daveklepper wrote: And people do learn. Bush did not attempt to veto the expanded Amtrak appropriation, despite his earlier poistion.
And people do learn. Bush did not attempt to veto the expanded Amtrak appropriation, despite his earlier poistion.
Do you mean he waffled? That man changes his mind about just about everything. Wouldn't it be nice if he'd make a decision and just stick to it even if enormous public opinion said to change? :)
Patrick Boylan
Free yacht rides, 27' sailboat, zip code 19114 Delaware River, get great Delair bridge photos from the river. Send me a private message
Dave:
If it was a private enterprise I would agree, but the higher up the government food chain you go, the more inertia you encounter.
By the time they get done with the 10 year studies to determine feasability, environmental impact, how much they should grow and where, and hold the 200 public input meetings in all the effected communities, the opportunity will have passed.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
Amtrak, with more-or-less the existing route map has survived more or less intact, unchanged, and largely unmotivated over the past couple of decades.
So, a new prez and congress will likely have little impact on the lines on the map.
What, I think, you will see is a push to get some money to fund short/medium corridors. Some of that is already visible in this year's legislation.
The political "cost" for any new funding will be a push to make Amtrak more productive with what they already have. There have been lots of flawed plans pushed out over the past decade or so. Chop up Amtrak, Privatize Portions, Minimum loss per Passenger, etc., but this time, I think something may come out of it. My guess is an attempt to build some sort of profit motive into the Amtrak subsidy game and/or a sacrifice of the biggest "dog" train.
You can see Amtrak positioning themselve for this. Kummant only ever talks corridors and their growth potential. Now, can he fix some of the leaks in the boat enough to get the investment?
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
daveklepper wrote:Be nice. I asked you not to be political. Give everyone the benefit of the doubt.
Sorry, I was trying to be ironical, and I did put in a smiley emoticon.
Accepted. Some of the other comments were very good and to the point. Without being political, again, but living in Jerusalem with some Arab friends as immediate neighbors, I think I can promise over the long term that Mideast oil is not going to get any less expensive. Not soon and not long-term. So some of the long-term plans might actually get past environmental impact statements and NIMBY protests endangered specie protests and whatever else, and make it to reality.
And I do see tracks in the streets in parts of Jerusalem. We are actually getting a light rail system. I've even seen the shop complex and some rolling stock. Who would have thought it possible?
Here is one prediction: In 20 or 25 years the Northeast Corridor infrastructure will be considered by a wide section of the entire USA population to be inadequate for its multiple tasks, and the old White Train New York and New England corridor through Wilamantic will be revitalized as a high-speed route bypassing Providence and New London, there will be a bypass around New York and its intensive commuter operations and slow speed operation west of New Haven, possibly using the Maybrook Line and the Poughkeepsie Bridge, and definitely using the Bound Brook - West Trenton Cursader/Wall Street Reading line to Philadelphia. Baltimore - Washington will be four tracks.
If Amtrak is forced to give up long distance operations, unlikely, and I hope this doesn't happen, the slack might be taken up by a consortium of hotel and tourist operators who may run a regularly scheduled passenger service aimed primarily a tourism. This would be a loss to much of the traveling public, however, particularly the handicapped who cannot fly.
The GAO report of a couple of years ago suggested that if the LD trains were essential, they might be cheaper to run as end to end day trains with riders opting for hotels overnight. Or, perhaps the sleepers and diners would be operated by private firms. Either would accomodate the can't/won't fly crowd.
The reaction from NARP and others was swift and predictable, however, it did force Amtrak into thinking about sleeper and diner costs and led to the current rollout of diner/lounge combos.
If Amtrak were on the ball and implemented this BEFORE the GAO report, then maybe the GAO report would never have happened. Doesn't speak well for inovation at Amtrak.....
...and maybe, some of Amtrak's LD trains, particularly those in the east, would be better if they were back - to - back day trains. How about splitting the Crescent at Atlanta and City of NOL at Memphis? How about a daily Cardinal, split at Cincinnati?
daveklepper wrote: Accepted. Some of the other comments were very good and to the point. Without being political, again, but living in Jerusalem with some Arab friends as immediate neighbors, I think I can promise over the long term that Mideast oil is not going to get any less expensive. Not soon and not long-term. So some of the long-term plans might actually get past environmental impact statements and NIMBY protests endangered specie protests and whatever else, and make it to reality.And I do see tracks in the streets in parts of Jerusalem. We are actually getting a light rail system. I've even seen the shop complex and some rolling stock. Who would have thought it possible?Here is one prediction: In 20 or 25 years the Northeast Corridor infrastructure will be considered by a wide section of the entire USA population to be inadequate for its multiple tasks, and the old White Train New York and New England corridor through Wilamantic will be revitalized as a high-speed route bypassing Providence and New London, there will be a bypass around New York and its intensive commuter operations and slow speed operation west of New Haven, possibly using the Maybrook Line and the Poughkeepsie Bridge, and definitely using the Bound Brook - West Trenton Cursader/Wall Street Reading line to Philadelphia. Baltimore - Washington will be four tracks. If Amtrak is forced to give up long distance operations, unlikely, and I hope this doesn't happen, the slack might be taken up by a consortium of hotel and tourist operators who may run a regularly scheduled passenger service aimed primarily a tourism. This would be a loss to much of the traveling public, however, particularly the handicapped who cannot fly.
I have been around along time and ridden the finest trains in the land before Amtrak and Via Rail.
I have also ridden everything Amtrak has to offer except Acela, and everything Via offers except for the new cars they got from Britain originally built for Chunnel service.
I see our California trains running with the highest passenger counts in Amtraks history and for the first time in years see a bright future for the national passenger carrier and no where is it more evident than in this state.
California voters will be asked in November to approve a 9 billion HSR proposal that should have been built twenty years ago. Although I personally don't care for the proposed system something is better than nothing. Early polls show that it should pass by 60-65% of the voters.
When I think of the numbers of options that will become available for rail passenger service in the west alone I look in my little crystal ball and see an expanded network in twenty years ago that was never invisioned. I see a train running from Houston through Dallas to Denver and beyond to Seattle via Wyoming and southern Montana. The Desert Wind and Pioneer will once again operate as will a service across southern Montana and North Dakota. El Paso will have trains service to Albuquerque and Denver.
Not all of this equipment in the west will be Superliners but much will be single level.
In the East I see a service between Chicago and Florida that will compete with schedules before Amtrak. I believe it is only a matter of time before midwest HSR becomes reality.
Sure there is a lull in gas prices at the moment but it is inevitable that the only direction gas is going is up.
Amtrak probably needs an additional 100 Superliners, 60 California Cars, and probably 200 single level cars for use outside the NE corridor. At todays prices that roughly translates to 500 million dollars. But the more we procastinate they are only going to get more expensive. If anything I would probably increase the California Car part as all of the western trains and the proposed Chicago - Florida trains could use these as there interiors can easily be reconfigured for long distance services and cheaper than Superliners I might add. In fact the California Cars have become favorites of mine as they have a very comfortable ride and with two doors on each side provide faster ingress and egress than Superliners.
One additional note if other states such as Ohio want HSR let them pay for it just as California is doing. HSR should be a burden on the states that want it not taxpayers across the nation. In fact I still believe that those states that use the Acela trains in the NE corridor should have paid for it not taxpayers across the nation.
Al - in - Stockton
passengerfan wrote: One additional note if other states such as Ohio want HSR let them pay for it just as California is doing. HSR should be a burden on the states that want it not taxpayers across the nation. In fact I still believe that those states that use the Acela trains in the NE corridor should have paid for it not taxpayers across the nation.Al - in - Stockton
A sure-fire recipe for sub-optimum network. A whole network is greater than the sum of the parts....
Suppose GA and NC want to connect Charlotte to Atlanta, but the numbers don't work unless SC antes up. Anderson (Clemson), Spartansburg and Greensburg aren't chump change. So, it doesn't get done and money goes to doing the next thing on GA and NC's list, let's say Atlanta to Macon and Charlotte to Asheville, for example.
Even if GA and NC did Charlotte to Atlanta and didn't stop in SC (which makes even less sense the including stops, anyway), SC would still reap a benefit they didn't pay for - reduced highway congestion on I-85.
CA is an exeption to the rule (perhaps FL and TX, too) as the interstate possibilities are much smaller than the intrastate.
With an 80/20 funding capital formula and perhaps some seed money to start operations, it would be much simpler to get states to work together. Nearly all of the interstate highway network got built "voluntarily" with 90/10 or 80/20 funding. The only circumstance I know where a state had to be cajolled into doing their part was I-95 thru GA. (Anyone who knows about rural GA sherriff depts and state polotics can tell you why!)
Al,
I must repeat in this thread that the "California" car is not the best fit for Midwest Corridor services.
As for a better ride, the California car and Superliner II seem to share the same design, if not identical, trucks. While I have not ridden the California car, it's improbable that the ride would be perceptibly better. I have noticed that the quality of ride often is affected by the passenger load and where one sits.
One of the scariest rides I experienced was on an Amtrak Horizon coach whose trucks hunted increasingly violently and possibly dangerously, over 50 mph with similar, if not identical, trucks as the California and Superliner II.
The best ride I ever experienced was aboard the X-2000. I was sold on the elastomeric radial suspension more for its elimination of pedestal wear and resulting hunting at higher speeds. Does anyone know why the X-2000's original truck design was abandoned for a European-style coil spring primary suspension version?
Harvey
HarveyK400 wrote: Al,I must repeat in this thread that the "California" car is not the best fit for Midwest Corridor services.The second set of double doors takes up valuable revenue space, 4-8 seats depending on interior respacing.Passenges must file past the conductor and assistant conductor for ticket and identity check for boarding at only two doors on a four car corridor train. Thank goodness suburban trains are exempt from this lunacy.If a secure platform was provided at larger-volume staffed stations, not only would boarding be faster for each passenger, but all four doors on a 4-car Superliner would be available.One most routes, tilt suspension equipment offers a significant benefit for 110 mph, and even for 79 mph operation in some cases.As for a better ride, the California car and Superliner II seem to share the same design, if not identical, trucks. While I have not ridden the California car, it's improbable that the ride would be perceptibly better. I have noticed that the quality of ride often is affected by the passenger load and where one sits. One of the scariest rides I experienced was on an Amtrak Horizon coach whose trucks hunted increasingly violently and possibly dangerously, over 50 mph with similar, if not identical, trucks as the California and Superliner II. The best ride I ever experienced was aboard the X-2000. I was sold on the elastomeric radial suspension more for its elimination of pedestal wear and resulting hunting at higher speeds. Does anyone know why the X-2000's original truck design was abandoned for a European-style coil spring primary suspension version?Harvey
I've ridden both the California cars and Superliners. Both were decent. Amfleet is decent at 90 mph, too.
I've found the biggest variable is where you sit in the car. In the middle is best, by far. For higher speeds, wheel profile is critical. An Amfleet car with worn wheels will hunt like crazy at speed. Riding in a car with the trucks hunting is like being the speed bag in a boxing gym. Worn trucks are more like you are the body bag.
What Amtrak needs is something simple, cheap and light weight with a decent ride up to 100 mph. That will allow low operating costs and fuel consumption. Talgo might be a good place to start.
I too have ridden Talgo and like the trains but I have a problem with Talgo and that is their fixed consists. The earliest streamliners were fixed consists as well and that is why they are no longer used. I was rather surprized at Amtrak trying the Talgo's in the first place. The fixed consists disappeared from the RRs for a long period of time until the UA Turbo's came along and in the US they did not last long. There is not a one size fits all for Amtraks next generation of cars but we need to be looking capacity.
The freaight RRs are not going to be happy adding additional passenger trains to certain routes so the bets answer is more cars with higher capacity per car and longer Amtrak trains.
The problem of states rights and home rule is most evident in commerce and interstate travel raised by the example of rail corridors through South Carolina. While numerous intercity corridors are interstate in nature, many are intrastate by the chance of state boundaries. I contend that significant population rather than comparatively empty land is served by intercity corridors and deserves federal funding.
Now fair questions may be to what level federal involvement should extend.
passengerfan wrote: I too have ridden Talgo and like the trains but I have a problem with Talgo and that is their fixed consists. The earliest streamliners were fixed consists as well and that is why they are no longer used. I was rather surprized at Amtrak trying the Talgo's in the first place. The fixed consists disappeared from the RRs for a long period of time until the UA Turbo's came along and in the US they did not last long. There is not a one size fits all for Amtraks next generation of cars but we need to be looking capacity. The freaight RRs are not going to be happy adding additional passenger trains to certain routes so the bets answer is more cars with higher capacity per car and longer Amtrak trains. Al - in - Stockton
Well, if Amtrak were nimble enough to try to add and drop cars during the day at end points on corridors or en route on the LD trains, I'd agree with you. But, they haven't been able to, wanted to, or been able to afford to do that for years.
But, Amtrak is essentially an fixed consist RR right now.
And, they did OK with those Turboliners in New York (7 Rohr plus one modernized "French" train set) for roughly 20 years until they got to rusty to go on.
Going with lighter weight equipment mitigates some of the cost of poor load factor "off-peak"/"off-lane" service.
HarveyK400 wrote: The problem of states rights and home rule is most evident in commerce and interstate travel raised by the example of rail corridors through South Carolina. While numerous intercity corridors are interstate in nature, many are intrastate by the chance of state boundaries. I contend that significant population rather than comparatively empty land is served by intercity corridors and deserves federal funding. Why should intra-state and interstate corridors be treated discriminately to avoid any federal obligation? Why should an interstate corridor be subject to the whim of an individual state?Now fair questions may be to what level federal involvement should extend.Should corridors leading to only one major city be included?Should population and distance criteria determine elegibility for federal funding; and if so, what?
As far as I'm concerned, the only criteria should be overall cost/benefit, including soft benefits and costs.
Obviosly, projected ridership/revenue and capital and operating costs go in, as these are the hard numbers.
But, it means corridors where congestion relief and/or air quality improvements would be greatest would have an edge over similar routes with lesser improvments. I'd even include the economic development potential as part of the benefits as transportation is generally the grease the lubricates the wheels of commerce.
Acelas certainly successful and operates with a fixed consist. They have power at both ends which I feel is to expensive. Without looking I believe they are are a total of seven units. Additional cars could be added to Acela or for that matter Talgo but Acela does not share trucks so it would be easier. No plans for growth were taken into account when Acela was built for future growth. For a system that brags about 150 mph running it is a pitifully short stretch just south of Boston where the train achieves that speed. Where as the proposed California HSR system will be built to operate at 200 and 220 mph, and that is not for just short streatches. Once again the California system will have power at each end and a fixed consist of twelve cars. The California system will carry passengers between San Francisco and Los Angeles in less than three hours including stops. Sacramento - Los Angeles will operate just a little faster in two and a half hours.
One of the other proposals on the table for California was Mag-Lev and that would have operated Los Angeles - San Francisco in two hours and Los Angeles - Sacramento in 1 hour forty five minutes. Mag Lev would have been more expensive but was not limited to the old ten foot wide that the other HSR was. One proposal made the Mag-Lev twenty feet wide and the cars two decks that carried trucks on the lower level and passengers on the upper level with the main valley route extended north to Redding. This would have taken much of the truck traffic off the I-5 corridor in California. Trucks would only be loaded and unloaded at end points Los Angeles and Redding or Sacramento if the route was not built all of the way through. To me this route made the most sense and the Mag-Lev was far superior to conventional HSR. Either proposal will employee about 170,000 people during construction.
passengerfan wrote: Acelas certainly successful and operates with a fixed consist. They have power at both ends which I feel is to expensive. Without looking I believe they are are a total of seven units. Additional cars could be added to Acela or for that matter Talgo but Acela does not share trucks so it would be easier. No plans for growth were taken into account when Acela was built for future growth. For a system that brags about 150 mph running it is a pitifully short stretch just south of Boston where the train achieves that speed.
Acelas certainly successful and operates with a fixed consist. They have power at both ends which I feel is to expensive. Without looking I believe they are are a total of seven units. Additional cars could be added to Acela or for that matter Talgo but Acela does not share trucks so it would be easier. No plans for growth were taken into account when Acela was built for future growth. For a system that brags about 150 mph running it is a pitifully short stretch just south of Boston where the train achieves that speed.
Classic case of tail wagging the dog. On Jeopardy, it would read like this:
Existing ROW, electrified, 3 hr run time:
"Alex, what is 6 cars, 12,000 HP with tilt?"
The legislated mandate was 3 hours. Forget that the incremental HP is only worth nanoseconds in running time....
oltmannd wrote: passengerfan wrote: Acelas certainly successful and operates with a fixed consist. They have power at both ends which I feel is to expensive. Without looking I believe they are are a total of seven units. Additional cars could be added to Acela or for that matter Talgo but Acela does not share trucks so it would be easier. No plans for growth were taken into account when Acela was built for future growth. For a system that brags about 150 mph running it is a pitifully short stretch just south of Boston where the train achieves that speed. Classic case of tail wagging the dog. On Jeopardy, it would read like this:Existing ROW, electrified, 3 hr run time:"Alex, what is 6 cars, 12,000 HP with tilt?"The legislated mandate was 3 hours. Forget that the incremental HP is only worth nanoseconds in running time....
And never mind that the full tilt capability can't be used because Acela was built to wide.
My poppa told me about "government specsmanship." He was involved in development of the roller test stand for the Pueblo, Colorado facility and contributed the design for the power coupling -- essentially a gigantic CV joint that works on the same principle as the front wheel drive power train in your car.
Some committee met and said, "OK, what is the most heavy axle loading for a locomotive or a high-capacity freight car we can imagine for the future: 50 tons." "What is the fastest anyone will ever operate a high-speed passenger train: 300 MPH." "OK, what is the highest adhesion level that can be achieved with a locomotive: 30 percent," Actually, there are locomotives that beat that, but that was the thinking back in the early 1970s.
So you multiply 50 tons by 30 percent and convert to HP at 300 MPH and you come up with 24000 HP. Per axle. The foolishness of this is that a 300 MPH train is not going to have a 50 ton axle loading and be able to produce 30 percent adhesion at speed. But the powers that be wrote the spec that the roller test stand be able to transmit 24000 HP per axle. And V Milenkovic invented a one-of-a-kind CV joint that could transmit 24000 HP. It had its own hydraulic power supply to pressurize the hydrostatic bearings -- essentially space-age journal bearings -- the thing would crush any kind of ball or roller bearings.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Two points. First, I've said before, one of the main perceptions about Amtrak is that it has to be a for profit venture because it was born out of the private enterprise sector of our society; i.e. since a private, for profit industry ran passenger trains, then it must be a for profit proposition.
Second, a term we don't hear much of anymore is public utiilty. A service such as phone, electricity, water, sewer, bus, and rail services were considered a public utility and could be either privately owned and operated or municipally owned and operated. But they were chartered or othewise held responsible for the quality of service. Some still exists today except seemingly for transportation, especially rail passenger service. I don't believe, even if it is mentioned in the legislation creating Amtrak, or mumbled by someone along the way, that this public utility aspect of a rail passenger service is discussed or seriously applied. We have gotten to the point where we can choose electric suppliers, telephone suppliers, tv signal suppliers, so the monopolistic aspect is all but forgotten when thinking public utility. But with fewer and fewer railroads, especially for longer distances, we do not have such choice. So if railroads, frieght or passenger, are not held to thier charter responsiblity, are they still considered a public utility? And as such, what should we, as both the general public and as taxpers, expect?
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
First, I've said before, one of the main perceptions about Amtrak is that it has to be a for profit venture because it was born out of the private enterprise sector of our society; i.e. since a private, for profit industry ran passenger trains, then it must be a for profit proposition. Second, a term we don't hear much of anymore is public utiilty. A service such as phone, electricity, water, sewer, bus, and rail services were considered a public utility and could be either privately owned and operated or municipally owned and operated.
Second, a term we don't hear much of anymore is public utiilty. A service such as phone, electricity, water, sewer, bus, and rail services were considered a public utility and could be either privately owned and operated or municipally owned and operated.
The talking point of rail advocacy that "Amtrak was never intended to make a profit and will never make a profit" cuts both ways. In one way it is saying, "You want passenger trains, stop complaining about the subsidies and come up with the cash." On the flip side it is suggesting to many people, "Forget this, Amtrak will never break even, so let's can the whole thing." That Amtrak along with other passenger services in other parts of the world require subsidies is an established fact, but do we really want to stress the hopelessness of weening Amtrak from subsidies? Might be a path to losing the whole thing.
If our talking point is going to be "public utility", last I heard, my local electric company makes a profit. Oh, yes, the electric company benefits handsomly from governmental policy. It is granted a monopoly and rate making authority within that monopoly to cover its costs plus a certain percentage profit, it is permitted to put pollution into the air so it can produce electricity from low-cost fuels such as coal, it is granted certain powers of land use confiscation under certain circumstances to locate their transmission lines, the nuclear part of the power utility industry is a spin-off of the billions of dollars spent by the Navy on nuclear subs and ships. But apart from these forms of indirect subsidy, the electric company receives no direct subsidy, let alone have anything close to Amtrak's operating ratio.
In the scheme of things, railroad passenger trains have proven, with Amtrak along with all of those other places in the world, to be a high-cost way of generating passenger miles, the cost of fuel being only a small part of the cost. It turns out that automobiles are also a high cost way of generating passenger miles, and even with todays high gas costs, the cost of gas is probably (still) a minority share of the total cost of ownership and operation. At least for long distances, the low cost way of generating passenger miles, perhaps suprisingly, are the airlines. Fuel is a larger share of their total cost compared to the other modes, not because they are that much different in their fuel efficiency compared with autos and Amtrak, but because they are otherwise more cost effective.
A colleague in our local advocacy group wrote in our newsletter that the costs of Amtrak operations and operating an auto being nearly the same, the high rates of subsidy of Amtrak didn't much matter because the subsidy was just a different way of paying for costs which needed to be payed one way or the other. You could argue that people only account for out-of-pocket gas costs when making a decision between car and either transit or short distance or Amtrak for long, and subsidizing Amtrak to the level of where the fares are comparable to out-of-pocket car costs is a requirement to have any kind of surface-transportation alternative to cars, for all of the reasons that an alternative is required. But you have airlines, which for long-distances and low load factor in a car (one or two people), are much lower cost than either cars or Amtrak, even with the increased price of fuel. Amtrak uses fuel that has gone up in price too, but as discussed earlier or on another thread, Amtrak the reduction in subsidy that could have taken place owing to increased ridership, owing to high fuel cost of other modes, has been taken up by increased fuel cost for Amtrak.
The automobile offers the flexibility of route, destination, and time of travel, a feature that people are willing to pay a lot for, here and in Europe and everywhere else people become wealthy enough to afford cars.
I am willing to stipulate that the train has its own mode-unique set of advantages, and owing to how especially auto travel is paid for -- people are willing to incur one-time expenses for the car and have lower per-mile out-of-pocket costs -- the train will require subsidy and maybe even high rates of subsidy. But is so doing, one has to go to the taxpayer, and one has to make the case to the taxpayer to part with the subsidy money, just like the auto makers have to close the deal on getting you to part with 25,000 dollars to purchase a new car. And in so doing, the case for spending this money on the train enters the general political arena and a cogent, general and political case has to be made to support the train. This case has to be made to the non passenger-train advocate non railfan public.
A case has to be made that either 1) Amtrak can be operated at lower rates of subsidy if it is given some "capital seed money" or 2) that trains are so overwhelmingly advantageous that they justify the high rates of subsidy that Amtrak requires. A lot of the advantages of trains are apparent to the advocacy community but not apparent to the general public.
My position is that we need more in the way of a marketing campaign, or perhaps even a public relations campaign that goes beyond the usual carping about the subsidy going to other modes and the Concrete Conspiracy or how the Europeans are so much smarter to have trains that we don't have. A lot of the anger about the state of affairs with respect to trains that gets expressed "in the community and among friends", here, in advocacy group board meetings, leaks out into our public face to the greater political arena where the money will come from, and it could work against us. We need to regard the taxpayer as a "customer", and if we are mad at the customer for not doing what we want (voting in ways that support trains), well, you see where this leads.
One of the things I was getting at was that there are places where water, sewer, electricity, gas, garbage, and transet are private enterprises and other places where they are municipal operations. So today, do we hold anybody's feet to the fire or just accept medocrity in performance while paying the bill. Should we do the same for Amtrak?
BUt I do like what you said about marketing, etc. concerning Amtrak. In effect somebody has to say to Congress to S--T or get off the track!
henry6 wrote: One of the things I was getting at was that there are places where water, sewer, electricity, gas, garbage, and transet are private enterprises and other places where they are municipal operations. So today, do we hold anybody's feet to the fire or just accept medocrity in performance while paying the bill. Should we do the same for Amtrak?BUt I do like what you said about marketing, etc. concerning Amtrak. In effect somebody has to say to Congress to S--T or get off the track!
Agree! I want more. I want better. For what we're paying for Amtrak, we should be getting more. Shame on Conrgress for not holding their feet to the fire. Shame on NARP et.al. for fighting the wrong battle!
Shame on me for not doing more than blather on here....
May I respectfully point out that Amtrak was on a way to excellence when they fired David Gunn?
But I would give the present management some breathing space before complaining.
One of the things I was getting at was that there are places where water, sewer, electricity, gas, garbage, and transet are private enterprises and other places where they are municipal operations. So today, do we hold anybody's feet to the fire or just accept medocrity in performance while paying the bill. Should we do the same for Amtrak?BUt I do like what you said about marketing, etc. concerning Amtrak. In effect somebody has to say to Congress to S--T or get off the track!
OK, two questions:
Where is a municipal electric company operated where fees from customers make up 50 cents on the dollar of cost?
Second question follows. If we are to approach passenger train advocacy as a marketing campaign for a product, essentially selling the product of a national passenger train network to the non-railfan non-advocate taxpayer, how are we getting off on the right foot in this campaign using a four-letter word, even if it has some of the letters blanked out? Are you saying that there is overwhelming support for trains among the public at large but that their elected representatives are obstructing on account of influence from "special interests." If the ambivalence of Congress (remember, we are on the path to get Lautenberg-Lott, not everything we think we want, but a major increment in Amtrak capital spending, but an increment that needs to be spent judiciously to have a good effect) reflects general attitudes of their constituents (and the lifeblood of any member of Congress is "constituent services" and bringing in Federal benefits to specific districts), are you scolding the non-railfan non-advocate taxpaying public for not sharing your perspective on the social benefits of trains? And as such, is such scolding, which is a mode of advocacy I see in many advocacy newsletters, advancing the cause, the cause being one of persuading the "customer" (the taxpaying public) that tax money spent on Amtrak is a something they want?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.