Phoebe Vet I am a SUPPORTER of Amtrak. I have been a supervisor in a large state organization and have seen the political "reach the most voters" mentality. first hand When you have limited resources and you spread them too thin it is only a matter of time before people stop taking you seriously. One train a day, or even worse, three trains a week is not useful transportation. If congress authorized Amtrak the money to buy 30 new trains, they would add 10 new routes to new cities, one a day. If you expect people to travel by train, the train must be going when and where they need to go. Most travelers will spend three or four hours on a train. What that translates to in miles depends on how fast the train goes and how many stops it makes. If people have to change trains then the trains must run on time and layovers cannot be six hours. It is more important to do each route right than it is to do as many routes as possible.
I am a SUPPORTER of Amtrak. I have been a supervisor in a large state organization and have seen the political "reach the most voters" mentality. first hand When you have limited resources and you spread them too thin it is only a matter of time before people stop taking you seriously.
One train a day, or even worse, three trains a week is not useful transportation. If congress authorized Amtrak the money to buy 30 new trains, they would add 10 new routes to new cities, one a day. If you expect people to travel by train, the train must be going when and where they need to go. Most travelers will spend three or four hours on a train. What that translates to in miles depends on how fast the train goes and how many stops it makes. If people have to change trains then the trains must run on time and layovers cannot be six hours.
It is more important to do each route right than it is to do as many routes as possible.
As you outline it, there are three options for long distance: 1) do it right, multiple train pairs on each route; 2) do it poorly, the one train pair per day system we have now; 3) no trains at all. And you are arguing that it needs to be either options 1 or 3. But most states (and the residents of those states) see option 3 as unacceptable. And option 1 has not been funded. So option 2 it is and will be until option 1 is funded; option 3 is out of the question.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
oltmannd DwightBranch Absolutely on the mark, and despite the rhetorical slight of hand used by anti-Amtrak types here that we have invested "gas tax revenues" in road building (implying that highways are paid for only by their users) currently only around 50% of highway spending is provided by fuel taxes. You are not paying attention. Per passenger mile subsidy, if you please! YOU HAVE TO NORMALIZE THE STATISTIC OR IT IS MEANINGLESS! (does shouting help?) I do this sort of thing for a living....shouting, that is.
DwightBranch Absolutely on the mark, and despite the rhetorical slight of hand used by anti-Amtrak types here that we have invested "gas tax revenues" in road building (implying that highways are paid for only by their users) currently only around 50% of highway spending is provided by fuel taxes.
Absolutely on the mark, and despite the rhetorical slight of hand used by anti-Amtrak types here that we have invested "gas tax revenues" in road building (implying that highways are paid for only by their users) currently only around 50% of highway spending is provided by fuel taxes.
You are not paying attention. Per passenger mile subsidy, if you please! YOU HAVE TO NORMALIZE THE STATISTIC OR IT IS MEANINGLESS! (does shouting help?)
I do this sort of thing for a living....shouting, that is.
Not if the question is the cost of operating in different states, and the question of whether trains (and cars) operating in each part of the US must pay for themselves, which was John's point. Just as operating the Empire Builder through a large, underpopulated state costs more per person than a train between St. Louis and Chicago, so too is the cost of maintaining interstate highways across that state. The other stats were addressing a different question, is highway funding completely paid for by gas taxes (i.e. user fees paid for ONLY by those who use the highways, not general revenues placed on everyone).
I am a professor of political economy, do not try to BS me with statistics.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
John WR Generally speaking all forms of transportation of passengers are subsidized. And both airlines and over the road buses are free to ignore public needs in areas they find unprofitable to serve. It costs a lot more per passenger mile to maintain an interstate highway in Montana than it costs in New Jersey because Montana is a much more rural state. Shall we abandon interstate highways in rural areas that fail to meet some cost per passenger mile threshold? The most basic reality of all transportation is that it is part of a national system and to shut one part down will impact all of the other parts. The United States is not Haiti. We need a system that includes passenger railroads just as well as the other parts. Many people come from rural areas to densely populated urban areas. Densely populated urban areas do ot have space for more highways or airlines but the do have entering railroads. One single railroad track can carry as many people as 6 lanes of highway. We need to maintain that benefit and not just for people who want to travel between New York and Washington (although that group is important) but also for people who want to travel from Minot, North Dakota to Chicago.
Generally speaking all forms of transportation of passengers are subsidized. And both airlines and over the road buses are free to ignore public needs in areas they find unprofitable to serve.
It costs a lot more per passenger mile to maintain an interstate highway in Montana than it costs in New Jersey because Montana is a much more rural state. Shall we abandon interstate highways in rural areas that fail to meet some cost per passenger mile threshold?
The most basic reality of all transportation is that it is part of a national system and to shut one part down will impact all of the other parts. The United States is not Haiti. We need a system that includes passenger railroads just as well as the other parts.
Many people come from rural areas to densely populated urban areas. Densely populated urban areas do ot have space for more highways or airlines but the do have entering railroads. One single railroad track can carry as many people as 6 lanes of highway. We need to maintain that benefit and not just for people who want to travel between New York and Washington (although that group is important) but also for people who want to travel from Minot, North Dakota to Chicago.
Absolutely on the mark, and despite the rhetorical slight of hand used by anti-Amtrak types here that we have invested "gas tax revenues" in road building (implying that highways are paid for only by their users) currently only around 50% of highway spending is provided by fuel taxes. And this already low percentage will get worse as increased fuel efficiency standards and high gas prices cause drivers to use fewer gallons, and as the increased weight limits for semis that trucking companies are pushing for causes roads to deteriorate faster than they already are.
But Amtrak supporters need not fret, despite the solemn "Amtrak is broken" statements made by those with hidden agendas (the same sort of thing those who want to raid Social Security and Medicare say about those programs), as I said many times, Amtrak long distance is here to stay so long as the US Constitution is the law of the land and each state gets two US Senators.
I hear what you are saying, but I am not buying... The Amtrak LD routes are not designed to serve rural America. They are merely a remnant of the streamliner routes of the 1950s. Nearly every one existed in the 1950s and ran on nearly the same schedule with the same stops. Check it out!
Since then, we have invested a whole lot of gasoline tax in building out a national network of highways. Have we adjusted to rail routes to serve those "underserved" by the highway network? No. Have we adjusted any Amtrak LD service at all in the past 20 years? No.
Why not? Amtrak is not motivated from within to change anything. It would be a risk and they would get no reward. Nobody at Amtrak gets a bonus for better service, cost savings, lower subsidy or anything.
Amtrak is largely broken.
Trains are the Future It's always dificult to make predictions - especially about the future. Whether Amtrak continues in its present form may be up for debate but train travel plays a vital and increasing role in the transport needs of other countries so the USA should be investing more too.
It's always dificult to make predictions - especially about the future. Whether Amtrak continues in its present form may be up for debate but train travel plays a vital and increasing role in the transport needs of other countries so the USA should be investing more too.
"The success of the Vision for Space Exploration requires motivations that go beyond the tired rationales of the past. (credit: Lockheed Martin)"
That second quote was from a Web site reflecting on the 1969 Moon Landing and ruminating on the "where do we go from here." I draw criticism for comparing Amtrak to NASA and train advocacy people are quick to point out that NASA gets about 10 times as much money whereas Amtrak is "underfunded" and all of that. But I still maintain there are strong parallels.
I am told we have "gone around the loop track enough times" (actually, a loop track in British English means what we 'Merkins call a "siding") that we can stipulate that there is better train service in many of our trading-partner nations, that all modes of transportation require some manner of government involvement as does the space program (although there are private passenger train projects and private space projects in "the works"), that we have a transportation problem in terms of highway and airway congestion, that trains (potentially, not that well realized with Amtrak) offer reduced oil usage and pollution, and so on. Also, many people like the tradeoff between faster-than-driving (although not in all cases on current Amtrak) but slower but perhaps more comfortable than flying offered by trains.
All of that is good to say, but we in the advocacy community have been saying these things for over 40 years now from the inception of Amtrak, and some of the ways we have been saying these things perhaps offers a "tired rationale." These aren't the 1960's when space exploration was ushering in a New Age of Tang sugared drink, Velcro, and beating the Russians. These aren't the 1960's either when the Northeast Corridor Demonstration Project (Metroliner and TurboTrain) or some manner of High-Speed Rail were going to solve the Transportation Crisis of clogged highways and airways.
Some the things we in the advocacy community have been claiming about fuel savings, environmental benefits, and congestion relief could merit some reexamination, especially the tradeoff in subsidy cost to realize the benefits we are claiming, and no, this isn't "bean counting" and "knowing the cost of everything and the value of nothing."
The other thing is that over the 40 years we have had Amtrak, an (small) anti-advocacy community has emerged, questioning some of our assumptions about the goodness and yes, cost effectiveness of trains, just as people question, "Why do we even have a space program when there are needs on Earth ranging from poverty and hunger, to yes, trains?" I don't think there were much in the way of "policy wonks" who questioned the need for trains 40 years ago -- most of the anti-train wonkishness came from the railroads themselves, who regarded passenger trains as sinking their entire operations. But today, people who are not train enthusiasts have looked at Amtrak and found aspects of it wanting.
I am saying that critics and critiques of Amtrak need to be taken seriously and not just brushed off as part of the great Highway and Oil Conspiracy.
The where-do-we-go-from-here, in my opinion is two-fold. One, I think we should advocate for spending what little subsidy money comes the way of trains, as inadequate and underfunded and all that it is, to advocate that such money be spent to get the most "bang for the buck." If trains are not in the free-market private-enterprise arena to get their funding, they are then in the political arena, and passenger trains have to make the most splash as they can, with for example, the 8 billion in the Stimulus money from 2008. Trains need to do this to widen the base of political support. And we won't widen the base of political support by scolding people that they don't-know-what-is-good-for-them in not supporting trains with the enthusiasm many of us have.
The second half of my opinion is my take on trends, discussion, and directions in the passenger train advocacy community. Amtrak is said to have little leeway, what it does is micromanaged "by Congress." And where does Congress get direction, especially on the focused issues regarding trains? From the advocacy community, meaning little old us right here on this Forum and places like it.
I see expressions of narrow interest such as "facilitated by the large amount of subsidy money that is coming from other taxpayers, I take the Denver Zephyr once each year from my small town in Illinois to Denver and pay a $75 dollar fare, I would be greatly inconvenienced if I had to 'get a ride' to O'Hare and pay hundreds more in airfare, and this talk of emphasizing 'corridors' is unfair." No, no one said those exact words, but you get the idea.
I, for one, am not totally convinced that long-distance trains are the enemy either as URPA (United Rail Passenger Alliance) claims that just as in the days of the "train off petitions", the costs of those trainsare overstated, but then URPA is not completely transparent on their data and their may be some creative accounting backing up their claims.
What I am in favor of is an open mind towards Amtrak routes, services, and operations, receptive to ideas of changes that, yes, could save money, instead of a reflexive "that is how passenger operations were always carried out and anyone who says differently is a minion of the Concrete Lobby."
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
" What I am advocating is that Amtrak use their extremely limited resources to grow in the higher density markets and expand only as the need develops. The well developed NE corridor, justifies intersecting corridors across central NY, southern PA, even spokes around the Boston area."
Actually, much of this is already being done. Starting from the north and moving south:
Recently Amtrak added the Downeaster, a train funded by the State of Main which runs from Portland to North Station, Boston. There are 5 trains each way on weekdays and 4 on week ends. However, there is no direct rail connection to South Station. There might have been but during a recent expressway project (The Big Dig) it was abandoned.
The Lake Shore Limited has an section that runs east west between Boston and Albany and crosses the Springfield, MA line as well as service from New York Penn Station that turns west at Albany and runs to Chicago.
At New Haven there is service on the Springfield line that continues up almost to the Canadian border at St. Albans, VT on the Vermonter. This train is subsidized by Vermont.
The Pennsylvanian. a daily Amtrak train, runs across southern Pennsylvania from Philadelphia to Pittsburgh.
Keystone service which is subsidized by the state of Pennsylvania runs on the same line with 13 trains each weekday but stops at Harrisburg.
The Capitol Limited cuts across the southwest corner of Pennsylvania and stops at both Connellsberg and Pittsburgh before going on to Chicago.
What Amtrak might do is to re-inaugurate the Phoebe Snow this time to start a New York Penn Station (no need to take a ferry to Hoboken Terminal) and run along New Jersey Transit's Morris and Essex line up to Scranton and then up to Buffalo or to Erie, PA where it could connect with the Lake Shore Limited. New Jersey Transit intends to restore service as far a Scranton within a few years' time.
Phoebe Vet Minot to Chicago is over 18 hours via Amtrak. It is under 4 hours including the layover in Minneapolis on Delta Connections. Even if you add 2 hours for the security foolishness it is a third the time that Amtrak takes. While Amtrak can compete with the 16 hours that an automobile takes, it would be pretty tough to compete with air. Minneapolis to Chicago probably makes sense. There is a reason that small privately owned aircraft are so popular in Alaska. It is too rural to support either mass transit or even an extensive road system. Mass transit requires a certain density of population to justify the cost. I am not one of those who thinks Amtrak needs to break even or make a profit. I am, however, a believer that it should be built only where there is an actual need. If a small community exists along a route that is justified by it's end points then that community benefits by the unique ability of rail to make numerous stops along the way. An airline cannot do that. Has anyone ever researched how many people actually want to travel from Minot, ND to Chicago? I am not actually advocating the cancellation of any existing L.D. trains. What I am advocating is that Amtrak use their extremely limited resources to grow in the higher density markets and expand only as the need develops. The well developed NE corridor, justifies intersecting corridors across central NY, southern PA, even spokes around the Boston area. I agree whole heartedly with the recent expansion into the Norfolk area. However, shouldn't those connectors that are totally within a state be the responsibility of that state?
Minot to Chicago is over 18 hours via Amtrak. It is under 4 hours including the layover in Minneapolis on Delta Connections. Even if you add 2 hours for the security foolishness it is a third the time that Amtrak takes. While Amtrak can compete with the 16 hours that an automobile takes, it would be pretty tough to compete with air. Minneapolis to Chicago probably makes sense.
There is a reason that small privately owned aircraft are so popular in Alaska. It is too rural to support either mass transit or even an extensive road system. Mass transit requires a certain density of population to justify the cost. I am not one of those who thinks Amtrak needs to break even or make a profit. I am, however, a believer that it should be built only where there is an actual need. If a small community exists along a route that is justified by it's end points then that community benefits by the unique ability of rail to make numerous stops along the way. An airline cannot do that. Has anyone ever researched how many people actually want to travel from Minot, ND to Chicago?
I am not actually advocating the cancellation of any existing L.D. trains. What I am advocating is that Amtrak use their extremely limited resources to grow in the higher density markets and expand only as the need develops. The well developed NE corridor, justifies intersecting corridors across central NY, southern PA, even spokes around the Boston area. I agree whole heartedly with the recent expansion into the Norfolk area. However, shouldn't those connectors that are totally within a state be the responsibility of that state?
I'm in general agreement with your thinking. It's when the details are looked at that I start to wonder about how the limited resources are allocated. Here's an Amtrak "fact sheet" for the EB in North Dakota.
http://www.amtrak.com/pdf/factsheets/NORTHDAKOTA10.pdf
In very layman terms, if service were suspended say from New Year's until April 1st between Spokane and the Twin Cities, and the equipment used elsewhere during that time, might the overall financial results become more favorable, and even more favorable than maybe allocating to a segment with large populations, but also where competing travel choices are much more plentiful?
I also wonder in this case where most of the Minot boarders and alighters are actually traveling to and from.
A politician's every thought is about the next election. Therefor, any project under government control attempts to be all things to all people. As such, it is doomed to failure. Efficiency is not consistent with the mission, which is to appeal to voters.
There is a market for trains. That market is medium to high density corridors. There is a limit to how much time most people will spend in transit. Obviously, the faster the transportation system travels, the farther it can take people in that limited time. While there are many of us for whom the journey rather than the destination is a draw, we are a very small segment of the traveling public. Fast, frequent, and on time are the required elements of useful transportation. If an Amtrak route cannot support several trains in each direction per day it is probably doomed. In high density environments like the east and west coasts, it makes sense to connect the several corridors, creating a de facto long distance train, but long distance as it's own goal serves too small a segment of the traveling public. Long distance trains serve one function only. They are designed to bring the trains to as many voters as possible.
I have worked in that environment. I understand that mentality.
Trains are the Future It's always dificult to make predictions - especially about the future.
It's always dificult to make predictions - especially about the future.
With all due respect, have you visited many other countries? The infrastructure, society and cultural norms are very different.
You say that trains play, "A vital and increasing role in the transportation needs of other countries." Which other countries, where? Afghanistan? Ethiopia? Haiti? Not very likely. Europe? entirely different social dynamic, a result of much denser population. Japan? In Japan, an automobile is a luxury/status symbol, and is taxed accordingly.
For that matter, where is your vantage point. The northeast US is densely populated, as are some areas of California. Elsewhere, the US consists of miles and miles of nothing but miles and miles.
US railroads play a vital and increasing role in moving freight, and will continue to do so. As for investing, the Class 1s don't seem to have any problem getting the money they need for improvements.
OTOH, if you mean government investment in passenger rail, there has been a lot of rhetoric, but at the end of the day the money has not been forthcoming. If passenger rail was potentially a paying proposition, private capital would finance it. Holdeth not thy breath.
Chuck
USA by Rail
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.