-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
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 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.
motard98 wrote:McCain will be the next president IMO and that's a good thing
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.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.