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.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
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.
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.
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.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
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.