Oltman, I am not discounting the marketing efforts of the railroads; they did the job the were trained (?) to do. But they weren't enough to overcome the marketing of the automobile lobby nor the airline lobby. But how is this different than when the railroads overtook the canals in the early 19th Century or how the railroads overtook the steamboats to the Catskills followed by the automobile access and the jet plane's syponing off the vacation crowd, each a revlolution in living? Weseemto like to find one single reason for there having been a change, when it is usually several factors combining either at once or in rapid succession that cause it.
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.
Good advertising and marketing can make a big difference when there is little real difference between products, like soap. When there was a difference in quality, as was the case in domestic vs imported autos in the 80's - late 90's, all the advertising dollars in the world didn't help Detroit preserve market share. There was a qualitative difference in passenger rail, highway and air travel starting in the 30's which increased in the 1950's and accelerated dramatically in the 1960's with the introduction of jets and widespread interstates. To proclaim the decline of passenger rail was through advertising and marketing brainwashing simply does not jive with facts.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
The introduction of the 707 and DC-8 to domestic airline service in 1958 accelerated the decline of long-distance passenger service since they sliced travel times dramatically, especially on transcontinental routes. A 4-1/2 hour flight from Chicago to Los Angeles was appreciably faster than even a 40-hour streamliner time, so guess where the business went. Speed has always sold well.
The social impact of jet planes was great. No longer did a businessman/salesman have to plan for 3 days from NY to Chicago and back but could leave after breakfast and be home for dinner. Same for Chicago-LA, etc. With the by then standard 5 day work week, this was great for businesses. As for the vacationer...no longer was it a trip up to the lake but a quick jet run to Miami or the Bahamas, or from LA to Hawiai. It is not just the time factor, but also the distance factor. And those who were in a position who had the time and could take advantage of the situation did indeed jet across country to Colorado or over to the European Alps to ski rather than take the train to Vermont or consider a weeklong respite at Sun Valley.
One unintended consequence of 60-70 years of automotive "freedom" is this: Some frightening statistics about American parking lots: not only are there possibly as many as 2 billion parking spaces from sea to shining sea, but the parking lot, that paved desert for inert cars, has become what M.I.T. urban planning professor Eran Ben-Joseph calls “the single most salient landscape feature of our built environment,” occupying over 3,500 square miles of land within the country and providing an estimated eight parking spots for every car.
oltmannd henry6: As for people leaving trains for planes and cars in the late 40's and early 50's the choice was made because of the extreme marketing efforts of the highway lobby companies, gas, automobile, etc. as opposed to rail. AIr, well, we were indoctronated with how sexy it was to jet to foriegn shores for vations, and how businessmen could fly out at breakfast and be back home for dinner. Of course, where we were not being told was that the train ride was paid for by the railroad while the auto and jet were being paid by local and federal governments. But it was glitzy, sexy, dazzling, the thing to do rather than ride the train. But the railroads also were to blame on several fronts; They presented trains as they always had presented them, marketing and advertising brought nothing new. And there also was the fact that long distance passenger rail had been a public relations tool as much as a transportation mode, the government was taking mail contracts away from railroads and giving the business to common carrier trucs, and rail management knew no passenger trains meant they could run freight trains with more freedom and frequency. But to blame the public for shunning trains, I see the powers of government and big business were actually making the choice for the public, not giving them a chance to be able to make the choice. You are totally discounting the introduction and marketing of streamliners as well as the last gasp of transforming passenger rail in the mid-50s (e..g. Train X, Talgo, Keystone, Aerotrain, etc)??? I believe RR passenger marketing departments were plenty savvy and streamliners were plenty glitzy, shiny and new. Automobiles are the "base load carrier" in all of the western world. That's a fact not so much because Ford or GM are brilliant marketers or because Eisenhower was a dupe, but because they do a superb job of transport. Rail is just a niche provider - even in Europe. People aren't just mindless sheep.... That said, I do believe that, policy-wise, the US should have pushed corridor development along in the 1950s and given the RRs some greater flexibility to decide routes, etc.
henry6: As for people leaving trains for planes and cars in the late 40's and early 50's the choice was made because of the extreme marketing efforts of the highway lobby companies, gas, automobile, etc. as opposed to rail. AIr, well, we were indoctronated with how sexy it was to jet to foriegn shores for vations, and how businessmen could fly out at breakfast and be back home for dinner. Of course, where we were not being told was that the train ride was paid for by the railroad while the auto and jet were being paid by local and federal governments. But it was glitzy, sexy, dazzling, the thing to do rather than ride the train. But the railroads also were to blame on several fronts; They presented trains as they always had presented them, marketing and advertising brought nothing new. And there also was the fact that long distance passenger rail had been a public relations tool as much as a transportation mode, the government was taking mail contracts away from railroads and giving the business to common carrier trucs, and rail management knew no passenger trains meant they could run freight trains with more freedom and frequency. But to blame the public for shunning trains, I see the powers of government and big business were actually making the choice for the public, not giving them a chance to be able to make the choice.
As for people leaving trains for planes and cars in the late 40's and early 50's the choice was made because of the extreme marketing efforts of the highway lobby companies, gas, automobile, etc. as opposed to rail. AIr, well, we were indoctronated with how sexy it was to jet to foriegn shores for vations, and how businessmen could fly out at breakfast and be back home for dinner. Of course, where we were not being told was that the train ride was paid for by the railroad while the auto and jet were being paid by local and federal governments. But it was glitzy, sexy, dazzling, the thing to do rather than ride the train. But the railroads also were to blame on several fronts; They presented trains as they always had presented them, marketing and advertising brought nothing new. And there also was the fact that long distance passenger rail had been a public relations tool as much as a transportation mode, the government was taking mail contracts away from railroads and giving the business to common carrier trucs, and rail management knew no passenger trains meant they could run freight trains with more freedom and frequency. But to blame the public for shunning trains, I see the powers of government and big business were actually making the choice for the public, not giving them a chance to be able to make the choice.
You are totally discounting the introduction and marketing of streamliners as well as the last gasp of transforming passenger rail in the mid-50s (e..g. Train X, Talgo, Keystone, Aerotrain, etc)???
I believe RR passenger marketing departments were plenty savvy and streamliners were plenty glitzy, shiny and new.
Automobiles are the "base load carrier" in all of the western world. That's a fact not so much because Ford or GM are brilliant marketers or because Eisenhower was a dupe, but because they do a superb job of transport. Rail is just a niche provider - even in Europe. People aren't just mindless sheep....
That said, I do believe that, policy-wise, the US should have pushed corridor development along in the 1950s and given the RRs some greater flexibility to decide routes, etc.
This is an excellent response. Too many people believe passenger trains lost out to a cabal of highway and airway interests. In fact, as oltmannd makes crystal clear, the trains lost out to better technologies for the missions. And not because people did not understand what they wanted.
You can count me in as a "knee-jerk" opponent to such proposals, and for a simple reason:
Time and time again, we've been told by government that their studies and consultants show XX amount of cost and YY amount of return (in additional taxes, revenues, visitation, whatever) for a project. Time and time and time again, the reality turns out to be XXX amount of cost and Y amount of return when it's done.The list is long: Convention centers, sports stadiums, industrial parks, housing projects, military/defense systems, parks, overseas wars, you name it.
Amtrak itself was basically a "bag of goods" sold to Congress and the public: It was supposed to last five years. At least that's what legislators and the public heard. It was a "bail-out," not a never-ending annual operational outlay and further infrastructure and capital costs.
The California HSR project has already mushroomed from the originally proposed $39 billion to $97 billion (numbers not precise, but the idea is true nonetheless).
This is a pattern we've seen over and over again. If I sold you on the idea of owning a car based on $1-a-gallon gasoline and $100 a year insurance, and all of a sudden you're paying $3.50-4 a gallon and $600-1200 a year insurance or more, you'd never do business with me again, or demand a refund. But when government is involved, the typical answer to fixing such a problem is not to end or change a program, but to throw MORE money at it--"Hey, let's sell you on the idea of an electric car, and subsidize your purchase!"
LNER4472 You can count me in as a "knee-jerk" opponent to such proposals, and for a simple reason: Time and time again, we've been told by government that their studies and consultants show XX amount of cost and YY amount of return (in additional taxes, revenues, visitation, whatever) for a project. Time and time and time again, the reality turns out to be XXX amount of cost and Y amount of return when it's done.The list is long: Convention centers, sports stadiums, industrial parks, housing projects, military/defense systems, parks, overseas wars, you name it. Amtrak itself was basically a "bag of goods" sold to Congress and the public: It was supposed to last five years. At least that's what legislators and the public heard. It was a "bail-out," not a never-ending annual operational outlay and further infrastructure and capital costs. The California HSR project has already mushroomed from the originally proposed $39 billion to $97 billion (numbers not precise, but the idea is true nonetheless). This is a pattern we've seen over and over again. If I sold you on the idea of owning a car based on $1-a-gallon gasoline and $100 a year insurance, and all of a sudden you're paying $3.50-4 a gallon and $600-1200 a year insurance or more, you'd never do business with me again, or demand a refund. But when government is involved, the typical answer to fixing such a problem is not to end or change a program, but to throw MORE money at it--"Hey, let's sell you on the idea of an electric car, and subsidize your purchase!"
Wow, another person who has it right. I am on a roll.
Don't get me wrong. I believe that passenger rail can be a viable solution in relatively short, high density corridors where the cost of expanding the highways and airways is prohibitive. Clearly, long distance trains or most of Amtrak does not fit this definition.
Sam1, there appears to be some inconsistencies in your argument:
Oltmand tell us that automobiles won because they're a superior mode of transportation.
LNERR tell us that the government can't build anything without massive cost inflation. Thus private enterprise is far superior to the government.
Automobiles are completely dependent upon the government to build every interstate and local road they use, they're dependent upon the government for regulation of every vehicle and driver on the aforementioned roads, and dependent upon the government to use our military to ensure that cheap oil continues to flow from foreign lands.
With this in mind, our road system is perhaps one of the greatest examples of socialism in modern day America. It would be a contradiction to support both views.
LNER4472 Amtrak itself was basically a "bag of goods" sold to Congress and the public: It was supposed to last five years. At least that's what legislators and the public heard. It was a "bail-out," not a never-ending annual operational outlay and further infrastructure and capital costs.
This is pure fabrication. I was a member in good standing of the "public" in the runup to Amtrak and an employee of a big passenger railroad. I promise you (and everybody else) there was no five-year talk for public consumption in those days, either from the Nixon administration or from Congress.
That may have been the covert plan of the Nixon administration, as claimed by some latter-day revelations; even a gentleman's agreement between the administration and a few key members of Congress (although I have seen no mention of that). But I'll bet you the store that most legislators never heard of it; there were enough friends of rail labor in Congress who would have screamed bloody murder.
Show us chapter and verse of "that's what legislators and the public heard." Or leave off your muddying of the waters.
You bring out some interesting points about Amtrak legislation, how it had to be balanced to seem to help the big business freight railroads out of the passenger business, to keep operating unions, especially, placated about job losses, and to make the public feel they had passenger service and that it was a bargain for them. There were some railroaders and politicians who hoped the whole idea of passenger trains would fade away, that jet planes and big cars and evne trucks on the Eisenhower HIghways would so capture Americans so. It didn't happen; people still loved trains. They were needed to move people in crowded corridors. Even dying commuter trains got a new lease on life and services got more entrenched and expanded. That *** passenger train just wouldn't and won't go away. And it all ain't nostalgic either!
fred: We may never know the truth of the beginnings of Amtrak. However, to dismiss the notion that there was a secret deal simply because you were not in the loop is no conclusive. After Fortune magazine exposed the manufactured mismanagement in 1974, Louis W. Menk, chairman of the Burlington Northern Railroad remarked that the story was undermining the scheme to dismantle Amtrak. Loving, Jr., Rush (March 2009). "Trains formula for fixing Amtrak". Trains.
Schlimm, please note that I did not disallow the possibility of a "secret deal." What I objected to was the contention that the public and Congress were told at the time that Amtrak was for five years. That simply was not the case. You'll not find it even in Loving (whom I have also read).
I don't know where the five-year notion came from. The Rail Passenger Service Act of 1971 locked Amtrak into its original routes until May 1, 1973 and the non-members had to maintain their existing service until May 1, 1975.
Amtrak's history is all published fact. Only the political interpretations and rants hide truths.
henry6 Amtrak's history is all published fact. Only the political interpretations and rants hide truths.
Does it really matter?
The key question is what is the role of passengers trains in the nation's transport mix? Today! And tomorrow! Not 50 or 60 or whatever number of years ago. What transport problem are we as a nation trying to solve and where is passenger rail the best solution? Who pays for it, what kind, how much, etc. are legitimate questions, but at the end of the day the history of how we got to this point does not really matter.
Oh, I majored in history and economics as an under graduate student at Penn State. And I have retained an interest in history ever since. There may be some lessons in history, although I am doubtful that we learn from them. Which leaves history as an interesting topic for discussion as long as we recognize that most of it is irrelevant to solving today's problems.
No, it doesn't matter, nothing really matters. And, no, we neverf learn from history or mistakes and only continiue our successes because it feels good. And the rhetoric is political when the main questions center around money and who's going to pay for it and how rather than what has to be done to make it work and us betterk how can we work it out.
Sam1 The key question is what is the role of passengers trains in the nation's transport mix?
The key question is what is the role of passengers trains in the nation's transport mix?
Nope: There is a much broader question that is not beiing addressed.
"How can we most effectively get anyone or anything from any point A to any point B?"
This calls for many metrics such as least time, least cost ( a very broad categorgy ) Going at convient time, comfort, impediments for people and freight going A to B, overnight considerations, upgrading infrastructure to improve the above, etc, etc.
All the posts the last few years only scratch at the surface of this basic problem of definition. Just to cover the history of how the solutions have arrived would be a daunting task.
Just take the decline in the 1920s due to the automobile and light trucks being faster than many short line RRs and interburbans. If they had been upgraded to faster speeds what then?
Until there is a rational transportation policy the question is not answered. IMHO that is one major function of government.
California has scratched the surface with its plans so far but has a long way to go.
blue streak 1 Sam1: The key question is what is the role of passengers trains in the nation's transport mix? Nope: There is a much broader question that is not beiing addressed. "How can we most effectively get anyone or anything from any point A to any point B?" This calls for many metrics such as least time, least cost ( a very broad categorgy ) Going at convient time, comfort, impediments for people and freight going A to B, overnight considerations, upgrading infrastructure to improve the above, etc, etc. All the posts the last few years only scratch at the surface of this basic problem of definition. Just to cover the history of how the solutions have arrived would be a daunting task. Just take the decline in the 1920s due to the automobile and light trucks being faster than many short line RRs and interburbans. If they had been upgraded to faster speeds what then? Until there is a rational transportation policy the question is not answered. IMHO that is one major function of government. California has scratched the surface with its plans so far but has a long way to go.
Sam1: The key question is what is the role of passengers trains in the nation's transport mix?
I disagree.
The United States has had an evolving transport framework for transport since the beginning of the republic. It has shifted to accomodate new technologies and preferences, but it has served the nation well. Following WWII the emphasis was placed on highways and airways. That was what Americans wanted. And no it did not come about because of the highway or airway lobbys. As has been pointed out by others, Americans are not dupes. They understood straightaway that cars and airplanes were better options for most passenger transport, They also understood that trucks are better for many classes of freight than rail transport. To insinuate that Americans are dupes is an insult to them and to democracy.
The framework has generated arguably the best airway and highway systems in the world. Contrary to the comments of some of the people who post to these forums, the system is not falling apart. It is stretched at a the seems in some places, but they are being fixed. The greatest tribute to the system, however, is the extent to which the model, sans the rail piece, has been adopted in many other countries, although as I have said what they do in other countries has nothing to do with what we should or should not do in this country.
A framework, unlike a top down statist solution, i.e. centralized government generated plans that don't work in the long run because no one is smart enough to understand the big picture, allows lots of wiggle room. From time to time the framework needs to be corrected. This is the case with the question of where does passenger rail fit into the scheme. We know where cars, trucks, and airplanes fit into the picture. The question is where would passenger trains plug a hole that exists in the current picture. One does not need a start all over again picture from Washington to answer the question. Most grand schemes don't work. They collapse from their own bureaucratic weight. Just ask the Russians!
The federal government took control of the railroads in WWI. It was a disaster. Moreover, under a centralized regulator scheme, the ICC, as well as the FRA, exercised top down control over America's railroads. Centralized planning at its very best. As a result, because the bureaucrats did not get the picture, their policies, procedures, and practices nearly destroyed the railroads. Mercifully, at the stroke of midnight, Staggers saved the day. Centralized planning and rate setting were junked. The railroads were allowed to rationalized their system, i.e. abandoning thousands of miles of unused and underused track and shedding thousands of feather bedding employees. What was the result? Today America's major carriers have balance sheets and income statements that are the envy of the business community.
henry6 No, it doesn't matter, nothing really matters. And, no, we neverf learn from history or mistakes and only continiue our successes because it feels good. And the rhetoric is political when the main questions center around money and who's going to pay for it and how rather than what has to be done to make it work and us betterk how can we work it out.
Identifying the problem, free of emotional rants, and developing solutions that work matters. It is called effective problem solving. And it is how successful businesses, as an example, stay in business. Nostalgia does little to identify the problem and nothing for the solution.
Actually Bluestreak states an understanding of the US problems in addressing transportation needs very well. We've got to put aside all concepts, precepts, history, "this is the way we've alway's done it"'s, how much is it gonna cost, who's gonna pay for its, etc. and say "what do we need, how does it work, what do we have to plan. It like the couple who wants to get married but is waiting until it is financially wise, etc. If you keep waiting, it will probably never happen but if you do it, you'll find a way to make it work. That is the way the US has to approach the issues of integrated, intermodal, transportation at this time. Find out what is needed, figure out the mechanics and logistics. Then ascertain and assign fiscal need appropriately as can be achieved.
Henry,
There are two ways this magic can be accomplished. Through a free or mostly free market, or by congress and the bureaucrats. Which do you want and why?
Mac
henry6 Actually Bluestreak states an understanding of the US problems in addressing transportation needs very well. We've got to put aside all concepts, precepts, history, "this is the way we've alway's done it"'s, how much is it gonna cost, who's gonna pay for its, etc. and say "what do we need, how does it work, what do we have to plan. It like the couple who wants to get married but is waiting until it is financially wise, etc. If you keep waiting, it will probably never happen but if you do it, you'll find a way to make it work. That is the way the US has to approach the issues of integrated, intermodal, transportation at this time. Find out what is needed, figure out the mechanics and logistics. Then ascertain and assign fiscal need appropriately as can be achieved.
What's needed? The best way to make that determination is through markets where people have choices. Not bureaucrats in Washington and Austin deciding.
What's needed? Just try to get consensus in a focus group. Or here is the analogy that I like. Put two transportation economists in a room and in a half hour you will have three different opinions on how to move forward with a transportation issue.
There is no magic. What is needed is planning and ideas unencombered by politics, history, and practice.
Sam1 henry6: Actually Bluestreak states an understanding of the US problems in addressing transportation needs very well. We've got to put aside all concepts, precepts, history, "this is the way we've alway's done it"'s, how much is it gonna cost, who's gonna pay for its, etc. and say "what do we need, how does it work, what do we have to plan. It like the couple who wants to get married but is waiting until it is financially wise, etc. If you keep waiting, it will probably never happen but if you do it, you'll find a way to make it work. That is the way the US has to approach the issues of integrated, intermodal, transportation at this time. Find out what is needed, figure out the mechanics and logistics. Then ascertain and assign fiscal need appropriately as can be achieved. What's needed? The best way to make that determination is through markets where people have choices. Not bureaucrats in Washington and Austin deciding. What's needed? Just try to get consensus in a focus group. Or here is the analogy that I like. Put two transportation economists in a room and in a half hour you will have three different opinions on how to move forward with a transportation issue.
henry6: Actually Bluestreak states an understanding of the US problems in addressing transportation needs very well. We've got to put aside all concepts, precepts, history, "this is the way we've alway's done it"'s, how much is it gonna cost, who's gonna pay for its, etc. and say "what do we need, how does it work, what do we have to plan. It like the couple who wants to get married but is waiting until it is financially wise, etc. If you keep waiting, it will probably never happen but if you do it, you'll find a way to make it work. That is the way the US has to approach the issues of integrated, intermodal, transportation at this time. Find out what is needed, figure out the mechanics and logistics. Then ascertain and assign fiscal need appropriately as can be achieved.
I'd be happy if we could just get all federally funded transportation projects/operations held to the same standards for performance and funding.
Ever see a cost/benefit analysis for a highway project? Even a bad one would be better than none at all. Locally, $250 M was spent to replace a highway interchange. The primary stated goal was safety - the elimination of a left hand merge. In the previous 20 years the existing interchange was in place, there were ZERO fatalities. The new interchange is beautiful, but so is the Empire Builder - and neither are a particularly good allocation of scarce resources.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
You have not answered my question.
But I hve answered your question. One, I stated that there is no magic involved. Two, and this has been my mantra for several years, is that the present and the past, politics and emotion, all have to be set aside and discussion centred around planning a transportation system from the start. What more can I say?
Sam1There may be some lessons in history, although I am doubtful that we learn from them. Which leaves history as an interesting topic for discussion as long as we recognize that most of it is irrelevant to solving today's problems.
Please tell us this was written in the spirit of facetiousness.
Editor Emeritus, This Week at Amtrak
You can answer one simple question. Do you favor free enterprise solutions or statist solutions. It is an either or question. Pick one.
Whether I do or don't has nothing to do with the solution or the planning and discussion of the transportation of the future. It is one of those items I maintain has to be ignored until after what is needed and how it will work is determined.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.