When it comes to transportation, rail transportation especially,
Political foresight is about 20/400000
Real time political sight is about 20/400
Political hindsight however, is 20/10!
With political hindsight being what it is, it is amazing they can't convert any of the knowledge gained from the hindsight into foresight.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Good point. And oen of the reasons \i am a passenger rail advocate, inlcuding long distance, is a memory of WWI and A-cards and gas rationing.
Without HUGE increases in gas prices and/or rationing the public outside of the established passenger corridors, they will not give up their cars. And, unless they do, non-corridor rail passenger service will never run without a large subsidy. Can politicians summon up the courage to advance railroads as a cure to more than unit coal/container trains? I doubt it. Several posts ago I suggested that the largest city triads be connected by a minimum of three daily trains each way. The condition was that the triads had to compete directly with a :90 flight time in both price and door to door timing. Long distance travel could be done, but changing trains was necessary. I believe this is the best way of addressing the issue of New York to Kansas City by train for those who really want to do it.
Illinois and other states have shown the people will take the train even where speeds currently average less than 60 mph. The "Common Wisdom" that the public will not give up their cars has been dis-proven many times over.
Every indication from recent experience in the US is that faster and more frequent service will attract significantly more ridership by orders of magnitude. There should be no doubt that 110 mph inter-city service will reap substantial gains at relatively little cost. Speeds over 110 mph begin to increase costs substantially with full grade separation, electrification, and new very high-speed alignments with the attendant dislocation of homes and businesses that needs to be weighed against ridership and the value of diversion and accommodation of travel on rail.
Why do people have to give up their cars, as if this should be an eithe/or proposition? I doubt I will ever "give up" my car, but I will use transit -- and especially rail -- when it is available & convenient.
It's having the choice that is important. It seems to me that where people have that choice, they have used rail (and still keep their cars!)..
I honestly believe that the USA may very well be deprived of Mideast oil very soon, much sooner than any planners for USA energy-independence are anticipating. This is the message from the recent Wikipedia expose. (I did not need the message, however.) The political leaders who seem so proud to block passneger rail expansion will be pilloried for their lack of foresight when and if this happens. Instead of devoting energy to blocking passenger rail expansion, they should really study how the USA could handle loss of Mideast oil and what the implications are for both freight and passenger transportation.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html
daveklepper I honestly believe that the USA may very well be deprived of Mideast oil very soon, much sooner than any planners for USA energy-independence are anticipating. This is the message from the recent Wikipedia expose. (I did not need the message, however.)
I honestly believe that the USA may very well be deprived of Mideast oil very soon, much sooner than any planners for USA energy-independence are anticipating. This is the message from the recent Wikipedia expose. (I did not need the message, however.)
That wouldn't seem to be a major deal, to me. Wouldn't it just shuffle the deck of what oil goes where? ...unless the Saudi's just aren't going to export as much oil, the total world supply and demand would be the same. The middle east oil would go to the Pacific Rim and the Alaskan Oil would come here, for example. It would raise overall transport costs, but that's not the same as turning off the spigot.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
I guess you have forgotten how quickly the 1973 oil embargo brought us to our knees.
In 1973 we imported about 30% of the oil we consumed. Today it is over 50%
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
HarveyK400 Illinois and other states have shown the people will take the train even where speeds currently average less than 60 mph. The "Common Wisdom" that the public will not give up their cars has been dis-proven many times over.
What trip length are do you cite?? People will start only using their cars for longer trips? I have often wondered if commuters have any idea how much it costs to drive? LD driving just costs so much less!
HarveyK400 Every indication from recent experience in the US is that faster and more frequent service will attract significantly more ridership by orders of magnitude. This should happen and maybe as the new 20 - 40 yr olds commute to work and travel intercity they will want to do billable work or just text to every person in the world?? There should be no doubt that 110 mph inter-city service will reap substantial gains at relatively little cost. Speeds over 110 mph begin to increase costs substantially with full grade separation, electrification, and new very high-speed alignments with the attendant dislocation of homes and businesses that needs to be weighed against ridership and the value of diversion and accommodation of travel on rail.
Every indication from recent experience in the US is that faster and more frequent service will attract significantly more ridership by orders of magnitude.
This should happen and maybe as the new 20 - 40 yr olds commute to work and travel intercity they will want to do billable work or just text to every person in the world??
There should be no doubt that 110 mph inter-city service will reap substantial gains at relatively little cost. Speeds over 110 mph begin to increase costs substantially with full grade separation, electrification, and new very high-speed alignments with the attendant dislocation of homes and businesses that needs to be weighed against ridership and the value of diversion and accommodation of travel on rail.
Of course it is not the top speed that is as important as reducing the slow orders. Just think even the NEC is not 110 average speed yet! Hopefully the new Electric motors Amtrak has ordered will have enough HP to quickly accelerate trains to the top allowed track speeds. I wonder if the CHI - STL MSR (110 MPH) will require 2 P-40s (being rebuilt to 110mph) or P-42s to achieve optimal acceleration?
A big unknown is the passenger demand that will occurr on this route. Since ridership figures have proved so fickel the # travelling over the CHI - STL route especially CHI - Springfield cannot be acurately predicted. The demand could be off by an order of magnitude! How can equipment ever be properly allocated?
Phoebe Vet I guess you have forgotten how quickly the 1973 oil embargo brought us to our knees. In 1973 we imported about 30% of the oil we consumed. Today it is over 50%
A big-picture view of economics, energy, and history may be illuminating to the advocacy community in pursuing our goals.
Certain Middle Eastern states and especially Saudi Arabia placed an embargo on oil exported to the United States in response to President Richard Nixon in effect saving Israel with an emergency shipment to replace losses in the October 1973 Egyptian and Syrian attack on Israel.
Besides saving Israel as a nation state, one of the other actions taken by President Nixon was the imposition of "wage and price controls", I believe the executive order was given in August 1971.
It has been said that oil is "fungible", meaning that it is a pourable liquid held in barrels or in the holds of tanker ships, and it does not have a bar code or a serial number on it. So, Saudi stops selling to the U.S. but continues selling to Japan? What is to prevent Japan from selling some of its "other oil" to the U.S.?
This is not to say that the embargo did not have a direct effect. Not all kinds of oil are interchangable with all refineries, and there are routes and manifests of the tanker ships that cannot be altered overnight. There is documentary coverage of President Nixon complaining to the Saudi King that the embargo hurt the war effort in Vietnam, which was still going at that late date, and that the King opposed Communism, now, didn't he?
But it is also said that the real culprit in the 1973 gas crisis were the price controls on oil and petroleum products that were held over from the 1971 wage and price control executive order, controls that led to the 1978 gas crisis in conjunction with the overthrow of the Shah of Iran and that were lifted by President Ronald Reagan -- we have suffered from spikes in gas prices since then, but we haven't seen people forming long lines at gasoline stations on the same scale.
As to being "brought to our knees", a person is entitled to their own descriptive language, and I was old enough to drive in 1973 and old enough to need to drive to work in 1978. Queueing up for gas was mighty inconvenient and I found it unpleasant, but there weren't widespread food shortages or people freezing in the cold, which constitutes "bringing brought to one's knees" by, say, the standards of England under the Blitz, which is to say that as Americans, to think we were brought to our knees compared to what other societies had to endure as hardship in recent times, that is to say we are pretty "soft."
Along the idea of the United States being at risk for "being brought to its knees" on account of the high percentage of oil that is imported, the United States Air Force had this idea of building coal-to-oil plants. The notion is that coal-to-oil is not price competitive with oil-from-a-well at this time, but the Air Force could pay for the construction of these plants to have them available in a national emergency, presumably to keep the Air Force planes supporting our troops flying in a crisis, with the civilian population being subject to rationing as mentioned regarding WW-II.
Well, the Honorable Henry Waxman of California, Member of Congress and Committee Chair would have none of this, because you see, defending the United States in this manner by having operational coal-to-liquids plants in reserve would increase carbon emissions, and the environment can tolerate none of this. So what it comes down to is the real reason we don't have "energy security", which some economists think is a little uncertain given that oil is "fungible" anyway, is that as a society we trade off protection of "the environment" over "energy security." Oil protects the environment, you ask? You bet it does, compared to dirty, CO2 belching coal-to-liquids.
Is reduced energy consumption and the question of energy security the un-negotiable concern on why we need trains? MWHSRA seems to think it is by putting a (false) claim regarding energy saving front and center on their Web site in response to the "anti-train crisis" in Wisconsin?
If this is the case, why was the advocacy community so thrilled about the Vision Report, which proposed spending half a trillion dollars to increase the passenger-mile share of intercity trains to 1 percent? Given that cars use 40 percent of oil, that the Vision Report assumes the trains would cut energy use by 50% (presumably by concentrating on well-patronized intercity trains without baggage, dining, or sleeping cars that depress the "seat count" as Amtrak's improvement over driving is less than that), we are talking about spending half a trillion dollars to reduce oil use by .2 percent. And in the advocacy community, we think that the Vision Report is something that advances our agenda?
Yeah, I remember 1973 and 1978 all too well. That is why I have been skeptical about the general approach of the advocacy movement.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Dragoman Why do people have to give up their cars, as if this should be an eithe/or proposition? I doubt I will ever "give up" my car, but I will use transit -- and especially rail -- when it is available & convenient. It's having the choice that is important. It seems to me that where people have that choice, they have used rail (and still keep their cars!)..
The usual hyperbole is that "People will not give up their cars" to take a train. In that sense, people do give up their cars to ride trains - not that they would sell their car.
HarveyK400 Dragoman: Why do people have to give up their cars, as if this should be an eithe/or proposition? I doubt I will ever "give up" my car, but I will use transit -- and especially rail -- when it is available & convenient. It's having the choice that is important. It seems to me that where people have that choice, they have used rail (and still keep their cars!).. The usual hyperbole is that "People will not give up their cars" to take a train. In that sense, people do give up their cars to ride trains - not that they would sell their car.
Dragoman: Why do people have to give up their cars, as if this should be an eithe/or proposition? I doubt I will ever "give up" my car, but I will use transit -- and especially rail -- when it is available & convenient. It's having the choice that is important. It seems to me that where people have that choice, they have used rail (and still keep their cars!)..
My first desire is to retire the notion that trains, with their present form and cost structure, are going to make any meaningful contribution to the energy crisis or the climate change crisis.
My second desire is to retire the notion from the anti-train people that "people will not give up their cars" but also retire the notion from the advocacy community that people giving up their cars will make much difference. You can build more trains, and more people will indeed ride them, here as they do in Europe, but they will continue to cost 20 cents a mile in direct subsidy because as reported in the Vision Report appendices with regard to the European experience, the trains do not enjoy any economy-of-scale in reducing the subsidy.
blue streak 1 Of course it is not the top speed that is as important as reducing the slow orders. Just think even the NEC is not 110 average speed yet! Hopefully the new Electric motors Amtrak has ordered will have enough HP to quickly accelerate trains to the top allowed track speeds. I wonder if the CHI - STL MSR (110 MPH) will require 2 P-40s (being rebuilt to 110mph) or P-42s to achieve optimal acceleration?
For comparison's sake, Empire service uses single 3200 HP locomotives to haul 5 - 6 car trains on 100+ mph territory. Amtrak used to use a single F40 on 8-9 cars on the NH - Boston route at speeds up to 100 mph.
There is a point of diminishing return on HP/ton. It'll vary by the route. But, I'd guess that a single 4000 HP locomotive ought to be good for trains in the 5-10 car range most places. Really high HP/ton will kill the fuel economy benefits pretty quickly.
oltmannd There is a point of diminishing return on HP/ton. It'll vary by the route. But, I'd guess that a single 4000 HP locomotive ought to be good for trains in the 5-10 car range most places. Really high HP/ton will kill the fuel economy benefits pretty quickly.
Oltmannd:
You are correct. However we do not know how many trains will be allowed by class-1s on any route. If the number of trains is limited say CHI - STL and traffic is very high then 14 - 16 car trains may be required. This is not meant to be a prediction but can be a possibility.
The more stops and slow track sections on a route the more HP you need on that route. I look at Auto Train at the present and a 44 car train (about equal passenger cars and auto carriers) over the Thanksgiving holiday had only 2 P-42s. Pulled out slower than normal out of Sanford but a return trip from Lorton (at the 70mph limit) arrived 1:45 early Sanford because of no need to stop except at the Florence crew change.
IMHO a non stop CHI - Springfield may be a viable option? There is just no way of knowing how fickle passengerf traffic may be?
The same way in Florida this past weekend. Visiting Florida this weekend i NOTED ALMOST rush hour type traffic Sunday on the turnpike, I-4, and I-95. Can HSR or maybe even MSR attract those persons? I dare not venture a guess. Maybe some Amtrak figures for the ///thanksgiving traffic will put a little light on the subject. Not only passengers carried but more important how many turned away? Maybe how many callers turned away or internet inquires?
I wouldn't get too worried about the number of trains as long as a partnership is maintained in public support for capacity improvements for the desired level of service. This means half-hour service in the peaks and hourly the rest of the day between Chicago and Milwaukee which is difficult enough with Metra, let alone the CP.
This is needed on the NEC as well; but when you look at 320 passengers on an Acela compared to 1,400 on NJT you can understand priorities. I have "rethought" high speed; and maybe the answer is to increase capacity to "compete" with suburban demand, even if it means a reduction in speed but mitigated by reduced waits beween trains.
Every two hours probably would be adequate for Saint Louis and Michigan corridors.
daveklepper Maybe this is the thread to make the suggestion: In the event of cancillation of a state funded rail projects, why cannot the effected communities that really want and are willing to help pay for the service form a transportation authority, vote to pay the necessary taxes, real-estate/added-value on purchases, parking, and apply for the Federal funds and take over the project?
Maybe this is the thread to make the suggestion: In the event of cancillation of a state funded rail projects, why cannot the effected communities that really want and are willing to help pay for the service form a transportation authority, vote to pay the necessary taxes, real-estate/added-value on purchases, parking, and apply for the Federal funds and take over the project?
The short answer is most major cities in the U.S. are in deep financial trouble. For some their balance sheet looks worse than their state government's and the federal government's. More than 1/3rd of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) monies went to cities or their school systems in an attempt to bail them out of the travails brought on by the recession.
Hello All,
I am new to this forum and I have been reading the replies. I am amazed by the pragmatism displayed by all of you in this contentious issue.
Does this mean that things are dark for Passenger Rail transport in North America? I hope not.
Well, the level of Passenger service and Passenger Rail utilization in Europe is spectacular, but one must not forget the sorry state of affairs of the Freight business in the EU. In fact, EU took the opposite path of the US, focusing on Passenger Travel and ignoring freight. The result was inevitable; Freight business lost to Truckers. Today, despite many attempts to revive Freight, the success has been modest to say the least. This is the same situation faced by Passenger travel in North America.
The situation faced by EU is faced by a number of nations with a strong Passenger transport, some of them are building Dedicated Freight Corridors to boost business in high traffic freight zones.
Why not a Dedicated Passenger Corridor(s) ? I presume that NE corridor and the Commuter and transit lines are reasonably successful because of their historically being huge volume passenger lines which in turn give them an indirect priority. DPCs will also solve the problem of delays and scheduling with the Freight RR. The HSR proposals are obviously dedicated lines, some of them will definitely run at a profit and will be extremely popular (going by experiences in other nations)( the present hulabaloo is probably because of the airline lobby which stands to lose huge business as it has happened in Europe, Airfrance-KLM is entering the HSR business man! )
What I mean is DPCs for the normal routes covering states and cities where train travel would be convenient and a fast alternative to the automobile. It need not dethrone the car, but it is just a question of how many more people are willing to travel by train. I also read that during the Dark Ages for Passenger travel, many viable lines were abandoned. So why not resume passenger traffic on those lines? What matters most is Coverage and Frequency. In my opinion, there could be different levels of speed for varying requirements that could remove the incentive of using the automobile. Could it be a fact that the enviable levels of service that you had were lost because of RRs embracing dieselization rather than electric traction? and DPCs should all be electrics because the starting speed may well be in the 125mph range and increased as per market and demand conditions. The people should also be persuaded of the lowest carbon footprint of RR in general and electrification in particular.
Finally funding is a problem though.
Manikandan V.R
Did you really mean "Someone should tell the Freight RR to enter the HSR business (through a subsidiary ) or share a fixed percent of the profits from the same in return for their contribution if they don't want to undertake any goodwill gestures. " in the Fred Fraily blog?
That sounds like you want to extort "goodwill" from the freight railroads. Goodwill is a voluntary action, by definition.
The freight RRs, by the government's own measure, are not currently making enough money to stay in business long term. There are no "excess profits" to be extorted - or spent on goodwill projects. In fact, the frt RRs are hunting around for public money for capital projects that have public benefits. Check out NS's Crescent Corridor, for example.
The frt RRs are not currently fully compensated for the Amtrak trains that operate over their territory - that appears to be the extent of their goodwill....
What percentage of intercity Railroad travel in the US is business vs pleasure? Especially on medium distance routes?
Someone a few pages ago mentioned Wisconsin ultimately networking up Green Bay and that got me thinking. Aside from the ability to live in some of the wonderful small towns between Green Bay and Milwaukee, there is a significant potential tourist interest in such a route. Certainly 10 days a year (8 regular season and 2 preseason games) any trains between Green Bay and Anywhere would be packed. And during the summer, assuming proper connecting services, Travel from Chicago to Green Bay could be significant as FIBs(If you don't know I can't tell you here, and I was one of them) hit Door County and the surrounding tourist towns...again, assuming proper connections.
I can't imagine such traffic would support daily multi-train service, but it would certainly represent non-trivial numbers.
I'm a bad example for this, but I'll give it anyway, I'm born and raised in Chicagoland, my family owns property in Door County Ws. I live on the west coast. Right now, to visit the cottage is a long flight to Chicago or Milwaukee and an equally long car ride in either a rental or, if I can coordinate it, with friends, up north. I could fly in to Green Bay, but not directly and the price would be significant.
Passenger service to Green Bay (or Manitowoc/Kewanee even),assuming a price comparable to what Amtrak California charges on the Surfliner or Amtrak charges on the Cascades, would be an extremely attractive option to me...again, assuming appropriate connections in GB. Which could mean a rental car, but at a lower cost for fewer days.
Of course, I don't think such a thing justifies the route, just commenting on a potential source of revenue. Certainly the Pacific Surfliner out west makes money transporting tourists as well as business people.
The entire business model proposed looks like it's similar to the San Joaquins. which certainly works in California, though at of course, a subsidy.
oltmannd ... "The freight RRs, by the government's own measure, are not currently making enough money to stay in business long term. There are no "excess profits" to be extorted - or spent on goodwill projects. In fact, the frt RRs are hunting around for public money for capital projects that have public benefits. Check out NS's Crescent Corridor, for example."
...
"The freight RRs, by the government's own measure, are not currently making enough money to stay in business long term. There are no "excess profits" to be extorted - or spent on goodwill projects. In fact, the frt RRs are hunting around for public money for capital projects that have public benefits. Check out NS's Crescent Corridor, for example."
A lot of investors, including the likes of Warren Buffet, seem to disagree as to their long-term prospects. And as to "hunting around for public money", they seem to have discovered that, if the public entities want passenger service enough, and the "freight RRs" whine and complain and drag their feet enough, they will get the infrastructure improvements they want, on the public dime.
Interesting, how they can be so clear that theirs is private property, but they are oh so willing to go to the public trough when it is in their interest.
oltmannd "The frt RRs are not currently fully compensated for the Amtrak trains that operate over their territory - that appears to be the extent of their goodwill...."
"The frt RRs are not currently fully compensated for the Amtrak trains that operate over their territory - that appears to be the extent of their goodwill...."
How do you support the assertion that they "are not currently fully compensated for the Amtrak trains that operate over their territory"?
(1) They negotiate -- hard -- for the compensation that Amtrak has to pay. And that assumes that they don't just refuse the Amtrak proposals, as UP has done in various California routes for several years now.
(2) Let us not forget that, where it not for Amtrak's enabling legislation, the "freight RRs" would probably still be forced to continue to operate passenger services by the ICC (or successors) and various state PUCs. The deal back in 1971 was that they would be relieved of the passenger obligations (and associated operating losses), in exchange for allowing Amtrak to operate whatever trains it chose (while compensating the RRs for the services provided).
(3) There should not be a concept of "freight" RRs. There are railroads, which have been given their rights/franchises/etc, to act in the public interest as a common carrier of freight and passengers. Their passenger obligations have been taken on by Amtrak, but the RRs do -- or should, in my opinion -- continue to have obligations -- to cooperate with Amtrak and local agencies, and to continue to operate in the public interest, just the same as every other privately-owned but regulated industry, such as utilities, broadcasters, other common carriers, etc. Let us also remember that Amtrak's common stock is owned by ... (wait for it, now) ... the railroads!
YoHo1975 What percentage of intercity Railroad travel in the US is business vs pleasure? Especially on medium distance routes? Someone a few pages ago mentioned Wisconsin ultimately networking up Green Bay and that got me thinking. Aside from the ability to live in some of the wonderful small towns between Green Bay and Milwaukee, there is a significant potential tourist interest in such a route. Certainly 10 days a year (8 regular season and 2 preseason games) any trains between Green Bay and Anywhere would be packed. And during the summer, assuming proper connecting services, Travel from Chicago to Green Bay could be significant as FIBs(If you don't know I can't tell you here, and I was one of them) hit Door County and the surrounding tourist towns...again, assuming proper connections. I can't imagine such traffic would support daily multi-train service, but it would certainly represent non-trivial numbers. I'm a bad example for this, but I'll give it anyway, I'm born and raised in Chicagoland, my family owns property in Door County Ws. I live on the west coast. Right now, to visit the cottage is a long flight to Chicago or Milwaukee and an equally long car ride in either a rental or, if I can coordinate it, with friends, up north. I could fly in to Green Bay, but not directly and the price would be significant. Passenger service to Green Bay (or Manitowoc/Kewanee even),assuming a price comparable to what Amtrak California charges on the Surfliner or Amtrak charges on the Cascades, would be an extremely attractive option to me...again, assuming appropriate connections in GB. Which could mean a rental car, but at a lower cost for fewer days. Of course, I don't think such a thing justifies the route, just commenting on a potential source of revenue. Certainly the Pacific Surfliner out west makes money transporting tourists as well as business people. The entire business model proposed looks like it's similar to the San Joaquins. which certainly works in California, though at of course, a subsidy.
Given that the profitable tourist operations charge in the neighborhood of buck a mile and Amtrak charges about 1/4 of that to cover about half the cost of operation, you'd probably have to be able to charge somewhere in the 50 cents to a buck a mile range to turn a sustainable profit.
That's kind of pricey....
Dragoman oltmannd: ... "The freight RRs, by the government's own measure, are not currently making enough money to stay in business long term. There are no "excess profits" to be extorted - or spent on goodwill projects. In fact, the frt RRs are hunting around for public money for capital projects that have public benefits. Check out NS's Crescent Corridor, for example." A lot of investors, including the likes of Warren Buffet, seem to disagree as to their long-term prospects. And as to "hunting around for public money", they seem to have discovered that, if the public entities want passenger service enough, and the "freight RRs" whine and complain and drag their feet enough, they will get the infrastructure improvements they want, on the public dime. Interesting, how they can be so clear that theirs is private property, but they are oh so willing to go to the public trough when it is in their interest. oltmannd: "The frt RRs are not currently fully compensated for the Amtrak trains that operate over their territory - that appears to be the extent of their goodwill...." How do you support the assertion that they "are not currently fully compensated for the Amtrak trains that operate over their territory"? (1) They negotiate -- hard -- for the compensation that Amtrak has to pay. And that assumes that they don't just refuse the Amtrak proposals, as UP has done in various California routes for several years now. (2) Let us not forget that, where it not for Amtrak's enabling legislation, the "freight RRs" would probably still be forced to continue to operate passenger services by the ICC (or successors) and various state PUCs. The deal back in 1971 was that they would be relieved of the passenger obligations (and associated operating losses), in exchange for allowing Amtrak to operate whatever trains it chose (while compensating the RRs for the services provided). (3) There should not be a concept of "freight" RRs. There are railroads, which have been given their rights/franchises/etc, to act in the public interest as a common carrier of freight and passengers. Their passenger obligations have been taken on by Amtrak, but the RRs do -- or should, in my opinion -- continue to have obligations -- to cooperate with Amtrak and local agencies, and to continue to operate in the public interest, just the same as every other privately-owned but regulated industry, such as utilities, broadcasters, other common carriers, etc. Let us also remember that Amtrak's common stock is owned by ... (wait for it, now) ... the railroads!
oltmannd: ... "The freight RRs, by the government's own measure, are not currently making enough money to stay in business long term. There are no "excess profits" to be extorted - or spent on goodwill projects. In fact, the frt RRs are hunting around for public money for capital projects that have public benefits. Check out NS's Crescent Corridor, for example."
oltmannd: "The frt RRs are not currently fully compensated for the Amtrak trains that operate over their territory - that appears to be the extent of their goodwill...."
Sure. The RR industry may yet be revenue adequate. Some roads have been over the bar in recent years. NS and BNSF for example. Buffet is no fool. But, the industry as a whole, is not and hasn't been!
The whole deal that created Amtrak was full of trade-offs. I'm not claiming any unfairness. The deal is not for however many trains where ever and when ever. Never was. Isn't now. It's for the routes and trains of 5/1/71 with changes to be negotiated over the years. The compensation does not cover all direct and indirect costs (such as line capacity) incurred by the railroads. Even Amtrak will acknowledge that.
The basic tenet of a PPP is the RR pays the share based on RR benefits and the public pays for their benefits. VA may chip in of the Crescent Corridor if it can delay adding lanes to I-81. Why shouldn't they?
YoHo1975 Someone a few pages ago mentioned Wisconsin ultimately networking up Green Bay and that got me thinking. ... Travel from Chicago to Green Bay could be significant as FIBs... hit Door County and the surrounding tourist towns...again, assuming proper connections.
Someone a few pages ago mentioned Wisconsin ultimately networking up Green Bay and that got me thinking. ... Travel from Chicago to Green Bay could be significant as FIBs... hit Door County and the surrounding tourist towns...again, assuming proper connections.
As an exFIB, I can relate to your thinking. Door Cty. and Chicagoland have had the perfect symbiotic relationship. Chicago people pay what they see as low prices, and Door merchants see themselves as selling at high margins.
Unfortunately the rail routes aren't conducive to suitable service now. The Valley line would be very slow-going, and the Lake line has been broken up with abandoned and out-of-service segments.
During the last year or so, United has had a daily direct flight between Appleton and Denver, which has been good for connecting out west. But, it will be ending soon, because it hasn't attracted enough business travelers. It's attracted a good volume of nonbusiness travelers, but the business trade is needed to make the flights profitable.
Where rail tourist biz in Wisconsin could really do better is on the Empire Builder route. Wisconsin Dells historically has been the #1 tourist destination in the Midwest. The Builder calls there at an excellent location. Popular indoor waterparks and other activities now make for year-round tourism.
oltmannd The whole deal that created Amtrak was full of trade-offs. I'm not claiming any unfairness. The deal is not for however many trains where ever and when ever. Never was. Isn't now. It's for the routes and trains of 5/1/71 with changes to be negotiated over the years. [emphasis mine]
The whole deal that created Amtrak was full of trade-offs. I'm not claiming any unfairness. The deal is not for however many trains where ever and when ever. Never was. Isn't now. It's for the routes and trains of 5/1/71 with changes to be negotiated over the years. [emphasis mine]
After examining the original Public Law that established Amtrak, I'm not so sure that statement is exactly true.
SEC. -103. NEW SERVICE.(a) Tho Corporation may provide intercity rail passenger servicein excess of that prescribed for the basic system, either within or outside the basic system, including the operation of special and extrapassenger trains, if consistent'with prudent manairement. Any intercity rail passenger service provided under this subsection for a continuous period of two years shall be designated by the Secretary asa part of the basic system.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Thanks for the refresher - pretty broad, yet vague on compensation.
Would seem to have no right over former SR or DRGW except by respective mutual agreements; and what about proposed IAIS to Iowa City?
I would think it means if Amtrak chooses a new route, the freight rails (except on SR and DR&W tracks, as their track was in 1970) have to allow it, and it becomes part of the basic system in two years. Certainly it does not mean "nothing beyond the original basic system." My only caution would be if some subsequent legislation altered that provision.
The basic deal with Amtrak expired somewhere in the 1990s. New arrangements with each road were negotiated. Not sure how those specifics relate to the original law. I know they included basic compensation and incentive payments for performance.
That may be true, but there is nothing in the Rail Passenger Act of 1970 putting a time limit on the arrangements.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.