One final point: every state in the union has two US Senators regardless of population, meaning a large relatively unpopulated state such as Montana that will never have "corridors" but which is dependent on Amtrak long distance for travel for those few residents has the same number of votes in the Senate as New York or California. Long distance trains are here to stay.
And that happens to be abundantly fair and just.
Sorry guys, the most passenger miles for the buck is not fair. You may think it is but it is anything but fair.
How many times do I have to remind you that the college students getting his once in a lifetime transcontinental train trip to really see the country for the first and possibly the last time is also a USA Citizen and thus worthy of as much subsidy as the corridor commuter businessman who travels 500 times a year?
As for the Illinois passenger subsidy benefiting mostly Chicago residents, where would the downstate economy be without the Universities they attend and the StateHouse?
DwightBranch Don Phillips, August 2012: "(Note: Amtrak has tried to claim that the Acela "makes a profit". That ain't so. If all costs and depreciation are counted, that Acela and all other Northeast Corridor services lose lots of money." Elsewhere he has broken these numbers down to show on a per passenger basis the NEC loses more than long distance. A number I have seen is that Amtrak pays CSX less to run the Lake Shore from New York to Chicago than UPS pays to run one trailer the same distance. But all that centenary, real estate etc., costs a pretty penny. Long distance trains are a bargain compared to the NEC.
Don Phillips, August 2012: "(Note: Amtrak has tried to claim that the Acela "makes a profit". That ain't so. If all costs and depreciation are counted, that Acela and all other Northeast Corridor services lose lots of money." Elsewhere he has broken these numbers down to show on a per passenger basis the NEC loses more than long distance. A number I have seen is that Amtrak pays CSX less to run the Lake Shore from New York to Chicago than UPS pays to run one trailer the same distance. But all that centenary, real estate etc., costs a pretty penny. Long distance trains are a bargain compared to the NEC.
Why, if the LD trains are the political life-blood of Amtrak, would they cook their own books to make them looks so bad. That would be errr..."not rational".
And, yes, Amtrak's payments to the host RRs are low and don't cover their costs to the host RR. Your UPS to LSL comparison is probably about right - it's likely about $1000 for each. But, that is part of the price the host RRs pay to have been rid of the obligation of operation 40 years ago. Yet, even with that really, really low fee, the LD trains still have farebox recovery in the 50% range.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
And possibly for the Bloomington or Springfiled resident who makes four trips a year to Chicago feels the subsidized service is as important to him as the college students who makes 16 trips between Chicago and Normal feels it is for him.
Subsidy per passenger mile is an excellent metric for Amtrak to use to control their costs. But to say it is the only metric for judging the usefulness of the various services to the USA as whole is wrong. It is only one of several.
daveklepper Subsidy per passenger mile is an excellent metric for Amtrak to use to control their costs. But to say it is the only metric for judging the usefulness of the various services to the USA as whole is wrong. It is only one of several.
I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH THIS STATEMENT! For example, Orlando and Denver, two cities I have lived in, have a service for handicapped people that picks them up with a special van, takes them to their destination, and then pics them up and brings them home. Often that is the only person the van and driver handles that day.Now from the standpoint of "subsidy per rider" it is obviously far less "efficient" than a sardine can metro bus, or even a taxi for normally functioning people, but that isn't the point: we do it because it is a public good. Long distance trains must be judged in the same way.
My point about Bloomington or ISU (I lived in Bloomington for four years and my BA is from ISU) is not that those services aren't useful, it is that they aren't primarily there for the four million people who live outside of Chicago: we can use them if we wish, but that isn't why they are there. And we/they don't see it that way. This is about politics. I am arguing for MORE Amtrak, not less.
So I am curious. Where would you have passenger rail service in Illinois beyond the routes existing, underway or proposed? There is another proposal I read somewhere, of a route connecting C-U with Decatur and Springfield, maybe even back over to Danville. Reinstating a run from StL to Carbondale might serve quite a few folks, too.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
BTW, door-to-door services for the elderly and handicapped are offered in much of Chicagoland through PACE and municipalities, I believe.
schlimm So I am curious. Where would you have passenger rail service in Illinois beyond the routes existing, underway or proposed? There is another proposal I read somewhere, of a route connecting C-U with Decatur and Springfield, maybe even back over to Danville. Reinstating a run from StL to Carbondale might serve quite a few folks, too.
Peoria to Chicago is another corridor mentioned, but I would go beyond that. Not everyone who wishes to travel is an intrastate business or government person or student. I want the long distance trains maintained and expanded, including the CZ and SWC, and every expansion introduces economies of scale. A route along the old Rock Island to Omaha and beyond, for example, could be part of the Peoria train upgrade. The old North Coast Limited from Chicago to Seattle through southern Montana (ex-NP) is among those I have seen mentioned, some of the cities on that route are hundreds of miles from transportation alternatives. These new trains would fill in the skeletal Amtrak system, make it possible to travel to the same cities during different times of day, encourage longer trips on multiple connecting trains, and make it easier to travel to points not on the Amtrak map currently.
daveklepper And possibly for the Bloomington or Springfiled resident who makes four trips a year to Chicago feels the subsidized service is as important to him as the college students who makes 16 trips between Chicago and Normal feels it is for him. Subsidy per passenger mile is an excellent metric for Amtrak to use to control their costs. But to say it is the only metric for judging the usefulness of the various services to the USA as whole is wrong. It is only one of several.
If you were doing it, what are the other metrics and how would you weight them in order to determine where the limited funds go?
Good luck with that! You really think ML or BNSF or whoever runs the old NP track would permit a passenger train? You seemed to suggest Illinois was under served, yet you didn't propose any routes beyond the existing or planned structure.
I also believe you are missing an important historical aspect of the development of cities and suburban areas vs rural. Most people understand that one of the attractions of cities (and why land is more expensive) is the presence of many features (shopping, jobs, museums and cultural attractions, large hospitals and medical facilities, sports teams, to name a few) not widely found in the rural areas. That is understood and accepted with the negative trade offs and vice versa.
schlimm I also believe you are missing an important historical aspect of the development of cities and suburban areas vs rural. Most people understand that one of the attractions of cities (and why land is more expensive) is the presence of many features (shopping, jobs, museums and cultural attractions, large hospitals and medical facilities, sports teams, to name a few) not widely found in the rural areas. That is understood and accepted with the negative trade offs and vice versa.
Not everyone can live in a city (and frankly, not everyone wants to), and those who don't need to travel as well. Good luck finding food (or Caterpillar tractors) if everyone moves to the suburbs.
As I said, there are positives and negatives for both. Those of us who live in suburban Chicago, for example, pay much higher property tax bills and housing is priced much higher as well. But that's the choice folks make for the services, etc. they can get. Even in the rest of Illinois outside metro Chicago, the majority of people choose to live in the other metro areas and cities. BTW, Caterpillar has large manufacturing facilities in metro Chicago in Aurora and Joliet, as well as metro Peoria.
I wonder why there is political pressure not to discount last minute tix? I mean, that is the freemarket answer to the problem.
Also, I'm curious, I realize this was a long time ago, but is that $500 a bereavement fare? When my dad Died, I got next morning ticket on United San Diego to O'hare for a steep discount due to it being a bereavement fare.
It would be nice if Amtrak provided the same.
And yes, Anyone who thinks LD Amtrak is mostly tourists shows that they haven't spent a lot of time riding LD Amtrak. End point to End point travel, that is probably true. So, I'd lay odds that most passengers travelling Chicago to Bay area are Taking the train to take the train, but most fares from or to intermediate stops are not, those are people with few other options.
The problem is, people tend to only think of the 2 end destinations or major stops on these trains which is not going to give you anything like the true picture of these trains.
YoHo1975 I wonder why there is political pressure not to discount last minute tix? I mean, that is the freemarket answer to the problem. Buses and airlines complained that Amtrak ws trying to drive them out of business (lol). Also, I'm curious, I realize this was a long time ago, but is that $500 a bereavement fare? When my dad Died, I got next morning ticket on United San Diego to O'hare for a steep discount due to it being a bereavement fare. It would be nice if Amtrak provided the same. Can't remember, but I'll bet they banned that now, too. And yes, Anyone who thinks LD Amtrak is mostly tourists shows that they haven't spent a lot of time riding LD Amtrak. End point to End point travel, that is probably true. So, I'd lay odds that most passengers travelling Chicago to Bay area are Taking the train to take the train, but most fares from or to intermediate stops are not, those are people with few other options. The problem is, people tend to only think of the 2 end destinations or major stops on these trains which is not going to give you anything like the true picture of these trains. I completely agree, people who live in cities think that everyone wants to live in cities, and that just isn't true.
Buses and airlines complained that Amtrak ws trying to drive them out of business (lol).
Can't remember, but I'll bet they banned that now, too.
I completely agree, people who live in cities think that everyone wants to live in cities, and that just isn't true.
Of course it is true that as you move away from major metro areas, you voluntarily give up certain public services, but is LD really a deal breaker here? Also, to deny LD trains based purely on that logic, you would have to make the assumption that everyone living in these less urban markets is doing so voluntarily and that mobility and migration is completely unhindered. Neither is true unless you live in some fantasyland. To take the example of Illinois, I think most of the residents of Little Egypt would be rather shocked to learn that they all resided their voluntarily and were fully free to move wherever they wished.
Again, taken against the backdrop of the entire Federal and state transportation budgets, long distance Amtrak is as nothing. And the improvement it offers to the lives of the people that can utilize it is outsized compared to corridor and NEC service.
DwightBranch but most fares from or to intermediate stops are not, those are people with few other options.
but most fares from or to intermediate stops are not, those are people with few other options.
Most fares are from the large cities to and from the intermediate cities. So, lets give them real service, not a train that stops at 3AM. And, lets feed that high density batch mode thing called a train with lots and lots of bus feeder service.
DwightBranch And yes, Anyone who thinks LD Amtrak is mostly tourists shows that they haven't spent a lot of time riding LD Amtrak. End point to End point travel, that is probably true.
And yes, Anyone who thinks LD Amtrak is mostly tourists shows that they haven't spent a lot of time riding LD Amtrak. End point to End point travel, that is probably true.
And tourists don't mind spending a night in a hotel along the way. It's what they would do if they drove. So, we need sleepers for????
Facts: In Illinois, according to the 2010 census data, 80% live in urban areas, another 8.5% in small cities (between 2,500 and 50,000), and only 11.5% live in rural areas and towns less than 2,500. So I have no idea what you want. You think there should be trains serving the places where that 11.5% live? Many of the old tracks that used to serve those places in a bygone era 50-60 years ago( for freight only, 80-90 years ago for passenger service when there were few paved roads) are long gone.
1. The existing services do seem to cater to both the small down need for transportation and the tourist. Some routes do now need twice daily service so important points aren't served at 2-3AM. But Amtrak is trying to use lots of bus feeders. Indeed, in terms of just the number of timetables, not page count, there seem to be more connecting bus timetables in the 2011 timetable than the core rail system!
2. The beauty of a transcontinental trian trip for a vacation travelor is that one not need to constantly pack and unpack to see the country at ground leve in relaxed manner with most of the important hotel facilities available right on the train. Yes, sleepers are important. I have also ridden overnight in coach many times, and certainly vastly prefer that to overnight in a bus or driving 16 hours a day and spending 8 in motels.
3. Amtrak right now is a system that attempts to serve all citizens, or at least give them the opportunity to try to use their services. It can improved. But not, in my opinion, by restricting its services to just one segement or two of the population.
schlimm Good luck with that! You really think ML or BNSF or whoever runs the old NP track would permit a passenger train? You seemed to suggest Illinois was under served, yet you didn't propose any routes beyond the existing or planned structure.
There was a privately operated tour train on the MRL between Sandpoint, ID and Livingston, MT back in the 90s. It was a 2 day trip (one-way) with an overnight stop in Missoula including hotel and transfers. I'm glad I took it while it was in service, as it's been a while since Amtrak ran the route.
DwightBranch YoHo1975: Also, I'm curious, I realize this was a long time ago, but is that $500 a bereavement fare? When my dad Died, I got next morning ticket on United San Diego to O'hare for a steep discount due to it being a bereavement fare. It would be nice if Amtrak provided the same. Can't remember, but I'll bet they banned that now, too.
YoHo1975: Also, I'm curious, I realize this was a long time ago, but is that $500 a bereavement fare? When my dad Died, I got next morning ticket on United San Diego to O'hare for a steep discount due to it being a bereavement fare. It would be nice if Amtrak provided the same. Can't remember, but I'll bet they banned that now, too.
I'll take that bet.
http://www.delta.com/planning_reservations/special_travel_needs/bereavement/index.jsp
http://abcnews.go.com/Travel/bereavement-airfares-cheap-emergency-flights-death-illness/story?id=9922168&page=2#.UAXxSWFR3FI
"Of the "Big Five" airlines, only US Airways does not have bereavement or "compassion" fares"
An "expensive model collector"
The opening post of this thread sounded like it was written by Lucius Beebe in the early 1960's. Beebe concluded that since long-distance trains could not compete on a time basis with airliners, they should give up any attempt at speed and slow down their schedules. DPM took him to task on this matter, replying that humans have always wanted to move faster and such a regression on the speed issue would be counterproductive.
It was this opinion by Beebe that led me to eventually conclude that Lucius Beebe was a Victorian snob who was at war with the 20th century (not the train).
I don't think name calling is called for, and I think Lucious Beeb did make enough of a contribution to railfandom that he should be left to rest in peace. David Morgan may have been right in the days when long distance trains were competing against airplanes, but today corridors yes, and high speed counts in corridors. But a comfortable ride, good service, and great scenery are more important when crossing the continent.
The main thing for most LD trains is DEPENDABLE on-time performance. Slow compared to the airplane is one thing; 10 hours late is, for most passengers who don't also happen to be railfans, the never-again kind of something else.
I was reminded of this the other day when making hotel reservations at a national park gateway. Told we were coming in on Amtrak, scheduled at around 9 p.m., the clerk chuckled and commented that her last night's Amtrak guests had just arrived, 12 hours late.
This wasn't Amtrak's fault; rather, it was caused by a freight derailment. But a similar delay, from whatever cause, would surely knock a hole in our upcoming trip, and from recent reports is an all-too-common occurrence on Amtrak. (Usually because late-in at the terminal means late-out for the next train needing the same equipment.)
daveklepper 3. Amtrak right now is a system that attempts to serve all citizens, or at least give them the opportunity to try to use their services. It can improved. But not, in my opinion, by restricting its services to just one segement or two of the population.
But Amtrak is by far not able to serve all of the citizens who would use/prefer/benefit from all of its modes of service: long-distance full-service (baggage/lounge/diner/sleeper) train, corridor limited-service (all coach, maybe a cafe car), or auto ferry train. There are not enough routes, not enough trains to fill the requirements.
The question posed by Don a while ago is that trains are getting an 8 billion-dollar infusion of capital money (the "stimulus"), and what do you do with it? Do you prioritize a few high-impact projects or do you spread the money around to the point that it is hard to tell the difference?
That was the point about "high-speed baggage cars." Now I know there is a rationale for that inasmuch Amtrak's present management sees its mission as running a National Network with the full spectrum of train services, and maybe the Florida Silver Service trains are gumming up the Northeast Corridor because they are running a reduced speeds on that high(er) speed line on account of having clunky Heritage Fleet baggage cars.
So one person is saying that a mission of Amtrak is to provide sleeping cars on full-service long-distance trains to facilitate the needs or desires of frail elderly or persons with varying degrees of physical restriction to travel about the country, and by the way, I am such a person. Fine, that is a worthy goal, to provide an alternative mode of transportation to accomodate people who have genuine difficulties or physical restrictions with respect to air transportation.
Another person is saying that the mission of Amtrak is to provide a very low-cost ride from a small community in Illinois all the way to Denver, CO, and by the way, I am such a person who benefits from such a service, and I am tremendously inconvenienced if I have to get auto or bus transportation to the nearest big-city airport. Fine, that is also a worthy goal, to provide this mode of transportation, although it has been pointed out that this is available to some small towns in Illinois but not many others.
Maybe the "corridors only" approach is wrong. That URPA group thinks that way, that a more effective use of the Amtrak subsidy dollar is to buy more Superliners and run more long-distance trains, and URPA is claiming that the long-distance trains are actually much closer to financial break-even and that the corridor trains along with the NEC, where Amtrak has to maintain the tracks and the electric wire, are the true money pit, although others will say URPA has some system of double-secret accounting and that the reality is the reverse.
But for the people who accuse me of presenting false dichotomies, the dichotomies are real. For the people who complain about the "personal bickering" going on on this forum, the policy disagreements are real and substantive with respect to choices that will have to be made. I am not even saying we do away with the long-distance trains. I am asking, what has priority?
I am also asking, if you are a person seeking an alternative transportation in the form of sleeping car service as an accomodation, if you are a person seeking a cheap ride from "Downstate" Illinois to Denver, is business-as-usual and just saying "we need to support Amtrak in all places and in all forms" even in your personal interest? Maybe if the money is spread around, one will see further erosion of passenger service over time and budget-cutting knives sharpened for Amtrak every time the political pendulum swings? Maybe if the money is focused on projects with the biggest impact (corridors? I don't know, that is just what people tell me), it will lead to bigger and better things for Amtrak down the road and help all users of train service.
But it seems that there is a lot of disagreement regarding the need to prioritize. High speed baggage cars, indeed.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Paul: i tend to agree wholeheartedly with the utility of the questions/dichotomies you pose, in terms of priorities and content, although I believe the "personalization" may possibly stir up more unnecessary controversy. Perhaps it is useful to account for as many confounding factors as possible. In this case, take out the cost/financials, just temporarily, and also the Amtrak history, and take a new, rational look at different sorts of services in terms of feasibility, ridership and other criteria, i.e., the pluses and minuses: Short corridors (under 300 miles/three hours end to end); medium corridors (300-600 miles- 3-6 hours); and traditional LD trains. The numbers are inexact.
Of course, I have to agree with the train ride being part of the fun of travel. Going on a pass with my parents always added extra time to the trip, because we couldn't ride the faster trains, so the journey was longer, but it gave us time to leisurely enjoy our train ride. We weren't in any hurry. Eating in in the diner added to the experience. One time Dad checked the mileage and we had traveled 100 miles during lunch. Maybe it's not as fast as a plane, but it's more comfortable and there's nothing like the passing scenery from a train window.
travelingengineerThinking that it might be antithetical to posit these thoughts on the HSR threads, may I respectfully suggest that at least I, and perhaps others, am quite satisfied with present Amtrak LD route speeds, albeit an upgrade of some amenities would be in order. To me, the JOURNEY is more important than the DESTINATION, so rushing to get somewhere is a shame. Obviously, I am fortunate that my present activity does not require high-speed. With delight do I have the pleasure of a Bedroom, and its associated services, the Coast Starlight Parlour Car, and the Metropolitan Lounges. With reading material, occasionally fascinating fellow travelers (one having been Marcus J. Ruef, BofLE VP, coincidentally in my Sleeping Car once), and interesting and occasionally beautiful American scenery, I am always a "happy camper." Are there any of you who share this rather unconventional traveling philosophy?
As to sleeping accomodations, they ceratainly make overnight travel more comfortable,despite the cost, especially when a trip on one train gives two or more nights on the train (I think of the pleasure, still in the future, of going from Toronto to Vancouver, with the four night on board) s. Having retired almost six years ago, I have no need for business travel, but travel purely for pleasure.
Johnny
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.