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).
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.
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"
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.
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.
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.
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.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
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????
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
BTW, door-to-door services for the elderly and handicapped are offered in much of Chicagoland through PACE and municipalities, I believe.
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.
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.
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?
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.
The corridor is not there for downstate residents. Most of those who ride it live in Chicago, the three main stops are Bloomington (ISU) Springfield (State Capitol) and St. Louis. The Springfield riders mainly live in Chicago and commute to Springfield for their state jobs (my mom's cousin's husband is with the Illinois DOT and lives in Oak Park,and commutes to Springfield). Something like 80% of ISU students are from the suburbs of Chicago, SIU in Carbondale is roughly the same. Peoria and Rockford, the second and third largest cities, have no Amtrak service, Rockford will be getting it soon but we'll see how long that lasts. And I am not talking out of turn when I say downstate residents are mad about that and complain about paying for trains for Chicago, I heard it my whole life growing up. Okay, I have grown tired of this but, again, long distance will not be going away.
Dwight: Illinois has more state-subsidized Amtrak routes than most other states in the US, and the number will only increase and service improve. The CHI-STL corridor is becoming semi-HSR, serving several metro areas outside Chicago. CHI-CHM-CDL has 3 trains in each direction, two subsidized by the state. There are two trains each way between Quincy and Chicago and places in between. The Chief covers Galesburg, as does the CZ. The Hawkeye between Chicago - Rockford -Galena -Dubuque is supposed to start up in 2014. I guess they are still studying Peoria and Quad Cities. That would seem to cover a great deal of the state besides Chicago. But it's worth noting the Chicago metro area (not including areas in Indiana or Wisconsin) has a population of 8,710,000 out of an Illinois population of ~12,870,000. If your county lacks public transport, that is an issue for your county boards.
Although Amtrak does not make the depreciation and interest allocations available to the public, at least in its monthly operating reports, several reasonable allocation scenarios for these items can be deduced.
Given the estimated life of Amtrak's assets, i.e. equipment, infrastructure, leasehold improvements, etc., it is plausible that approximately 80 per cent of the annual depreciation and interest charges are worn by the NEC, with a disproportionate amount of it being driven by the New Haven to Boston segment due to its relative recency of construction.
If my assumption is correct, that leaves approximately 20 per cent of the depreciation and interest to be allocated to the equipment associated with the long distance trains and the corridor trains, plus the the infrastructure owned by Amtrak in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Connecticut. Amtrak also has depreciation associated with the stations that it owns outside of the NEC as well as repair and maintenance facilities, e.g. Hialeah, FL, New Orleans, LA, Seattle, WA. Most of the depreciation and interest associated with these facilities would be allocated to the long distance trains, although some of it might be worn by the corridor trains. Without being able to examine Amtrak's property accounting records, it is impossible to say for sure how the depreciation is allocated.
Amtrak is billed by the hoist railroads over which it runs its corridor and long distance trains. The billings probably contain a depreciation and capitalized interest component, although it is likely to be very small.
My county in Illinois, and those next to it as well, have NO public transportation, NONE, other than Amtrak, yet the people who live there still pay state income taxes that pays for public transportation in places like Chicago, or from there to Springfield. And you can be sure that downstate Illinois residents are very aware of that, and I am sure Iowa and other states are the same. Even though our area has less population than Chicago we feel as though we are entitled to public transportation and mobility just the same, and downstate residents let their congressman know that. I am confident that Amtrak long distance will continue if only for that reason.
The NEC does not publish depreciation numbers for the NEC, so it is not calculated, only operating profit or loss. Other non-owned track has no depreciation accrued to Amtrak. I would have to check the numbers, but since the per passenger mile loss for LD is much higher than the per passenger mile small profit for the NEC, it is unlikely "on a per passenger basis the NEC loses more than long distance." I really don't see the need for such concern about a strictly political component of Amtrak so minor in scope, that if it were d/c'd tomorrow wouldn't make a ripple in the shares of traffic on those legacy routes.
Taken on a passenger-by-passenger basis, trains cost taxpayers far less than cars, planes, motorcycles or rickshaws. The big difference, as National Corridor Initiative president and CEO James P. RePass noted in a recent interview, is that "Subsidies for airlines and highways are far less obvious than Amtrak's single line item.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.