The Iowa Interstate Railroad’s route across the state is the one best suited for future passenger rail service between Chicago and Omaha, a preliminary study has determined.
http://thegazette.com/2012/04/30/iowa-city-route-best-for-chicago-omaha-passenger-rail-iowa-department-of-transportation-study-finds/
No real surprise on this recommendation.
Yes, and there are advantages for Illinois also. Illinois has been trying to reestablish passenger service to Peoria since the end of the Peoria Rocket in 1978, but the problem is that only the former RI main and Peoria branch runs north and west of the river and directly into downtown Peoria. The Prarie Marksman train of 1980 ran on the former GM&O from Chicago to Chenoa, and then TP&W Chenoa to East Peoria, but couldn't cross the Illinois River into downtown Peoria because the TP&W swing bridge was wrecked by a barge in 1970 (TP&W still uses a detour on the old P&PU), and so the train died a short death. Now Illinois has proposed running all the way to Bloomington and then northwest on the old NKP but that line is longer than the RI and still does not make it into Peoria without a long detour on the P&PU. Rebuilding the Rock Island for service to Omaha would not only serve cities along the Rock Island main in Illinois such as La Salle and Ottawa but also would make it much more easy to serve Peoria.
The Iowa DOT has too much time on its hands. If Moline-Iowa City would cost $3 million a year for (as I recall) 2 or 3 trains in each direction, what would be the tab for 5 trains, Moline-Omaha?
I rode the Rock Island 50 years ago, and it couldn't support that level of service for straight passenger trains BEFORE I-80 opened across the state. It had 3 entries left in either direction, but only 3 of those (Nos. 7&8 and No. 10) were true passenger trains. The others were supported by mail and express.
Also, I'd like to see a cost estimate for bringing the Iowa Interstate up to a speed at which people would ride ... even 79 mph.
dakotafred The Iowa DOT has too much time on its hands. If Moline-Iowa City would cost $3 million a year for (as I recall) 2 or 3 trains in each direction, what would be the tab for 5 trains, Moline-Omaha? I rode the Rock Island 50 years ago, and it couldn't support that level of service for straight passenger trains BEFORE I-80 opened across the state. It had 3 entries left in either direction, but only 3 of those (Nos. 7&8 and No. 10) were true passenger trains. The others were supported by mail and express. Also, I'd like to see a cost estimate for bringing the Iowa Interstate up to a speed at which people would ride ... even 79 mph.
LOL, it isn't 50 years ago, and gas will never be $.25 (adjusted for inflation) a gallon again, it will be going up dramatically, along with highway congestion. I have made the trip from Illinois through Omaha to Denver AT LEAST one hundred times, truck congestion on that route continues to rise.
DwightBranch dakotafred: The Iowa DOT has too much time on its hands. If Moline-Iowa City would cost $3 million a year for (as I recall) 2 or 3 trains in each direction, what would be the tab for 5 trains, Moline-Omaha? I rode the Rock Island 50 years ago, and it couldn't support that level of service for straight passenger trains BEFORE I-80 opened across the state. It had 3 entries left in either direction, but only 3 of those (Nos. 7&8 and No. 10) were true passenger trains. The others were supported by mail and express. Also, I'd like to see a cost estimate for bringing the Iowa Interstate up to a speed at which people would ride ... even 79 mph. LOL, it isn't 50 years ago, and gas will never be $.25 (adjusted for inflation) a gallon again, it will be going up dramatically, along with highway congestion. I have made the trip from Illinois through Omaha to Denver AT LEAST one hundred times, truck congestion on that route continues to rise.
dakotafred: The Iowa DOT has too much time on its hands. If Moline-Iowa City would cost $3 million a year for (as I recall) 2 or 3 trains in each direction, what would be the tab for 5 trains, Moline-Omaha? I rode the Rock Island 50 years ago, and it couldn't support that level of service for straight passenger trains BEFORE I-80 opened across the state. It had 3 entries left in either direction, but only 3 of those (Nos. 7&8 and No. 10) were true passenger trains. The others were supported by mail and express. Also, I'd like to see a cost estimate for bringing the Iowa Interstate up to a speed at which people would ride ... even 79 mph.
I'm surprised you weren't riding Amtrak.
I mostly needed a car at my destination, and in the Seventies when I went with my parents it was cheaper for four people to drive than to take the train. Now it is $75 one way for the CZ and around $120 for gas, and if you can't drive straight through a motel for $70 or so, and even with the higher speed limit it still takes around 15 hours from Denver to Illinois. My dad, a former truck driver who can handle long drives takes the train because it is cheaper.
I am kind of curious about Amtrak offering that great deal of Chicago-Denver for $75.
Amtrak has, what, been averaging 2500 BTU/passenger mile, roughly the equivalent of 50 passenger miles per (gasoline) gallon, so the 1000 mile Chicago-Denver trip (by train) takes 20 gallons, or about 75 dollars?
So Amtrak is charging, essentially, the retail price of the fuel for the train trip (their bulk price may be less, but not by much).?
The airlines are feeling the pinch of high fuel costs -- the cheapest Chicago-Denver (each way on a round trip) I have seen is $100 on United, best Delta has is over $175, and these guys must be giving these seats away given high fuel prices.
So I guess my question is, given that Amtrak is a little bit more fuel efficient than driving by one person, but not a lot more fuel efficient, is this good public policy to sell Amtrak tickets for the cost of the fuel and let subsidy make up the rest of the cost of running the trains? Shouldn't Amtrak prices be increased to reflect their increased fuel expense so that consumers make informed decisions with respect to consuming things that consume expensive fuel?
Now intercity motorcoach buses have been running below 1000 BTU/passenger mile (about 125 passenger miles per gasoline-equivalent fuel gallon). The motorcoach fuel expense should run in the $30 dollar range. Shouldn't this be the preferred mode if cost, concerns about fuel, and Climate Change are the dominant consideration?
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
DwightBranch I mostly needed a car at my destination, and in the Seventies when I went with my parents it was cheaper for four people to drive than to take the train.
I mostly needed a car at my destination, and in the Seventies when I went with my parents it was cheaper for four people to drive than to take the train.
Extrapolating from your own experience ("at least one hundred times" by car between Illinois and Denver), it should be easy for you to understand how Amtrak has captured about 1 percent of the non-commuter intercity market.
dakotafred DwightBranch: I mostly needed a car at my destination, and in the Seventies when I went with my parents it was cheaper for four people to drive than to take the train. Extrapolating from your own experience ("at least one hundred times" by car between Illinois and Denver), it should be easy for you to understand how Amtrak has captured about 1 percent of the non-commuter intercity market.
DwightBranch: I mostly needed a car at my destination, and in the Seventies when I went with my parents it was cheaper for four people to drive than to take the train.
Oh, not really, my situation was unusual, I had an ill military-veteran brother and grandparents in rural Illinois when I was a student in Denver (where my parents now live), and a father who was always on the road for work and couldn't leave, and I was willing to leave at midnight or later and drive straight through until 3PM or so when called. When I could take the CZ I did but that wasn't often, it left around 10PM, and our stop in Princeton was around 45 miles from my town. If we had frequent (at least hourly) departures like, say, Germany, and even local trains as they have there, I would have changed my behavior though, and so would most people. That is the problem with extrapolating human tendencies from their behavior at a certain point in time, and the reason why anti-train types almost always severely underestimate how popular a train or light rail will be. Change the circumstances, and people will change their wants, and their behavior.
So, Dwight, how many times do you suppose your "unusual" circumstances are replicated among the general population? Everybody has his individual circumstances, which ever since the auto and paved highways have resulted in decimation of passenger rail.
Don't get me wrong. I love my Empire Builder, and do not go along with Sam1 and others who would discard the long-distance trains. I have stood up for those trains many times here. As long as they continue to attract riders -- and they do -- I think their subsidy is easily justified as tiny in the larger budget scheme and in view of our special national rail heritage.
Where I lose patience is with blue-skying by such as the Iowa DOT promoting a project such as Chicago-Omaha on the Iowa Interstate that is never going to turn a wheel.
Seeing Mark Hemphill associated with such a project suggests that he doesn't go where his wife goes so much as where the consulting bucks go. (Veteran TRAINS readers will recognize the reference.)
dakotafred Seeing Mark Hemphill associated with such a project suggests that he doesn't go where his wife goes so much as where the consulting bucks go. (Veteran TRAINS readers will recognize the reference.)
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Iowa can't or won't come up with the subsidy to extend the Chicago/Moline service to Iowa City, but we are to believe there is any hope for extending this service past Des Moines and into the least populated portion of the state?
Sorry, this study is nothing more than a WPA project for consultants!
dakotafred So, Dwight, how many times do you suppose your "unusual" circumstances are replicated among the general population? Everybody has his individual circumstances, which ever since the auto and paved highways have resulted in decimation of passenger rail. Don't get me wrong. I love my Empire Builder, and do not go along with Sam1 and others who would discard the long-distance trains. I have stood up for those trains many times here. As long as they continue to attract riders -- and they do -- I think their subsidy is easily justified as tiny in the larger budget scheme and in view of our special national rail heritage. Where I lose patience is with blue-skying by such as the Iowa DOT promoting a project such as Chicago-Omaha on the Iowa Interstate that is never going to turn a wheel. Seeing Mark Hemphill associated with such a project suggests that he doesn't go where his wife goes so much as where the consulting bucks go. (Veteran TRAINS readers will recognize the reference.)
DakotaFred's posts on this thread suggest he is living back in the 50's or 60's. What he conveniently neglects to mention is that the premier passenger service between Chicago and Omaha at that time was offered by the joint Milwaukee Road - Union Pacific "Cities" trains along with the Burlington's California and Denver Zephyrs. So the Rock Island's Corn Belt Rocket was arguably a poor sister in this particular lane on a railroad that was quickly going to hell back in that time. My, how times have changed. While I would still argue that the UP's "Overland Route" mainline across Iowa should have been the chosen instrument for this new service, there was really no other option than IAIS as UP will never allow regular passenger service on the Overland Route (I can't blame them, either for the amount of traffic the Overland Route hosts) and the CN's ex-IC/ICG/CC Iowa Division mainline has that dark section from Tara to Council Bluffs plus it doesn't serve any huge population centers aside from Dubuque, Waterloo and Ft. Dodge.
Murphy Siding dakotafred: Seeing Mark Hemphill associated with such a project suggests that he doesn't go where his wife goes so much as where the consulting bucks go. (Veteran TRAINS readers will recognize the reference.) For those of us that don't get the reference, could you plese explain?
dakotafred: Seeing Mark Hemphill associated with such a project suggests that he doesn't go where his wife goes so much as where the consulting bucks go. (Veteran TRAINS readers will recognize the reference.)
Jim Wrinn predecessor Hemphill explained he was leaving his "dream" job as editor of TRAINS to follow his wife to her dream job. At least two job changes later, he has popped up as point man for Iowa DOT's consultant on the Moline-Omaha project, an Omaha firm, per yesterday's Newswire.
Dakota,
I see no reason to knock Mark Hemphill or any other consultant. If the States and Feds want to waste a few million dollars of our tax money to hire a consultant, they may as well hire one who knows something.
Mac McCulloch
The largest state involved is Illinois. Illinois has been the political driving force behind this project. The largest statistical metropolitan area served between Chicago and Omaha will be the Quad Cities.
Of first interest to Illinois in entering the wilds west of the Mississippi is Iowa City. A large number of Chicago area students attend the University of Iowa. Like Carbondale and McComb in Illinois, provide a train for them to ride home.
The political will in Iowa for this train is not as great. Gov. Culver is gone. Gov. Branstad is not out to kill the project, but more along the line of shelving it. Some legislators have groused about tax dollars for passengers being used to upgrade the Iowa Interstate's ability to expedite freight.
The current Iowa legislature is not overly concerned with how Chicago students travel home. Let Illinois pay for the train to make Moline. Let the students drive an hour east to Moline to catch the train. Iowa taxpayers already provide them with a university.
The Iowa half of the Quad Cities has little interest in a train going west. Other than an Iowa Hawkeye's football game, or state wide convention, there is far more to see and do in Chicago.
Strong lobbying by interests in Des Moines and at the University of Iowa will be necessary to move the train into Iowa. Illinois' moral support will be there, especially as far as Iowa City.
If the train makes it to Iowa City, odds increase it will reach Des Moines. Iowa's provincial political center will lobby for it. Though seldom true, Des Moines is adept at claiming anything that benefits Des Moines benefits all of Iowa.
Iowa's political will west of Des Moines will wane greatly. The distance is not great to Omaha, but there is little between Des Moines and Omaha. Omaha will need to exert political pressure to fill the void.
Extending the train to nowhere to a metropolitan area almost big enough to support a big league athletic team may have some federal appeal. Will the State of Nebraska get aboard if the route is extended the short distance from Omaha to Lincoln?
Release of a route study is just that. There is no cause to plan a Rocket ride through the cornfields from the Mississippi to the Missouri river in the near future.
Victrola1 The largest state involved is Illinois. Illinois has been the political driving force behind this project. The largest statistical metropolitan area served between Chicago and Omaha will be the Quad Cities. Of first interest to Illinois in entering the wilds west of the Mississippi is Iowa City. A large number of Chicago area students attend the University of Iowa. Like Carbondale and McComb in Illinois, provide a train for them to ride home. The political will in Iowa for this train is not as great. Gov. Culver is gone. Gov. Branstad is not out to kill the project, but more along the line of shelving it. Some legislators have groused about tax dollars for passengers being used to upgrade the Iowa Interstate's ability to expedite freight. The current Iowa legislature is not overly concerned with how Chicago students travel home. Let Illinois pay for the train to make Moline. Let the students drive an hour east to Moline to catch the train. Iowa taxpayers already provide them with a university. The Iowa half of the Quad Cities has little interest in a train going west. Other than an Iowa Hawkeye's football game, or state wide convention, there is far more to see and do in Chicago. Strong lobbying by interests in Des Moines and at the University of Iowa will be necessary to move the train into Iowa. Illinois' moral support will be there, especially as far as Iowa City. If the train makes it to Iowa City, odds increase it will reach Des Moines. Iowa's provincial political center will lobby for it. Though seldom true, Des Moines is adept at claiming anything that benefits Des Moines benefits all of Iowa. Iowa's political will west of Des Moines will wane greatly. The distance is not great to Omaha, but there is little between Des Moines and Omaha. Omaha will need to exert political pressure to fill the void. Extending the train to nowhere to a metropolitan area almost big enough to support a big league athletic team may have some federal appeal. Will the State of Nebraska get aboard if the route is extended the short distance from Omaha to Lincoln? Release of a route study is just that. There is no cause to plan a Rocket ride through the cornfields from the Mississippi to the Missouri river in the near future.
I really wish Illinois would drop the idea of an interchange with the former Q near Wyanet and use the money to rebuild the old RI between Joliet and there. It would serve both Ottawa and La Salle going toward the Quad Cities and would also make it much easier to restore Peoria service.
DwightBranch I really wish Illinois would drop the idea of an interchange with the former Q near Wyanet and use the money to rebuild the old RI between Joliet and there. It would serve both Ottawa and La Salle going toward the Quad Cities and would also make it much easier to restore Peoria service.
The problem with using the former Rock Island route all the way into Chicago is that it would rule out using Chicago Union Station. A connecting track at Englewood would be precluded by the upcoming Englewood flyover project.
Dakguy201 Iowa can't or won't come up with the subsidy to extend the Chicago/Moline service to Iowa City, but we are to believe there is any hope for extending this service past Des Moines and into the least populated portion of the state? Sorry, this study is nothing more than a WPA project for consultants!
Iowa won't come up with money to cover shortfalls because of current politics. The political pendulum has a way of swinging back (and forth).
I hope any new service would start out just as far as Des Moines, and prove it's worth in local service. If it's extended to Omaha, hopefully it would be scheduled to serve the mass of local riders, rather than Amtrak scheduling it for the convenience of the few people that might transfer at Omaha from the Zephyr.
CSSHEGEWISCH DwightBranch: I really wish Illinois would drop the idea of an interchange with the former Q near Wyanet and use the money to rebuild the old RI between Joliet and there. It would serve both Ottawa and La Salle going toward the Quad Cities and would also make it much easier to restore Peoria service. The problem with using the former Rock Island route all the way into Chicago is that it would rule out using Chicago Union Station. A connecting track at Englewood would be precluded by the upcoming Englewood flyover project.
DwightBranch: I really wish Illinois would drop the idea of an interchange with the former Q near Wyanet and use the money to rebuild the old RI between Joliet and there. It would serve both Ottawa and La Salle going toward the Quad Cities and would also make it much easier to restore Peoria service.
I am not familiar with Joliet, is there no way to transfer from the RTA former Rock Island to the former GM&O/ATSF? I assume the RTA RI trains terminate at La Salle Street.
Looks like it would require going east of the diamond at the Joliet Union Station and then backing up on the interchange track to get onto the northbound old GM&O or AT&SF NB tracks.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Los Angeles Rams Guy DakotaFred's posts on this thread suggest he is living back in the 50's or 60's. What he conveniently neglects to mention is that the premier passenger service between Chicago and Omaha at that time was offered by the joint Milwaukee Road - Union Pacific "Cities" trains along with the Burlington's California and Denver Zephyrs. So the Rock Island's Corn Belt Rocket was arguably a poor sister in this particular lane on a railroad that was quickly going to hell back in that time. My, how times have changed.
DakotaFred's posts on this thread suggest he is living back in the 50's or 60's. What he conveniently neglects to mention is that the premier passenger service between Chicago and Omaha at that time was offered by the joint Milwaukee Road - Union Pacific "Cities" trains along with the Burlington's California and Denver Zephyrs. So the Rock Island's Corn Belt Rocket was arguably a poor sister in this particular lane on a railroad that was quickly going to hell back in that time. My, how times have changed.
Times sure have changed, LA.
Where, 50 years ago, you had at least a dozen pairs of trains on three routes Chicago-Omaha, now you have one, the CZ. Travelers have long since moved on, made other arrangements. What evidence can you marshal in support of a fivefold increase in rail passenger capacity in that corridor? If you lived in Iowa instead of Minnesota, how much would you be willing to spend in support of that service?
Yeah, someone who was around in the 1950s and '60s -- and suffered through the demise of his favorite form of transportation -- is bound to have taken away some perspectives. I'd run them against the fantasies of folks at Iowa DOT and elsewhere who have no real grounding in rail passenger service.
dakotafred Los Angeles Rams Guy: DakotaFred's posts on this thread suggest he is living back in the 50's or 60's. What he conveniently neglects to mention is that the premier passenger service between Chicago and Omaha at that time was offered by the joint Milwaukee Road - Union Pacific "Cities" trains along with the Burlington's California and Denver Zephyrs. So the Rock Island's Corn Belt Rocket was arguably a poor sister in this particular lane on a railroad that was quickly going to hell back in that time. My, how times have changed. Times sure have changed, LA. Where, 50 years ago, you had at least a dozen pairs of trains on three routes Chicago-Omaha, now you have one, the CZ. Travelers have long since moved on, made other arrangements. What evidence can you marshal in support of a fivefold increase in rail passenger capacity in that corridor? If you lived in Iowa instead of Minnesota, how much would you be willing to spend in support of that service? Yeah, someone who was around in the 1950s and '60s -- and suffered through the demise of his favorite form of transportation -- is bound to have taken away some perspectives. I'd run them against the fantasies of folks at Iowa DOT and elsewhere who have no real grounding in rail passenger service.
Los Angeles Rams Guy: DakotaFred's posts on this thread suggest he is living back in the 50's or 60's. What he conveniently neglects to mention is that the premier passenger service between Chicago and Omaha at that time was offered by the joint Milwaukee Road - Union Pacific "Cities" trains along with the Burlington's California and Denver Zephyrs. So the Rock Island's Corn Belt Rocket was arguably a poor sister in this particular lane on a railroad that was quickly going to hell back in that time. My, how times have changed.
Fred - I'm a native Iowan and, while my job with CPRS has me firmly entrenched in the Twin Cities, the Hawkeye state will always be home to me. I can vividly recall how incredibly heartbroken and devastated I was when the Cities trains were discontinued along with the IC's Hawkeye. While I can appreciate how travelers seemingly made other "arrangements", the fact is both central and northern Iowa have a void when it comes to travel alternatives. You can't tell me for a second that rail passenger service to Iowa City on IAIS (or further west to Omaha) won't attract ridership. You have nearby towns and cities that would welcome rail passenger service such as Cedar Rapids, Marshalltown, and Ames/Boone (just to name a few) that would benefit by having rail passenger service close by as opposed to driving down to Mt. Pleasant, Ottumwa, or Osceola. Same thing applies for extension of the proposed Chicago - Dubuque service to Waterloo. There are many communities in my native northeast Iowa that would benefit from having rail passenger service nearby..
It's an old debate. Is the impetus for new products and services pre-existing demand or can demand be created by offering new products and services? Both have validity, but examples such as computers, smart phones and the internet suggest the second. The key is to conduct accurate marketing studies to gauge the potential, but those are often inaccurate.
I am not sure if it is still in service, however there is a connection track from the Rock Island to the St Charles Air line. The down side is that it will require a backup move into and out of CUS.
An "expensive model collector"
Is the St Charles Air Line still in use by the City of N.O. It seems I heard there was a proposal to reroute, and eliminate the SCAL.
Los Angeles Rams Guy Fred - I'm a native Iowan and, while my job with CPRS has me firmly entrenched in the Twin Cities, the Hawkeye state will always be home to me. I can vividly recall how incredibly heartbroken and devastated I was when the Cities trains were discontinued along with the IC's Hawkeye. While I can appreciate how travelers seemingly made other "arrangements", the fact is both central and northern Iowa have a void when it comes to travel alternatives. You can't tell me for a second that rail passenger service to Iowa City on IAIS (or further west to Omaha) won't attract ridership. You have nearby towns and cities that would welcome rail passenger service such as Cedar Rapids, Marshalltown, and Ames/Boone (just to name a few) that would benefit by having rail passenger service close by as opposed to driving down to Mt. Pleasant, Ottumwa, or Osceola. Same thing applies for extension of the proposed Chicago - Dubuque service to Waterloo. There are many communities in my native northeast Iowa that would benefit from having rail passenger service nearby..
LA, I guess the thing to do is see if Iowa is willing and able to chug as far as Iowa City, look at the results and take it from there. As I've said on earlier threads on this subject, I would love to ride into Iowa City on a train again, altho I'm afraid it would be a far cry from the old Rockets. The sweet thing on those old trips out of Chicago was a seat in the parlor car for an extra couple of bucks.
dakotafred Don't get me wrong. I love my Empire Builder, and do not go along with Sam1 and others who would discard the long-distance trains. I have stood up for those trains many times here. As long as they continue to attract riders -- and they do -- I think their subsidy is easily justified as tiny in the larger budget scheme and in view of our special national rail heritage.
0 0 1 385 2198 Retired 18 5 2578 14.0 Normal 0 false false false EN-US JA X-NONE
In the larger scheme of things you are correct. Amtrak’s annual losses, including those associated with the long distance trains, are tiny compared to the federal budget and federal budget deficits. Nevertheless, little things can add up.
Each year I read the OMB federal budget summary tables as well as the CBO’s adjustments. In addition, I read the Transportation Department budget as well as several others periodically. When I say that I read them, I mean line item by line item. They make for interesting reading if you are a numbers person. Otherwise not so interesting!
Annually the CBO publishes a list of items in the proposed budget that it believes could be eliminated or reduced, thereby reducing the annual deficit. For FY11 I identified 68 line items in the CBO report for items equal to or less than the annual operating subsidy for Amtrak. The total for these items is $26.5 billion, which is still a small percentage of the federal budget and federal budget deficit. But it makes a point. Small items add up to big items especially over time.
Assuming that ten per cent of the annual depreciation and interest expense is assigned to the long distance trains, which may be a bit conservative, in FY10 the long distance trains accounted for approximately 48 per cent of Amtrak’s operating loss.
Amtrak has racked up accumulated losses of $28.5 billion since it began operations. Assuming that the ratio of the long distance train operating losses to Amtrak’s total losses has remained constant (48 per cent) since Amtrak began operations, the accumulated loss for the long distance trains is approximately $13.8 billion. Had this money been placed in an account earning the average ten-year Treasury note interest rate for 40 years, four months, it would have grown to $78.7 billion by September 2011. This would have been a nice kitty to enhance existing corridors or start new ones, which is the only place where passenger rail makes sense.
Some people have opined that I must be against trains since I have long advocated eliminating the long distance trains, and I have been a frequent critique of Amtrak. They are wrong. I am enthusiastic about trains where they make sense. I take five to seven train trips every year, which is not easy to do from, within or to Texas given the paucity of Amtrak’s services in the Lone Star State. But spreading limited dollars over a so-called national passenger train network, when they should be focused where trains make sense, may be good politics, but it is a poor public transport solution.
MidlandMike Is the St Charles Air Line still in use by the City of N.O. It seems I heard there was a proposal to reroute, and eliminate the SCAL.
The SCAL is still in use by the City of N.O., as well as the Illinois service on the I.C. There has been proposal to get rid of the SCAL, Mayor Daley really wanted it gone. However with Da Mayor out of office, as well as the housing market in the tank, I don't know if there is as much of a push to get rid of it as there was.
Sam1 Amtrak has racked up accumulated losses of $28.5 billion since it began operations. Assuming that the ratio of the long distance train operating losses to Amtrak’s total losses has remained constant (48 per cent) since Amtrak began operations, the accumulated loss for the long distance trains is approximately $13.8 billion. Had this money been placed in an account earning the average ten-year Treasury note interest rate for 40 years, four months, it would have grown to $78.7 billion by September 2011. This would have been a nice kitty to enhance existing corridors or start new ones, which is the only place where passenger rail makes sense
I would never argue with you, Sam1, that the losses don't add up and are even larger than they appear, when you consult interest. My quibble would be: If this money hadn't been spent on Amtrak, where would it have gone? Would it have been saved or invested more shrewdly? Pardon me for doubting it.
I rather like that, with Amtrak, we have bought something tangible that people use and that has not only utility but meaning to us as Americans. If we have to start saving nickels and dimes, as we undoubtedly do, there are lots of places to start before Amtrak.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.