case, i.e. increase in number of riders and revenues without mentioning the costs or the loss per passenger mile; comparing gross numbers, i.e. federal spend on highways vs. federal spend on Amtrak without breaking it down to passenger seat miles or vehicle miles traveled, which is the honest way to compare the spends.Okay, anybody who wants to prove himself right would quote data that is "fitting" the most. So, NARP is not an exception. Who can deny the increase in ridership? Nobody. Who can deny that overall spendings on highway and aviation are substantially higher than spending on railroads? Nobody. As far as breakdown, that's another issue. The fact is that railroad transportation does not receive even close to the amount of capital received by other modes. So, before any claim against operating subsidies could be made, the real issue is to establish adequate capital funding source. I don't think NARP would disagree with that.What they did not mention is that a Sunset passenger traveling from Los Angles to New Orleans gets a federal subsidy of nearly $1,000 or that a passenger traveling from Los Angles to anywhere on the Sunset route gets a subsidy of 48.5 cents a passenger mile before interest and depreciation. This data is verifiable. Where is the link to the source?It was not able to prevent the discontinuance of the Three Rivers. It has not been able to force Amtrak to restore the Sunset Limited between New Orleans and Orlando. And it has not been able to get Amtrak to restore the Coast Starlight between Sacramento and Portland as quickly as it wants.Closing the Three Rivers was the decision of Amtrak (not Congress or Administration). True, NARP discouraged Amtrak from this action and, unfortunately, Amtrak did it anyway. What can I say about this? Some things are easier to promote than others. And, I suspect, it's easier for NARP to influence the elected officials than to influence Amtrak itself. As for resuming the Sunset Limited east of New Orleans, the discontinuance is not official, at least now. Apparently, Amtrak is not in a rush to restore it, for one reason or another. But the official discontinuance notices has never been issued! Which means, the discontinuance is still deemed "temporary". Time will show what will come out of it. Meanwhile, both NARP and local officials are fighting for restoring the service. But the bottomline is, again, at this point this is under Amtrak's (not the government's) control. As for Coast Starlight, there are technical issues that neither NARP, nor Amtrak, nor government, is in control of. This is not a good example because Coast Starlight is much more likely to be shortly restored than both Three Rivers and the eastern portion of Sunset Limited. But long distance trains do not make any sense, as suggested by the amount of the subsidy per passenger mile that they require and the tiny percentage of the public that uses them.So, why do they make sense in Russia or China or India? True, overthere much more people are riding them. But why? Because those countrues don't hesitate to provide generous funds (both operating and capital) for these trains. Nobody questions their necessity and viability. If U.S. government decided to inject huge funds to LD trains, more and more people would ride them, possibly even to the extent of reducing the necessity of operating grants. Of course, this pattern would be much easier to establish 50 years ago than it is now. It is always easier to protect something that is intact than to rebuild something that is damaged or partially destroyed. So, now that the LD trains are running, the first step in providing the ground for future expanding passenger rail network is to preserve them as an essential national asset. Riding a train overnight from New York to Cleveland does not make sense, especially for time constrained business persons. There is very little market for it. The railroads learned this lesson decades ago. It's a fallacy. Nobody learned any "lesson". Getting from New York to Cleveland on the existing Lake Shore Limited does not seem marketable primarily because of the schedule. The train serves Cleveland in a non-passenger-friendly hour. In fact, most of the Lake Shore Limited passengers travel either to Chicago itself, or to transfer to other LD trains serving the points west (and it runs full, proving that people do ride long-distance trains). If there was another overnight train - between New York and Cleveland only - departing at 7pm and arriving at 7am, it would be marketable. Simiarly to overnight flights, or to European overnight trains. I don't believe the U.S. is in any way different from Europe, Russia, or China, as far as intercity transportation demand is concerned. The reason why most Americans rely on airlines rather than trains is that the policy makers did a "good" job. You may ask, why Amtrak is not realizing the marketability of 12-hour overnight travel (and not running this type of service). I don't know why. This is one of Amtrak's weaknesses. In fact, I never heard this idea from NARP. I'll try to bring up this idea and see what they think of it.
It's a fallacy. Nobody learned any "lesson". Getting from New York to Cleveland on the existing Lake Shore Limited does not seem marketable primarily because of the schedule. The train serves Cleveland in a non-passenger-friendly hour. In fact, most of the Lake Shore Limited passengers travel either to Chicago itself, or to transfer to other LD trains serving the points west (and it runs full, proving that people do ride long-distance trains). If there was another overnight train - between New York and Cleveland only - departing at 7pm and arriving at 7am, it would be marketable. Simiarly to overnight flights, or to European overnight trains. I don't believe the U.S. is in any way different from Europe, Russia, or China, as far as intercity transportation demand is concerned. The reason why most Americans rely on airlines rather than trains is that the policy makers did a "good" job. You may ask, why Amtrak is not realizing the marketability of 12-hour overnight travel (and not running this type of service). I don't know why. This is one of Amtrak's weaknesses. In fact, I never heard this idea from NARP. I'll try to bring up this idea and see what they think of it.
Samantha is right. The overnight rail travel market dried up over 50 years ago. The RRs invested mightily in streamliners just after WWII, betting on a return to "normal" rail travel. It worked for a few years until the airlines took the business traveller and the highways took the leisure traveller away. RRs recognized this and took what capital was available and tried to get into the short haul market - even tried some inovation. Aerotrain, Train X, Xplorer, Roger Williams, Keystone, Merchant's Express, for example.
You might be able to argue that the gov't missed the boat in the mid 50s to invest in the short haul mkt. But, the overnight market was gone and dead.
What LD trains remained were operated primarily out of corporate pride (Broadway, 20th Century, Super Chief, Empire Builder, Cal. Zephyr.) or because there was enough $$ in the mail and head end business.
And, while the country has grown over 50% in population since the inception of Amtrak, most of the LD trains are running equal or less capacity and ridership has not kept pace.
Example:
The Crescent is down to 3 coaches mid-week these days. Less than 10 years ago, it used to run 5 coaches north of Altanta every day.
And, only two sleepers - despite near perfect timing for an overnight train between Atlanta and DC and the Northeast - in both directions!
And, the Crescent keeps decent time - and pretty much always has.
And, Atlanta has added nearly a million residents in that time.
Explanation?
OK, the Amtrak operating subsidy is only 500 million instead of a cool billion. You still have to count 280 million debt service towards the cost of operating trains some how, unless you don't think that the interest on loan payments is a cost of driving a car.
So 500 million is budget towards capital. Does that mean that Amtrak is paying down the principal on the loans for those Amfleet and Superliner cars at that rate? If so, that reflects the rate of depreciation, the rate at which those cars are used up, and that too is an operating expense. We are up to 1.3 billion and Samantha is starting to look smarter with each passing dollar.
If that 500 million is really a capital appropriation, where are the 100-200 Superliner cars in the Fiscal 2006 budget?
No one is suggesting people won't ride the trains. The issue is that if it costs 1 billion in rough round numbers out of Congress to move 5 billion Amtrak passenger miles, will it cost an even trillion to replace the 5 trillion passenger miles carried by cars? Yes, yes, cars get a whole lot more money than trains, at least 30 times as much in the Federal highway budget. But 30 times increase in the Amtrak appropriation would give us European trains, increasing the rail share from .1 percent of total passenger miles to 3 percent of passenger miles, not that far off the European ridership on trains. Would the passenger train advocacy community be happy with the energy savings and social benefits of 3 percent of passenger miles carried by train at the cost of the whole highway budget? Would we be able to sell this to voters who are not passenger-train advocates?
For the fiscal years ended September 30, 2007, as per the 2007 Amtrak Annual Report, the railroad received a total of $1,391,620,000 in federal paid in capital and proceeds from federal and state capital payments.
The subsidy required to cover the attributable operating expenses, including interest and depreciation, as per the Financial Performance of Routes - Strategic Business Line (SBL) Report for September YTD, Page C-1 of the Monthly Performance Report for September 2007, was $1,051,500,000.
The direct loss from operations before interest and depreciation was $501,000,000. Interest was $95,900,000 and depreciation was $456,600,000. The $2,000,000 difference is attributable to Federal and State Capital Payments.
Under Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, interest and depreciation attributable to an activity are ultimately shown in the statement of income, which reflects the total operations of an entity, including net income or net loss. It is the underlying activity, i.e. operation of rail passenger trains that drives the expense.
Appropriations and expenditures, as well as amortization of interest and depreciation, are two different accounting phenomena.
Many people who argue for a point of view slant the data to support their position. They cherry pick the points that support their argument and ignore the ones that don't support it. People of high integrity recognize both sides of the argument and state them. If they have a strong argument, showing both sides can be an effective tool for getting buy-in. If they have a weak argument, they understandably don't want to show the negatives.
The information regarding the subsidy for the Sunset Limited can be found in the aforementioned report.
Rail passenger advocacy groups, including NARP, probably don't carry much clout in the scheme of things. Amtrak management makes the major decisions, with the concurrence of the Board of Directors. Of course, given the nature of the organization, Amtrak management and the board are influenced by the politicians, as well as the freight railroad managements that they must interact with.
Irrespective of how much the rail advocates push on Amtrak, the Coast Starlight will not be resumed north of Sacramento until the UP is ready to have it happen.
As an aside, in 2007 the Crescent was on time at its end points 42.9 per cent of the time. The end point on-time performance record for the long distance trains was 41.6 per cent. So it appears that it turned in a pretty average performance.
daveklepper wrote:IS there a sleeper on the overnight Richmond - Boston train? If not, why not?
There used to be one. Then they took it away, then put it back, then took it away again. To the best of my knowledge, it currently runs without a sleeper. You see, shortage of sleepers in general, and single-level Viewliners in particcular, is something beyond Amtrak's control. That's one of the capital expenses Amtrak really needs funds for. Currently, they distribute the existing sleepers in accordance with demand. Typically, there are two sleepers per long-distance train. But sometimes one train has only one sleeper, while another has three.
At the same time, if you look at success of overnight flights or buses, it looks like Amtrak could succeed in similar service on some routes even without sleepers (obviously, if sleepers are available and in demand, they should definitely use them). Some people on this forum disagree with me, but I don't see any reason to believe otherwise.
And, while the country has grown over 50% in population since the inception of Amtrak, most of the LD trains are running equal or less capacity and ridership has not kept pace. Example:The Crescent is down to 3 coaches mid-week these days. Less than 10 years ago, it used to run 5 coaches north of Altanta every day. And, only two sleepers - despite near perfect timing for an overnight train between Atlanta and DC and the Northeast - in both directions! And, the Crescent keeps decent time - and pretty much always has. And, Atlanta has added nearly a million residents in that time. Explanation?
Sometimes there are only three coaches on Crescent, other times there are normal four (or maybe even five, although you might be right - I haven't seen five lately). That depends on seasonal demand and availability of the equipment. The same is especially true for sleepers (see my previous message).As for ridership, the statistics shows that it's currently growing. Of course, it can only grow as much as Amtrak is able to handle. But less capacity does not mean less demand. 20 years ago, Amtrak got more money than it does now. Ten years ago it actually got less money, but at that time it was eager to demonstrate its "ability" to comply to the failed self-sufficiency mandate. So, it was getting deeper and deeper into debt, which almost caused a shutdown and bunkruptcy in summer of 2002. Since then, Amtrak is getting more money - but just enough to keep running without getting into further debt. Not surprisingly, sometimes this lack of funds manifests itself in some trains running with lower capacity. But, for the most part, demand is still growing.
Possibly an overnight sleeper on this run might be an opportunity for a public-private partnership arrangement?
A private owner with an appropriate sleeping car runs a regular deluxe never-on-Wednesday three times a week overnight Boston - Richmond service and shares in the additonal revenue?
abenm613 wrote: And, while the country has grown over 50% in population since the inception of Amtrak, most of the LD trains are running equal or less capacity and ridership has not kept pace. Example:The Crescent is down to 3 coaches mid-week these days. Less than 10 years ago, it used to run 5 coaches north of Altanta every day. And, only two sleepers - despite near perfect timing for an overnight train between Atlanta and DC and the Northeast - in both directions! And, the Crescent keeps decent time - and pretty much always has. And, Atlanta has added nearly a million residents in that time. Explanation?Sometimes there are only three coaches on Crescent, other times there are normal four (or maybe even five, although you might be right - I haven't seen five lately). That depends on seasonal demand and availability of the equipment. The same is especially true for sleepers (see my previous message).As for ridership, the statistics shows that it's currently growing. Of course, it can only grow as much as Amtrak is able to handle. But less capacity does not mean less demand. 20 years ago, Amtrak got more money than it does now. Ten years ago it actually got less money, but at that time it was eager to demonstrate its "ability" to comply to the failed self-sufficiency mandate. So, it was getting deeper and deeper into debt, which almost caused a shutdown and bunkruptcy in summer of 2002. Since then, Amtrak is getting more money - but just enough to keep running without getting into further debt. Not surprisingly, sometimes this lack of funds manifests itself in some trains running with lower capacity. But, for the most part, demand is still growing.
I'm OK with the equipment arguement for the sleepers, but not the coaches. There cannot be a shortage of Amfleet II coaches. There is one less FL train running these days than there was several years ago, plus the Mobile section of the Crescent was also dropped. And, there are the two cars they used to add/drop in Atlanta (10 years ago it ran 3 cars south of Atlanta and 5 north - every day)
Seasonality may be a reason the consist varies over the year, but year over year with growing demand, shouldn't the train get longer?
From now to the end of the month, the only day the the train is sold out between ATL and NYP is Easter Sunday. It isn't even sold out for Good Friday, or the Thurday before, yet. (that means that the college kids going home from UVA haven't even filled up the train at Charlotteville)
daveklepper wrote: Possibly an overnight sleeper on this run might be an opportunity for a public-private partnership arrangement? A private owner with an appropriate sleeping car runs a regular deluxe never-on-Wednesday three times a week overnight Boston - Richmond service and shares in the additonal revenue?
Grandluxe partnered with Amtrak for premium service on the Silver Meteor, SW Chief and Cal. Zephyr. The Cal Zephyr is doing OK, but the others have done poorly.
I'd like to see Amtrak bid out the whole sleeping car/diner business, period. Amtrak would ask "How much do we have to pay you to provide this service - and you keep all the revenue, too." Qualified bidders would have to be existing, national hotel/hospitality providers and they'd be allowed to market, bundle and price the service any way they like.
The April issue of Trains, on page 20, says there are 54 out of service coaches stored in Delaware.
Much of this Delaware stash has been made available only to states that agree to pay for the cars' refurbishment. In a study released on Jan. 7, Illinois was quoted a price of $700,000 per car to overhaul the equipment required to launch two daily round trips on a proposed Chicago - Quad Cities service. For its national trains, management plans to fix just 5 stored Amfleet 1s this fiscal year.
My guess is that the equipment shortage in Superliners is the main reason the Sunset Limited has not been extended back to Florida.
This site might have more information-http://www.gobytrain.us/amtrak/notes/
I'd like to see Amtrak bid out the whole sleeping car/diner business, period.
This would make a train less attractive, thus reducing the demand even more. Especially diners (since they are open to coach passengers as well). It seems that you would like to see Amtrak shrink to the Bush Administration's vision - a few disconnected regional corridors. Otherwise, what's the point in this whole argument? If you agree that long-distance trains should be around, then you have to realize that, given the way the things are right now in the U.S., the only way to keep them is through Amtrak in its current structure and funding system, however inefficient it is (or seems to be).
I'm OK with the equipment arguement for the sleepers, but not the coaches.
Of couse, they should. Tell this to Bush Administration and to legislators who are responsible for funding. Besides, train equipment is a capital (rather than operating) expense, so there is nothing to complain about - this would not be "pork" by any standard.
From now to the end of the month, the only day the the train is sold out between ATL and NYP is Easter Sunday. It isn't even sold out for Good Friday, or the Thurday before, yet.
I'm too busy to go out and check how many cars Crescent will have on Friday and weekend. Actually, I will be traveling to Philadelphia on commuter trains that day. If, by some chance, I'll be on my way when Crescent passes by, I'll see it for myself. But I'm not going to plan my time specifically for that.
You are putting words in my mouth. No, I'm not suggesting the LD trains go away. No, I'm not suggesting coach passengers be barred from the diner if it were a contract operation. I'm only suggesting that injecting some immediate profit motive might help the LD trains stop bleeding red ink like a stuck pig. I'd like them to stick around. I'd like Amtrak to really improve it's efficiency and grow. Amtrak doesn't really act like it's interested in anything more than limping along.
If your demand grows and you own a surplus of coaches, then shouldn't the train length grow? An incremental car's revenue ought to be able to fund it's own capital refurbishment - or we're in worse trouble than I think. I'm guesing the demand isn't growing very fast - perhaps slower than population growth. The Crescent isn't growing.
The Crescent will have 4 coaches on Friday. You can bet on it.
Capstone Amfleet II isn't any better than when the cars were new, IMHO. But what's the point here?
If you's like an interesting read, check out Amtrak's internal inspector general's report on their web site. Looks like they're the only ones who give a hoot about efficiency and customer service.
Possibly there might be some economies of scale and economies of tourist promotion (including internationally) if the entire sleeping car and dining onboard operations were handled by a hotel chain that has a reputation for good service. Isn't that basically what Pullman was all about and what Fred Harvey was all about? Under the right circumstances it might work again.
And maybe the overnight trip between Richmond-Washington-Baltimore and Providence-Boston is the market to test?
You are putting words in my mouth. No, I'm not suggesting the LD trains go away.
Good. At least, we agree on that. But how do you envision running the LD trains other than by Amtrak with subsidies? Unfortunately, there are no better models available just now. Indeed, government has kind of missed the boat in establishing a dedicated funding source. Of course, it's never too late. With gas prices soaring, it seems that America will sooner or later have to make some adjustments of its policies and lean towards the rail side. But it would be certainly easier to achieve in the 50's (or even before) as all these highway and aviation programs were just starting to emerge.
No, I'm not suggesting coach passengers be barred from the diner if it were a contract operation.
It might be more complicated than we think. I'm not expert in that, but it seems that Amtrak knows what it's doing regarding the way of providing the diner service and sleeper accomodations. If some better options were available, it would probably follow them up. As for Amtrak being interesting in limping along rather than doing a real business, between 1998 and 2002 it did try to be more aggressive in its attempt to demonstrate to officials that it is on its way to operational self-sufficiency by 2003, as was mandated in 1997. Unfortunately, it was not more than a beautiful facade. The system almost ran out of cash in mid-2002, and Administration had to provide a loan guarantee to avoid a shutdown. I'm sure Amtrak is interested in more than just limping alone. Recently, Kummant appeared on TV, saying that the system could expand between 50% and 100%. But let's be realistic: this is only possible with adequate capital funds.
That's normal. Of course, it's not as good as five, but definitely better than three. :)
Recently, Kummant appeared on TV, saying that the system could expand between 50% and 100%. But let's be realistic: this is only possible with adequate capital funds.
As tends to be the case with sound bites, Kummant's comments did not completely reflect his views. He repeatedly has told the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure that the future for rail passenger services in the U.S. is in high density corridors. Thus, most of the growth that he was alluding to will be in the corridors.
Passenger trains are a solution to a transportation problem. They fit best in relatively short, high density corridors, since amongst other things trains are designed to move large numbers of people.
Kummant is a savvy business executive. Like most successful business executives, he is also politically astute. I suspect that he is going along with the long distance passenger advocates because of political pressures. Given a choice, I'll bet he would love to be out of the long distance passenger train business. Well, given the tons of money long distance trains lose, calling it a business is a stretch.
blue streak 1 wrote:Guess what guys: Cresent sold out both ways on Thursday-Monday except Sunday southbound.. Yes Amtrak has enough equipment??? (Not my quote)
They HAVE it, they just can't afford to USE it a couple days a year and have it sit around the rest of the time. So, it sits around, unservicable.
BTW, the northbound still has seats available south of Charlottesville Fri, Sat and Sun. Guess the college students woke up and got their reservations in for the Thurs (Fri AM) train. South Atlanta - there are seats everyday.
If you compare the train's size from the post 1971 Southern operation thru to today, you'll see the train's capacity hasn't budged, yet the population along the route, particularly Atlanta to DC, has skyrocketed.
Samantha wrote: Recently, Kummant appeared on TV, saying that the system could expand between 50% and 100%. But let's be realistic: this is only possible with adequate capital funds. As tends to be the case with sound bites, Kummant's comments did not completely reflect his views. He repeatedly has told the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure that the future for rail passenger services in the U.S. is in high density corridors. Thus, most of the growth that he was alluding to will be in the corridors.Passenger trains are a solution to a transportation problem. They fit best in relatively short, high density corridors, since amongst other things trains are designed to move large numbers of people. Kummant is a savvy business executive. Like most successful business executives, he is also politically astute. I suspect that he is going along with the long distance passenger advocates because of political pressures. Given a choice, I'll bet he would love to be out of the long distance passenger train business. Well, given the tons of money long distance trains lose, calling it a business is a stretch.
You are right. The LD trains cannot be viewed a business. They are a service - and a political necessity.
They could be a more cost effective service, should Amtrak ever arrange itself so that pressure and ideas came from the inside instead of just reacting to external pressure (e.g. GAO reports, Amtrak Reform Council, Amtrak IG office, Amtrak Board, etc.) and the employees stood to gain if performance and efficiency improved. They are running a 1950's business with 1980s' equipment. Name another industry that does that sucessfully?
Since there is so much discussion of the Cresent being full from Charlottesville - Washington maybe it is time to add Carolinian equipment Charlotte - Washington - Charlotte. Carolinian crews are in Charlotte to operate its locomotive to position the passenger car(s) for this move. No more cars should be needed most times as car(s) that go Charlotte -Atlanta - New Orleans are usually not needed. Amtrak used to remove coaches in Atlanta southbound and add them northbound anyway when they were removing mail and coaches southbound and adding mail and coaches Atlanta- Washington (north). Coache(s) could be added Washington - Charlotte (Dropped in Charlotte) to be used on the northbound Carolinian. That crew that could pick them up. The layover times in Charlotte provides enough time for cleaning and restocking.
Of course this procedure would only need to be done when the Cresent sold out north of Charlotte before train timel
They are running a 1950's business with 1980s' equipment. Name another industry that does that sucessfully?
Similar statements are often heard from some critics. For example, Congressman John Mica claims that Amtrak runs "Soviet-style" trains. This may or may not be an accurate comparison. But, anyway, what's wrong with Soviet-style trains? In Russia (and neighboring ex-Soviet and Eastern European countries), the railroad industry has not changed much since Soviet times, and they are not complaining. The culture of passenger trains in Russia now is quite the same as decades ago. And it has always been good enough.
blue streak 1 wrote: Since there is so much discussion of the Cresent being full from Charlottesville - Washington maybe it is time to add Carolinian equipment Charlotte - Washington - Charlotte. Carolinian crews are in Charlotte to operate its locomotive to position the passenger car(s) for this move. No more cars should be needed most times as car(s) that go Charlotte -Atlanta - New Orleans are usually not needed. Amtrak used to remove coaches in Atlanta southbound and add them northbound anyway when they were removing mail and coaches southbound and adding mail and coaches Atlanta- Washington (north). Coache(s) could be added Washington - Charlotte (Dropped in Charlotte) to be used on the northbound Carolinian. That crew that could pick them up. The layover times in Charlotte provides enough time for cleaning and restocking. Of course this procedure would only need to be done when the Cresent sold out north of Charlotte before train timel
They used to add/drop cars in Lynchburg on holidays for this reason. They also used to add/drop in Atlanta on a daily basis as recent as 10 years ago. Both are examples of tailoring the train size to the market. It reduces your equipment costs and increased you capacity.
Your Charlotte/Carolinian idea is a good one, so why doesn't Amtrak do it?
I'd guess it's because it's extra work that nobody would get rewarded for- so why bother.
Another example - the Boston section of the Lake Shore Limited. For many years, it consisted of two coaches and a sleeper and was running on its own between Boston and Albany (as train ##449/448), where it was hooked to the main train (##49/48). As I was traveling from New York to Chicago six months ago, I was surprised to find out that nothing is being hooked to our train - instead Boston passengers simply transfer from the Boston shuttle train to the main Lake Shore Limited, which now runs from New York with all three Viewliners (!). What's your opinion about this? I think it has both advantages and disadvantages:
Advantages:
- Less time spent in Albany, particularly for the main train passengers.
- Less costs for Amtrak, not having to run extra equipment for long distance
Disadvantages:
- Boston passenger don't have thru service to Chicago
- Boston passengers can only have sleeper/diner service west of Albany, rather than all the way from Boston
- Less coach capacity for Bostn travelers.
It depends how you look at it. A vessel can be both half-empty and half-full.
Samantha wrote: Kummant is a savvy business executive. Like most successful business executives, he is also politically astute. I suspect that he is going along with the long distance passenger advocates because of political pressures. Given a choice, I'll bet he would love to be out of the long distance passenger train business. Well, given the tons of money long distance trains lose, calling it a business is a stretch.
Maybe Kummant is a LD enthusiast who wants to see the LD trains "preserved for posterity".
Of course, that has nothing to do with best business practices.
My question is, if Amtrak DOESN'T operate the LD services, is it still eligible for government subsidies?
oltmannd wrote:You are right. The LD trains cannot be viewed a business. They are a service - and a political necessity.
Consider as a case in point an example from the airline industry. In the Caribbean, several of the island nations operate "national flag carrier" airlines which serve primarily as tourist transporters. One particular case in point, Bahamasair, has never actually turned a profit. Because the Bahamas is a country of small islands spread out over thousands of square miles, the airline has become a vital link between large population centres and more rural areas. Without it, some rural communities would collapse. So government subsidies are what keep the airline in the air year after year. Cutting out these under-subscribed routes would likely lead to the airline making a profit. However, such an action would be remarkably unpopular.
I think Amtrak's LD trains are like that; the service provided is not nearly as central to rural economies, but it certainly would be embarrassing for America, the land that train travel opened, to not have any trains at all. Even worse would be the international perception that the trains were shut down because <gasp> America couldn't afford it. What I am getting at is that like those Caribbean "flag-carriers" there is a certain amount of patriotism tied to the continued existance of Amtrak. Not to mention the jobs.
AmtrakRider wrote: oltmannd wrote:You are right. The LD trains cannot be viewed a business. They are a service - and a political necessity.Consider as a case in point an example from the airline industry. In the Caribbean, several of the island nations operate "national flag carrier" airlines which serve primarily as tourist transporters. One particular case in point, Bahamasair, has never actually turned a profit. Because the Bahamas is a country of small islands spread out over thousands of square miles, the airline has become a vital link between large population centres and more rural areas. Without it, some rural communities would collapse. So government subsidies are what keep the airline in the air year after year. Cutting out these under-subscribed routes would likely lead to the airline making a profit. However, such an action would be remarkably unpopular.I think Amtrak's LD trains are like that; the service provided is not nearly as central to rural economies, but it certainly would be embarrassing for America, the land that train travel opened, to not have any trains at all. Even worse would be the international perception that the trains were shut down because <gasp> America couldn't afford it. What I am getting at is that like those Caribbean "flag-carriers" there is a certain amount of patriotism tied to the continued existance of Amtrak. Not to mention the jobs.
...a "Kinetic National Park", so to speak?
but it certainly would be embarrassing for America, the land that train travel opened, to not have any trains at all.
Embarrassing to whom? Of the many reasons to support trains and LD trains, national embarrassment is not one of them. You may be embarrassed to live in an America without LD trains, but I don't think any of your tax-paying neighbors, who would need to be persuaded of the merits of paying taxes towards Amtrak share that emotion.
Embarrassment may hold sway from that segment of the public who actually watches PBS, continues to watch during Pledge Week, and actually writes a check in response to the annoying nagging. Outside of that segment, the embarrassment talking point has remarkably little political traction in securing the Amtrak appropriation.
As to the "kinetic National Park" suggested by Don Oltmann, I think that is as good a reason as any for LD train subsidy -- we have static National Parks so why not railroad journeys as part of our national heritage, to share with foreign visitors and native-born travellers alike? But the "kinetic National Park" gets perilously close to the "cruise train" concept, which is un-PC in advocacy circles where one is supposed to emphasize the life-line aspect of the LD trains to persons living in East Crevass, Montana. But to the extent that the LD trains are kinetic National Parks, you get into the political problem of the multi-hundreds of dollars in subsidy, at least for some of the passengers. Yeah, we can fume all we want about those rascal politicians who bring this up, that they are in the pocket of the concrete lobby, but it is a political reality that as an advocacy community we need to take a fresh approach. And no, nationsl embarrassment is an old, stale approach going back to the NARP founding that isn't changing enough voter opinions.
Paul Milenkovic wrote: Embarrassing to whom? Of the many reasons to support trains and LD trains, national embarrassment is not one of them.
Embarrassing to whom? Of the many reasons to support trains and LD trains, national embarrassment is not one of them.
I never said it was a logical or attractive reason. But we are thinking about politics and politicians here, not personal embarrassment. It's "egg on the face of America", which might cause some politician to be portrayed in a bad light. How many politicians are going to go out of the way to be the one to "kill" a "grand institution"? Most are more likely to maintain the status quo.
Politicians? Embarrassed about cutting train service? You are talking about people who violate one of the Ten Commandments while wearing black knee-high support stockings. Whose recent use of Amtrak services got them in trouble with a Federal prosecutor.
I can just picture this. Some Senator standing at a podium with his wife, "I am here to announce that I voted to reduce the Amtrak appropriation at the urging of my spouse of 24 years so I would not get any ideas regarding the convenience of Amtrak travel."
While preserving the image of America as a rail country is indeed one of the arguments that sound valid to me personally, as well as to most supporters, obviously this argument alone would not be strong enough to warrant federal funds. Even NARP does not bring up this reason so often. Well, if this was the only argument, maybe it would provide for one or two LD routes. But to fund the entire network (however skeletal it is) stronger case should be presented. Providng a transportation link to remote communites with no other alternatives to auto - that's a valid claim.
By the way, a news came from NARP that a Florida Congressman John Mica has introduced some kind of a pro-high-speed rail bill. Just to note, Mica has earned a reputation as an outspoken critic of long-distance trains - similarly to McCain. Nevertheless, to his credit, Mica does support commuter rail and, as it has just turned out, he supports the development of high speed rail network in America! What I don't understand is how can these people (McCain, Mica, etc.) contradict themselves. High speed rail cannot be built on nothing. Europe did not destroy its conventional rail network in order to build high speed rail (even though they did build brand new tracks!) The biggest stupidity of Bushes, Micas, and McCains is that they view Amtrak (especially LD network) as impediment to modern high speed rail, while in reality it is not impediment but a necessary prerequisite. Speaking of commuter rail, it's noteworthy that the only metropolitan area that has commuter rail but not Amtrak is Nashville TN. The Music City Star was launched just about two years ago, and it's rather an exception than a rule. Virtually all other commuter rail systems in the U.S. either have a hub at an Amtrak station, or share some of the tracks with Amtrak, or both.
Paul Milenkovic wrote: Politicians? You are talking about people who violate one of the Ten Commandments while wearing black knee-high support stockings.
Politicians? You are talking about people who violate one of the Ten Commandments while wearing black knee-high support stockings.
Only one?
The reference to the fact that Nashville is the only metropolitan area in the U.S. that does not have an Amtrak presence is difficult to understand. I don't get the point.
Amtrak shares Dallas Union Station facilities with The Trinity Railway Express (TRE) and Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART). It shares station facilities with the TRE, "T", and Greyhound in Fort Worth.
One or two Heartland Flyer passengers a day might connect with the TRE to get to Dallas, primarily because the Amtrak connection is unreliable. Otherwise, Amtrak is not a serious player in Fort Worth or Dallas.
Austin's commuter rail system from Leander to downtown Austin will begin late this year. Its downtown termination point won't even be close to the Amtrak station.
Amtrak played no role whatsoever in the development of the TRE or Austin's commuter rail system.
blue streak 1 wrote:Don't the politicians have a clue that high speed will help long distance?
They probably have a clue that it won't help enough compared to what it costs.
They do have a clue that what money is available for speed should be spent on corridor type service to get the most benefit.
They also have created a situation where social services/SS/healthcare + defense + debt service have just about turfed out any spending on anything else. They can't even spend enough to maintain what's been built.
But, in order for this kind of rail system to be truly nationwide, these corridors must be somehow connected, and the existing Amtrak network should be a foundation for future corridor developments across the country.
This is really a silly statements. The silliest part of it is the implication that America cannot afford what other, less wealthy countries do afford. The very fact that some politicians (and even some members of general public such as you are) think this way is shameful to America. As for defense, passenger rail should be a critical element when it comes to defense. Just remember how critical role the trains played in the Soviet Union during the Second World War, especially in evacuating the population from the western parts of the country. Of course, the geographical location of the U.S. makes such a scenario unlikely. But, hypothetically speaking, if, G-d forbid, coast guard fails to do its job, and a foreign army invades the United States from the east, and millions of people need to be evacuated westward as fast as possible. How do you imagine evacuation of millions of people from large Northeastern cities? Gridlocking the highways and airports? That's where trains come into play. In fact, in a scenario like this, not only Amtrak, but freight rail could prove helpful as well by letting people ride freight trains to safety. Of course, such a scenario is unlikely. But that's what defense truly means. Holding the U.S. troops in Iraq, establishing a democracy there, and rebuilding Iraqi railroads is not an excuse for cutting transportation spendings in our country. $1.3 (or even a desired $1.8) billion Amtrak receives per years is not even noticeable, comparing to several billions a day spent on Iraq. Therefore, no sane legislator in his/her right mind would even think about taking Bush's (or, potentially, McCain's) ambitions seriously.
They can't even spend enough to maintain what's been built.
What is it that's been built? You mean, highways and airports? Or the existing rail infrastructure?
I am really tired of these shame-and-honor arguments. And I bet a lot of other people the advocacy community would need to get on its side feel the same way. I watch the newcomers at our local advocacy community rock in their seats when we start this up, and I never see those faces at meetings again.
You have one Presidential candidate commenting that a bunch of rich dudes in the 18th Century didn't think through that the Declaration of Independence applied to the workers they held in bondage as being a stain on our founding, and you have another Presidential candidate hectoring us that giving these other dudes no more than 5 years to get their act together as a stain on our honor. And another bunch of people are telling me that I have reservations of spending 350 billion dollars of other people's money to increase train travel from .1 percent all the way to 1 percent of passenger miles means I am dishonorable.
Don Oltmann is wrong on this score. If enough people thought that spending large amounts of money for a small slice of transportation passenger miles was something worth doing, we would go out and do it -- if we can find the money for Medicare D, we can find the money for this. Don Oltmann is right that passenger trains don't currently pass the cost-benefit-political priority test; nagging people about honor and shame and "all of those other countries are doing it" won't change anything. Serious consideration of costs and benefits will. But we won't give costs and benefits that consideration because that means we would have to take our critics seriously, which we won't do, so all we do is sit around and shame people who disagree with us and shame people who don't agree with us vigorously enough.
abenm613 wrote: This is really a silly statements. The silliest part of it is the implication that America cannot afford what other, less wealthy countries do afford.
This is really a silly statements. The silliest part of it is the implication that America cannot afford what other, less wealthy countries do afford.
The United States was one of the first truly transcontinental entities and this is one reason the freight rail system is well developed. There is a cultural distinction that characterizes the United States in terms of passenger service.
This doesn't fit anyone's current political narrative, so there's nothing to hear about it, but in fact rather than consume resources with expensive, daily commutes, Americans are much more likely to just move to wherever their job requires them to work, rather than commute. The average European executive or politician obtains absolution from his or her own daily consumption of natural resources by making the public sector consume them on his or her behalf, whereas the typical American is far more willing to pick up stakes and simply move closer to work.
The statistic I have seen on this, many years ago, was that the average American executive changed jobs eight times and moved five times, whereas the average European executive changed jobs three times and moved less than (average) once.
These are not factory workers lobbying for these high speed rail installations; these are invariably elites, and European elites have far more control over the direction of such spending than American elites who, as I say, in more cases are more practical about just simply moving, and probably are, in the great list of ironies, ultimately less abusive of both tax dollars and environmental consumption because of it.
Paul Milenkovic wrote: I am really tired of these shame-and-honor arguments. And I bet a lot of other people the advocacy community would need to get on its side feel the same way. I watch the newcomers at our local advocacy community rock in their seats when we start this up, and I never see those faces at meetings again.You have one Presidential candidate commenting that a bunch of rich dudes in the 18th Century didn't think through that the Declaration of Independence applied to the workers they held in bondage as being a stain on our founding, and you have another Presidential candidate hectoring us that giving these other dudes no more than 5 years to get their act together as a stain on our honor. And another bunch of people are telling me that I have reservations of spending 350 billion dollars of other people's money to increase train travel from .1 percent all the way to 1 percent of passenger miles means I am dishonorable.Don Oltmann is wrong on this score. If enough people thought that spending large amounts of money for a small slice of transportation passenger miles was something worth doing, we would go out and do it -- if we can find the money for Medicare D, we can find the money for this. Don Oltmann is right that passenger trains don't currently pass the cost-benefit-political priority test; nagging people about honor and shame and "all of those other countries are doing it" won't change anything. Serious consideration of costs and benefits will. But we won't give costs and benefits that consideration because that means we would have to take our critics seriously, which we won't do, so all we do is sit around and shame people who disagree with us and shame people who don't agree with us vigorously enough.
Well, I sure hope I'm wrong...
We SHOULD be able to pay for things like National Parks and Interstate Highways and Air travel and Trains, but, I'm not hopeful that we will. All things other than three big budget eaters I listed have been wallowing in neglect for decades.
And, do any of these get any traction in this election? No. What is one of the big items being talked about? Healthcare - the gov't providing more of it. Anybody talking about raising taxes to pay it? No. In fact they are all blathering on about "middle class" tax relief. Anybody talking about adopting the recent recommendation to increase the gasoline tax? No. Do we even have a plan to keep Medicare from going bust in a couple decades? No.
The gov't budget is growing faster than the economy - and has been for years. It is being eaten alive by the "big three" with other legitimate uses of tax money becoming increasingly marginalized. We aren't even able to maintain the old "works" projects (parks, roads, etc.), much less start any new ones.
I would LOVE to be wrong about this - but I'm not seeing any evidence that I am.
This doesn't fit anyone's current political narrative, so there's nothing to hear about it, but in fact rather than consume resources with expensive, daily commutes, Americans are much more likely to just move to wherever their job requires them to work, rather than commute.
While the average American may change its place of living more frequently than the average European, I'm sure that most Americans would think twice (or more) before deciding (or not deciding) to move thousands of miles away for just a few extra thousand per year.
Do you think European countries can afford more than we do? Their social services are superior to ours, and this does not prevent them from having a decent passenger rail system. Are they wealthier than us? Maybe at this time they are somewhat in advantage due the rise of Euro and the fall of USD, but I don't think we are so broke that can't afford what they can. So, social security and medicare is not a concern at all - Europe spends much more on this type of things. Iraq war is more of a concern, since it does undermine overall financial well-being of the U.S. But, still, federal spendings are controlled by Congress. And Congress is really unlikely to sacrifice every social service that we have for presidential ambitions about Iraq. And Amtrak (especially long-distance trains) can also be considered a social service in a sense. Whatever way we slice it, this miniature chunk of funds (even if it grows from $1.3 billion to $2 billion) does not make much of a difference to federal budget.
Anybody talking about raising taxes to pay it? No.
Really? I'm sure this option is not the last resort. In fact, raising the taxes may be an easier thing for the government to do than cutting the programs that have been defining the image of America for long time.
As for me, I don't mind paying more taxes, as long as it's necessary to preserve America as a livable country. I'm sure many people agree with that. Of course, there are some who don't care about the beauty and livability of their country, state, city, as long as their own bank account is filled. But it's government's responsibility to have common sense prevail.
The threshold has probably not been reached yet. In other words, so far we haven't found ourselves in a dilemma between raising taxes and cutting valuable federal programs. With right people in power, this can hopefully be avoided. But if not, then common sense must prevail. And, I believe, raising taxes is more of a common sense than cutting the programs. And, the last but not the least, cutting the military presense in Iraq can make a lot of difference.
abenm613 wrote: This doesn't fit anyone's current political narrative, so there's nothing to hear about it, but in fact rather than consume resources with expensive, daily commutes, Americans are much more likely to just move to wherever their job requires them to work, rather than commute. While the average American may change its place of living more frequently than the average European, I'm sure that most Americans would think twice (or more) before deciding (or not deciding) to move thousands of miles away for just a few extra thousand per year. We SHOULD be able to pay for things like National Parks and Interstate Highways and Air travel and Trains, but, I'm not hopeful that we will. All things other than three big budget eaters I listed have been wallowing in neglect for decades.Do you think European countries can afford more than we do? Their social services are superior to ours, and this does not prevent them from having a decent passenger rail system. Are they wealthier than us? Maybe at this time they are somewhat in advantage due the rise of Euro and the fall of USD, but I don't think we are so broke that can't afford what they can. So, social security and medicare is not a concern at all - Europe spends much more on this type of things. Iraq war is more of a concern, since it does undermine overall financial well-being of the U.S. But, still, federal spendings are controlled by Congress. And Congress is really unlikely to sacrifice every social service that we have for presidential ambitions about Iraq. And Amtrak (especially long-distance trains) can also be considered a social service in a sense. Whatever way we slice it, this miniature chunk of funds (even if it grows from $1.3 billion to $2 billion) does not make much of a difference to federal budget. Anybody talking about raising taxes to pay it? No.Really? I'm sure this option is not the last resort. In fact, raising the taxes may be an easier thing for the government to do than cutting the programs that have been defining the image of America for long time. As for me, I don't mind paying more taxes, as long as it's necessary to preserve America as a livable country. I'm sure many people agree with that. Of course, there are some who don't care about the beauty and livability of their country, state, city, as long as their own bank account is filled. But it's government's responsibility to have common sense prevail. The threshold has probably not been reached yet. In other words, so far we haven't found ourselves in a dilemma between raising taxes and cutting valuable federal programs. With right people in power, this can hopefully be avoided. But if not, then common sense must prevail. And, I believe, raising taxes is more of a common sense than cutting the programs. And, the last but not the least, cutting the military presense in Iraq can make a lot of difference.
If you want "Eurpean Style" Government services, then you get "European Style" taxes, no?
Last prez we had who raised taxes to try cover costs of some small changes in Gov't programs got booted out after one term.
Do you really think a candidate can win with a platform that's "trains, planes, roads and universal health care, all for the low, low price of a 15% tax hike? (that would get into the Eurpean taxation mode)
If "social service" is the justification for long distance trains, then large parts of the country are not being served properly. The system needs to be expanded greatly.
In Texas, where I live, 15 large and medium size cities do not have daily train service, which presumably is the minimum required to meet this social need.
Abilene, Amarillo, Beaumont, Brownsville, Corpus Christi, Denton, El Paso, Houston, Laredo, Lubbock, McAllen, Midland, Odessa, San Angelo, and Wichita Falls should have expanded or new passenger train service.
Adequate service for the cities served by the Sunset Limited could be provided by daily operation of the Sunset. But new trains would be required for Abilene, Amarillo, Brownsville, Corpus Christi, Denton, Laredo, Lubbock, McAllen, Midland, Odessa, San Angelo, and Wichita Falls.
Hmm! I wonder who would pay for it, since very few Texans use the two daily trains - Texas Eagle and Heartland Flyer - that serve Texas.
You're right on this. Nothing is free. You get what you pay for - whether in form of taxes, user fees, or simply higher fares. Unfortunately, we are too spoiled and, indeed, it would not be an easy thing to burden American people with some kind of "heavy duty" taxing on the exchange of finally getting the best multi-modal transportation system and the best universal health care system in the world. But this would be the great idea! It seems that Democrats would love to pursue it, if not for the Republican opposition. Even if Democrats do prevail, this process should definitely take quite some time, maybe decades, to reach European level. However, even with the existing structure of American economy, the fact is that all these funding programs (social security, national parks, etc., as well as highways, aviation, and, of course, Amtrak) have been arounds for decades. The economy has always had its ups and downs, but these programs did not seem to impose any serious problem to federal budget. At the time Clinton was leaving the office and Bush was just stepping in, the federal budget was having a surplus! Only for the past six or so years there is budget deficit. Iraqi war might be one of the biggest contributors to this situation. I'm not saying anything for or against Bush's starting of the Iraq war in the first place. Moreover, even Hillary Clinton seems to be admitting that some military presense in Iraq is still necessary. But the fact remains that this is a major (or the major) burden on taxpayers. And I believe that most citizens (and legislators) would strongly oppose sacrificing what we have to the questionable Iraqi war. As for McCain, his negative attitude to Amtrak (especially its long-distance network) has been known for long time. I'm sure there might be many republicans who strongly disagree with him on this issue and want Amtrak running, but still support McCain's presidential candidacy over that of Hillary or Obama. Politics is often far removed from real issues. The good thing is that President has no absolute power. One of our points against McCain's anti-Amtrak view is that Amtrak funding is too insignificant to the overall budget, comparing to Iraqi war. Even if, for the sake of argument, we assume for a moment that Amtrak is indeed not cost-efficient (which itself is a very quesitonable claim), the funding cut would be too small to make a difference in overall budget. So, the advantage of having Amtrak around (however cost-inefficient it may be) outweighs minuscule "saving" of money by destroying it. In fact, given the numerous benefits Amtrak employees enjoy, including railroad retirement benefits, it might be more costrly (in the short term) to shut-down long-distance routes than to keep them running. And, from social point of view, having long-distance trains around serves both as a service for millions of people who rely on it, and the image of America.
By the way, speaking of the long-distance equipment in service, I specifically observed long-distance trains today on my way from Philadelphia to New York. So, southbound Crescent ran by with typical consist: a baggage car, two sleepers, a diner, a lounge, and four coaches. So was the southbound Silver Meteor, which, in addition to its regular consist, had a private railcar hooked to it. As I arrived at Penn Station, I saw the Lake Shore Limited receiving passengers with its typical consist: a baggage car, three sleepers, an Amfleet II diner, a Horizon lounge (although Horizon is not really typical to it), and four coaches. But what really impressed me is a really long line of passengers boarding the train. While most (if not all) passengers on the Crescent or the Silver trains travel within the distance covered by those trains, a good part of the Lake Shore Limited's passengers is heading west of Chicago. Note, that most of NY State is covered by other Empire corridor trains in much passenger-friendlier hours. This means, most of the Lake Shore Ltd passegners are heading to Chicago or beyond (I guess, including the locations served by the two Texas trains). That's speaking about the demand for long-distance travel.
Absolutely! Just tell this to John McCain, John Mica, and other "critics". Unfortunately, it's harder to bring things back to normal now than it would be to keep things normal back in the 50's-60's. But you're right, Amtrak network should be several times larger than it really is.
The "peace dividend" was available in the early Clinton years. He had high speed rail as a plank in his platform. Did we get any? No, but we almost got universal, rationed health care.
In "Iraq" dividend will be much smaller than the "peace dividend"....
While Democrats may be more "spending friendly" than Republicans, HSR is way, way, way down the list for them.
You have a long row to hoe to get to a point where even a simple majority of American taxpayers will opt for European style taxes and services, I think.
None of the 3 candidates will be able to bring us HSR or much of an expanded Amtrak.
But, the a more efficient Amtrak would sure improve the odds....
Look at NARP's archive of weekly hotline reports throughouth the 2000. A fight for the High Speed Rail Investment Act (introduced by Sen. Frank Leutenberg of NJ) was intense. Unfortunately, two key Senators (including McCain) blocked it. At the end of the Congressional session, though, McCain did give a warm farewell to Lautenberg (who was leaving Senate for the time being). Here is McCain's speech (http://www.narprail.org/h0012.htm):
Sen. John McCain (R.-Ariz.): "First of all, I thank [Sen. Lautenberg] for his advocacy and his strong and heartfelt support about the need for a viable railway system in the Northeast and around America. There has been no one in this body who has been more committed to that proposition than [he]. I congratulate him ... "We will go through a regular process next year to bring up an authorization bill for Amtrak which would then be followed by appropriations. I objected to an appropriation this year because it was $10 billion over 10 years stuck into an appropriations bill for which there had never been a hearing. I hope [Sen. Lautenberg] can understand that. "The second point is, I urge [Sen. Lautenberg] to consider that we have to make a fundamental choice about the national rail system in America -- not just an east coast rail system but a national rail system. There are many countries in the world, including European countries, that regularly subsidize their railway systems. I understand that. I don't dispute it. Perhaps that decision has to be made in the United States of America and in the Congress of the United States with the cooperation of the administration. "I remind the Senator from New Jersey that a few short years ago the decision was made to make Amtrak completely independent. Maybe that was not a wise decision. Last year, Amtrak lost, I think, 900 million and some dollars, and will lose another $900 million, or so. I think we need to make a fundamental decision: Is it a high enough national priority? "I am not prepared to make a decision yet that the taxpayers of America should subsidize a rail system for America. I think the Senator from New Jersey would agree with me that the west coast needs one probably almost as much as the east coast does. We need to make a fundamental decision about what the Government's role will be in a national railway system, and then we need to decide to what degree it is subsidized. "I think a strong argument can be made by anyone who has tried to fly to Newark, or to LaGuardia, or Kennedy lately that they recognize the difficulties in relying simply on air transportation. I think an argument can be made. But I think it deserves full debate and discussion. I thank [Sen. Lautenberg]. I understand his disappointment on this issue. But I would like to make a personal commitment that his spirit will live on, and we will fully examine and fully ventilate this issue and try to come up with a proposal that will satisfy the needs of his constituents and Americans all over this country. Again, I say that with profound admiration and respect for the Senator from New Jersey."
"We will go through a regular process next year to bring up an authorization bill for Amtrak which would then be followed by appropriations. I objected to an appropriation this year because it was $10 billion over 10 years stuck into an appropriations bill for which there had never been a hearing. I hope [Sen. Lautenberg] can understand that.
"The second point is, I urge [Sen. Lautenberg] to consider that we have to make a fundamental choice about the national rail system in America -- not just an east coast rail system but a national rail system. There are many countries in the world, including European countries, that regularly subsidize their railway systems. I understand that. I don't dispute it. Perhaps that decision has to be made in the United States of America and in the Congress of the United States with the cooperation of the administration.
"I remind the Senator from New Jersey that a few short years ago the decision was made to make Amtrak completely independent. Maybe that was not a wise decision. Last year, Amtrak lost, I think, 900 million and some dollars, and will lose another $900 million, or so. I think we need to make a fundamental decision: Is it a high enough national priority?
"I am not prepared to make a decision yet that the taxpayers of America should subsidize a rail system for America. I think the Senator from New Jersey would agree with me that the west coast needs one probably almost as much as the east coast does. We need to make a fundamental decision about what the Government's role will be in a national railway system, and then we need to decide to what degree it is subsidized.
"I think a strong argument can be made by anyone who has tried to fly to Newark, or to LaGuardia, or Kennedy lately that they recognize the difficulties in relying simply on air transportation. I think an argument can be made. But I think it deserves full debate and discussion. I thank [Sen. Lautenberg]. I understand his disappointment on this issue. But I would like to make a personal commitment that his spirit will live on, and we will fully examine and fully ventilate this issue and try to come up with a proposal that will satisfy the needs of his constituents and Americans all over this country. Again, I say that with profound admiration and respect for the Senator from New Jersey."
This gives some insight on where McCain is standing in terms of Amtrak. Or, maybe it doesnt...
abenm613 wrote: The "peace dividend" was available in the early Clinton years. He had high speed rail as a plank in his platform. Did we get any? No, but we almost got universal, rationed health care.Look at NARP's archive of weekly hotline reports throughouth the 2000. A fight for the High Speed Rail Investment Act (introduced by Sen. Frank Leutenberg of NJ) was intense. Unfortunately, two key Senators (including McCain) blocked it. At the end of the Congressional session, though, McCain did give a warm farewell to Lautenberg (who was leaving Senate for the time being). Here is McCain's speech (http://www.narprail.org/h0012.htm):Sen. John McCain (R.-Ariz.): "First of all, I thank [Sen. Lautenberg] for his advocacy and his strong and heartfelt support about the need for a viable railway system in the Northeast and around America. There has been no one in this body who has been more committed to that proposition than [he]. I congratulate him ... "We will go through a regular process next year to bring up an authorization bill for Amtrak which would then be followed by appropriations. I objected to an appropriation this year because it was $10 billion over 10 years stuck into an appropriations bill for which there had never been a hearing. I hope [Sen. Lautenberg] can understand that. "The second point is, I urge [Sen. Lautenberg] to consider that we have to make a fundamental choice about the national rail system in America -- not just an east coast rail system but a national rail system. There are many countries in the world, including European countries, that regularly subsidize their railway systems. I understand that. I don't dispute it. Perhaps that decision has to be made in the United States of America and in the Congress of the United States with the cooperation of the administration. "I remind the Senator from New Jersey that a few short years ago the decision was made to make Amtrak completely independent. Maybe that was not a wise decision. Last year, Amtrak lost, I think, 900 million and some dollars, and will lose another $900 million, or so. I think we need to make a fundamental decision: Is it a high enough national priority? "I am not prepared to make a decision yet that the taxpayers of America should subsidize a rail system for America. I think the Senator from New Jersey would agree with me that the west coast needs one probably almost as much as the east coast does. We need to make a fundamental decision about what the Government's role will be in a national railway system, and then we need to decide to what degree it is subsidized. "I think a strong argument can be made by anyone who has tried to fly to Newark, or to LaGuardia, or Kennedy lately that they recognize the difficulties in relying simply on air transportation. I think an argument can be made. But I think it deserves full debate and discussion. I thank [Sen. Lautenberg]. I understand his disappointment on this issue. But I would like to make a personal commitment that his spirit will live on, and we will fully examine and fully ventilate this issue and try to come up with a proposal that will satisfy the needs of his constituents and Americans all over this country. Again, I say that with profound admiration and respect for the Senator from New Jersey." This gives some insight on where McCain is standing in terms of Amtrak. Or, maybe it doesnt...
To say that McCain "hates" Amtrak, or "hates" LD trains would be wrong. That supposes that his decision is made on emotion, when, clearly, he attempts to be rational and moderate.
Actual policy statement from Obama!
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/additional/Obama_FactSheet_Transportation.pdf
An almost actual policy statement from Clinton!
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=2760
Both have some indication of how much spending will be done. Neither have any indication of where the money will come from.
McCain's policy statement: (crickets chirping...)
Samantha wrote:Hmm! I wonder who would pay for it, since very few Texans use the two daily trains - Texas Eagle and Heartland Flyer - that serve Texas
oltmannd wrote:While Democrats may be more "spending friendly" than Republicans, HSR is way, way, way down the list for them
Have we not yet reached the point where investment in HSR ought to have been the proverbial "no-brainer" yet? On top of the other airlines' woes, even the venerated-by-Amtrak-opponents "perfect airline" SWA has been caught with pants down trying to cover up the cracks in their planes' wings. And AFAICS, we don't need so-called "European-style taxes" to build HSR; but we do have to stop pretending that it costs more to build railroads than it does to build highways (latest offender is a one-mile segment of light rail in Bayonne, New Jersey, which is going to cost an unbelievable $58 million to build on an existing right of way-that's well over double the cost to build new high-speed rail alignments in France-so don't tell me that it's not purely political, because it surely is).
BTW, blabbing about certain levels of taxation is an attempt to cast aspersions on standard of living in certain countries. Germany, though, seems to have it all-autobahns where you can drive at any speed you want, ICE trains that leave planes in the dust, a currency (yes, the Euro is a German currency) that other countries are taking on as a reserve currency more and more, falling unemployment, trade surpluses, expanding military (need I go on)...where is the USA in this picture?
oltmannd wrote:The Senate has historically been very collegial. McCain's words fit that mold very well. To say that McCain "hates" Amtrak, or "hates" LD trains would be wrong. That supposes that his decision is made on emotion, when, clearly, he attempts to be rational and moderate
To say that McCain "hates" Amtrak, or "hates" LD trains would be wrong. That supposes that his decision is made on emotion, when, clearly, he attempts to be rational and moderate
Should we then vote for Lyndon LaRouche because of his HSR promises? Naah...(and of course, neither Kay Bailey Hutchison nor Lautenberg are running)
I would imagine that you could fit only a very few Texans onto two daily trains, yes. Do they have to be standing-room only and people piled on the roof before train service should be expanded?
Texans have demonstrated overwhelmingly a preference for the airplane for distances of more than 200 miles and the car for distances of less than 200 miles or for family outings. There is practically no market for passenger rail service in Texas, outside of commuter rail in the state's major cities. And a play on words will not change this fact.
The state legislature will not consider funding rapid rail between the Lone Star state's big cities. There is a good reason for their stance. They know that it would lose buckets of money to support the travel preferences of a handful of people. It is also the reason why private investors are not lining up to fund passenger rail in Texas.
The number of people who ride Amtrak's trains to and from Texas could be handled with a couple of buses. In fact, given the one constant for the Texas Eagle - it is usually late; putting people on buses to complete their journey is a common occurrence.
For the fiscal year ended September 30, 2007, the Eagle sold approximately 51 per cent of its available seat miles. The Sunset Limited sold approximately 52 per cent of its available seat miles, and the Heartland Flyer sold nearly 38 per cent of its available seat miles. Moreover, in the case of the Eagle, the the load factor was considerably higher north of St. Louis than south of there. Not to worry; it will be a long time before anyone has to stand on Amtrak's or any trains in Texas.
JT22CW wrote: Samantha wrote:Hmm! I wonder who would pay for it, since very few Texans use the two daily trains - Texas Eagle and Heartland Flyer - that serve TexasI would imagine that you could fit only a very few Texans onto two daily trains, yes. Do they have to be standing-room only and people piled on the roof before train service should be expanded? oltmannd wrote:While Democrats may be more "spending friendly" than Republicans, HSR is way, way, way down the list for themOpposition to HSR has been quite bipartisan. Then again, there is no clear-cut line as to the political leanings of Democrats and Republicans either. And FTR, both GOP and Dems are just as "spending-friendly" as each other, just that one prefers to tax whereas the other prefers to borrow. Have we not yet reached the point where investment in HSR ought to have been the proverbial "no-brainer" yet? On top of the other airlines' woes, even the venerated-by-Amtrak-opponents "perfect airline" SWA has been caught with pants down trying to cover up the cracks in their planes' wings. And AFAICS, we don't need so-called "European-style taxes" to build HSR; but we do have to stop pretending that it costs more to build railroads than it does to build highways (latest offender is a one-mile segment of light rail in Bayonne, New Jersey, which is going to cost an unbelievable $58 million to build on an existing right of way-that's well over double the cost to build new high-speed rail alignments in France-so don't tell me that it's not purely political, because it surely is).BTW, blabbing about certain levels of taxation is an attempt to cast aspersions on standard of living in certain countries. Germany, though, seems to have it all-autobahns where you can drive at any speed you want, ICE trains that leave planes in the dust, a currency (yes, the Euro is a German currency) that other countries are taking on as a reserve currency more and more, falling unemployment, trade surpluses, expanding military (need I go on)...where is the USA in this picture? oltmannd wrote:The Senate has historically been very collegial. McCain's words fit that mold very well. To say that McCain "hates" Amtrak, or "hates" LD trains would be wrong. That supposes that his decision is made on emotion, when, clearly, he attempts to be rational and moderateTo assume that a politician lacks emotion is naïve. To assert that a politician will not take a particular stance based on emotion and/or self-interest implies a world view that rejects reality. Of course, that doesn't nullify the lip service that other candidates besides McCain are offering up.Should we then vote for Lyndon LaRouche because of his HSR promises? Naah...(and of course, neither Kay Bailey Hutchison nor Lautenberg are running)
That a mile of urban railway could cost double that for a mile of rural railway means the cost of doing the urban mile is purely political?
You are just leaping to conclusions....again.
Ever find those Pittsburgh line track charts? Still wanna do HSR on the old PRR alignment? Or do you concede that one?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.