Mark,
I'm the guy who say Western PA passenger rail advocates have "not totally failed" in your efforts to preserve the Pennsylvanian. I intended it as an oxymoron, stating something by saying the opposite. I agree you have been very successful.
John
oltmanndalthough I don't know if Amtrak is even allowed to help fund this train per PRIIA of 2008.
Don,
My sense of the situation is that Amtrak will contribute funds on the order of $3 million. I can't say how that fits into PRIIA. I would expect that at most there might be modest growth in the number of people who ride the Pennsylvanian.
Rather than having "not totally failed", Western PA passenger rail advocates would prefer to look at yesterday's announcement as much closer to having "totally succeeded". Trains.com readers are welcome to visit our website, www.wpprrail.org, to view more articles and information about the Pennsylvanian funding agreement and other issues.
Mark Spada , Western Pennsylvanians for Passenger Rail (WPPR)
Reading both articles also reveals a pretty inaccurate summary by skull as to the source of the $3.8M.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/governor-corbett-announces-steps-to-save-amtrak-service-to-pittsburgh-2013-03-21
Link to Market Watch blurb.
This plus the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette leads me to the following conclusions:
1. PA pays 3.8M. Original "cost" was 6.5M. Nobody knows where the difference comes from. Efficiencies? Fares? Federal subsidy? My guess is "all three", although I don't know if Amtrak is even allowed to help fund this train per PRIIA of 2008.
2. Bill Shuster was involved (surprise!). Perhaps Bill found a way to supply some "bacon" (thin strips of pork).
3. This is another example of Amtrak not finding a way to improve without being pushed from the outside. In this case, PRIIA of 2008.
4. I am glad this train will continue to operate.
Little known Pennsylvanian fact: When the train first started operating, the max speed for passenger trains between Pittsburgh and Harrisburg was 70 mph. In the late Conrail era into NS, there are now stretches of 79 mph. (Why 79 and not 80 mph? I don't know. It's all cab signalled.)
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
There is also an article in the Pittsburgh Post Gazette. Western Pennsylvania passenger rail advocates seem not to have totally failed in their efforts to keep the Pennsylvanian.
http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/news/transportation/corbett-announces-plan-to-maintain-amtrak-service-680308/
Good News! Amtrak and Pennsylvania Gov. Corbett have reached a deal on the Pennsylvanianian west onf Harrisburg. Amtrak has agreed to pick up 3.8 million of the expense and Corbett says the rest can fit in the states transportation budget. I've taken this train numerous times, and I'm glad it remains an option in the mid and western part of the Keystone State. The info was on the Market Watch web site. It seems very creditable.
CSSHEGEWISCH East-West service out of Memphis has never been anything more than marginal, even prior to 1965.
East-West service out of Memphis has never been anything more than marginal, even prior to 1965.
Had a thru pullman late 40 -50s. Now when NS GETS the Crescent corridor from Knoxville - Harrisburg complete ( 2030 ?) then that may become a high traffic intermodal.
Historically, the first connection between the Atlantic Ocean and the MIssissippi River was from Savannah to Memphis.
John WRI'm [sure] you know that without the New Orleans to Jacksonville part of the Sunset Limited to get to Florida from Memphis you would have to go by way of Chicago which is pretty roundabout.
I am so old-fashioned that I still think it's insane that they took off the Broadway. And to name the 'replacement' Chicago -well, sort of roundabout-to-New-York after a B&O train -- without good Southern-mammy-type cooking -- well, no.
I could also say something about the lack of east-west service ANYWHERE near Memphis, but the mods say this is a family board.
Problem is that the folks AREN'T riding the through trains enough to pay their way. Or we wouldn't be having the whole Pennsylvanian argument in the first place.
You are of course right about most of the 'pork barrel' or 'road/bridge to nowhere' projects, of which there are many. But there are other aspects of the Interstate system -- I-69, for example -- that should have a higher priority than anything involved with Amtrak, including the added cars for the Acela consists (and that's sayin' something!) Other additions, in particular some of the 2-lane 'Interstate Lite" routes with extensive truck traffic going through mountains -- of which 40/81 is a particularly glaring example -- are so sadly in need of a third lane (since truck-no-passing-zone enactment appears to be dead on arrival wherever I bring it up) and here again the bang for the megabuck is extraordinarily high by any greatest-good-for-the-greatest-number metric you can provide.
Problem with the LD trains is much the same as the problem with LD trains in the years after WWII -- to run even marginally increased service (measured in 'sailing days', not even hours) involves multiple trainsets with multiple cars if you are going to run them at a maximum 79 mph -- and the situation is not that miuch better at 110, or even 125 (at which point you go straight to HSR and the LD numbers fly impossibly out the window).
It's also like the unspoken stuff about the cheap TGV. If I had a full network of LGV costed down, and a full-on PTC system giving max track occupancy also costed down, and a whole passel of 'obsolescent' trains that are still among the best in the world, also costed down, and I had lots and lots of subsidized nuclear power to make the trick work, largely costed down and with minimal effective NIMBY crap and 'enlightened' views on effective reprocessing...
... well, I could offer one hell of a discount service, too, and lots asnd lots of people would ride it. (But to get all this for the LD network in the first place would be trillions; you could STILL buy every passenger a Volkswagen and free gas and still come out ahead.
RME
Bob,
It is true that if you drive your own car you can ignore train schedules and plane schedules and go and come as you please.
But the problems you cite -- lack of service to where you want to go -- are a self fulfilling prophecy. Amtrak runs so few trains that connecting schedules are almost always a problem. Therefore fewer trains are run and the problem gets worse. I'm you know that without the New Orleans to Jacksonville part of the Sunset Limited to get to Florida from Memphis you would have to go by way of Chicago which is pretty roundabout.
My point about all of the roads (which was perhaps not very clear) is that many or most are being built in rural areas where there is little demand for them and they already have other roads in those areas. But nobody ever questions money for all these redundant roads; only Amtrak is questioned.
John WRWhat strikes me is that we are building Interstate Highways hand over fist while Amtrak is being cut back.
That may be because they serve many many many more people and communities, at many many many more effective times of day, than any conceivable Amtrak service of comparable expense will ... outside of congested corridors where most of the 'new' roads aren't going directly.
C'mon, that's not rocket science to see, even before you run numbers.
Now, in a world like 1973 where nobody gets more than a couple of gallons every other day... no, still doesn't work.
I would love to take Amtrak from Memphis to my house in Florida, but:
25 miles to the station, and the only parking protection is that the police use some of the lot to park cruisers.
Train time is about 6:08 am. Don't ask about when it gets to New Orleans.
Some ungodly layover in New Orleans; not a bad thing; I could visit Blanche in the hospital or meander over for pralines, or find some good Dixieland -- but I was going to Florida...
Connecting train wobbles around via Flomaton. Doesn't go within 30 miles of my house -- stops about 2:25 in the morning; where do I get a car with all the baggage I've had to pay for? Taxicab ride? (Assuming I can find one at that hour willing to go to Grayton Beach, while the wife and kids sit on the platform) That all by itself would probably cost alone twice what I'd pay in cost to drive rthe whole way (I got 26-28mpg indicated at 80 mph with a 12-cyllinder BMW like a parlor car on wheels, on I-78 and I-65 which are by no means flat).
Now let me mention again: there's a wife and two kids inserted in this .. excursion. Sure, my son would enjoy a ride in a sleeper. There's another $200 or so. Each.
Driving is under 500 miles -- under 8 hours with happily-timed meal stops that have a wide variety of food, and trips to see local attractions like railroad museums if I want. Southern wife brings 400 lb of all sorts of frilly stuff, makeup lights, health blenders and juicers, etc. etc. etc. -- pack it in! Need to stop for provisions for the house? There's the Wal-Mart in DeFuniak Springs (in all fairness, I could get the cab to stop there if I detrained there, but sardines in a can likely expresses how everything would fit). And... did I mention I don't have to rent a car or leave a beater down there?
Of course this is all moot because Amtrak and CSX had some kind of problem after Katrina, and the train doesn't run anywhere near where I'd be going anyway.
Don't ask the cost if trains ran everywhere people need to go, on a schedule frequent enough to be convenient for them EVEN IF YOU DISREGARD CONNECTIONS.
Multiply this, in theory, by the number of people who also don't go where the train goes, when the train goes,with more than one person in the group.
Don't misunderstand: I like Amtrak, even though I'd probably not ride it much. Just don't go trying to imply it's anywhere near as convenient than good highways under most practical circumstances...
Fox2!A quick Google search shows that each of I-11 through I-88 is either in use or planned.
According to Wiki I-11 has its number written into the law. I-22 is unclear.
What strikes me is that we are building Interstate Highways hand over fist while Amtrak is being cut back.
John WRrepeating the same digit (as in I-99) is against Federal policy (except when it is written into the law),
A quick Google search shows that each of I-11 through I-88 is either in use or planned. I don't know if the enabling legislation actually specified the I number.
There are 3 Interstate Highways designated in Hawaii, 4 in Alaska, and 3 in Puerto Rico, which isn't even a state. Is Guam next?
DeggestyIsn't it kinda hard to call a highway in Hawaii an Interstate Highway?
Johnny,
Are the Hawaiian highways interstates? They are designated "H" rather than "I."
Fox2!Except for I-5 on the west coast (and H1 on the Big Island) aren't all Interstate numbers double digits?
Fox,
I made a wrong mistake. I should have said that repeating the same digit (as in I-99) is against Federal policy (except when it is written into the law), Of course many interstates have 2 digit numbers (for example, I-95).
There are interstates with 3 digit numbers. New Jersey has I-195 and I-295. Both are within the state. However it seems reasonable to me to call then interstates as they are part of the interstate system.
Forgot about I-4. Tampa (i-75) to Daytona (I-95)
But should a road that stays in one state really be called an Interstate?
Isn't it kinda hard to call a highway in Hawaii an Interstate Highway? Or, has a bridge been built to connect Hawaii with another state?
All of my maps are packed for my moving, so I cannot check, but look at a Florida highway map; I think that there is at least one Interstate Highway in Florida that has a single digit number.
Johnny
John WR Using double digits to number an interstate is against Federal policy
Except for I-5 on the west coast (and H1 on the Big Island) aren't all Interstate numbers double digits?
schlimm It makes a convincing case for doing a reform along the lines of what some of us are suggesting. Perhaps you read it differently?
According to Brookings routes of 400 miles or less have the greatest potential for profit if they are not already profitable. I see the report itself as an analysis rather than a political statement.
One point of the Brookings Institution Report is that intercity rail routes (400 miles or less) make a profit. Of course, that does not answer the issue anti Amtrak people raise. The profit itself is, to their mind, a reason why these routes should be auctioned off to the private sector.
John WRGee whiz, Schlimm, don't you trust me for anything? The numbers you refer to are not from Slate; they are from the Brookings Institute report.
i know. That's why I said "in the report the Slate article referred to" and why I read the Brookings report and posted some figures from it. It makes a convincing case for doing a reform along the lines of what some of us are suggesting. Perhaps you read it differently?
John WR Paul MilenkovicThe subsidy issue is very simple. Whereas all transportation modes receive subsidy in some form, direct or indirect, and at some level of funding, and yes, there are different ways of ascribing the level of subsidy, by whatever accounting you use, the Amtrak subsidy per passenger mile is multiple of everything else. The problem I have with the subsidy argument is that it is not at all clear that Amtrak gets more of a subsidy per passenger mile than anything else. There is information available of many kinds of subsidy for out road system. However, these subsidies are not a line item on a the Federal budget so they tend to get overlooked. Right now Virgina's Governor Bob McDonnell proposes to levy a special sales tax of 0.8 per cent to be dedicated to highway expenses. Can you even imagine a Federal value added tax to be dedicated to Amtrak?
Paul MilenkovicThe subsidy issue is very simple. Whereas all transportation modes receive subsidy in some form, direct or indirect, and at some level of funding, and yes, there are different ways of ascribing the level of subsidy, by whatever accounting you use, the Amtrak subsidy per passenger mile is multiple of everything else.
The problem I have with the subsidy argument is that it is not at all clear that Amtrak gets more of a subsidy per passenger mile than anything else. There is information available of many kinds of subsidy for out road system. However, these subsidies are not a line item on a the Federal budget so they tend to get overlooked.
Right now Virgina's Governor Bob McDonnell proposes to levy a special sales tax of 0.8 per cent to be dedicated to highway expenses. Can you even imagine a Federal value added tax to be dedicated to Amtrak?
If you limit the scope to intercity transportation, the subsidy level is easier to figure out...and Paul is correct.
My 2 mile trips to Kroger over roads paid for primarily with property tax and sales tax are not the ones Amtrak is competing for...
I would have to use those roads to get to the train station or the interstate highway, regardless.
schlimmIf you don't believe Paul's numbers, get an Amtrak report and do the math. you will see, as in the report the Slate article referred to, that Amtrak has a large operating loss, primarily from LD services. That loss is the operating subsidy. And that does not include infrastructure capital investment from the government (which i believe is a proper government role).
Gee whiz, Schlimm, don't you trust me for anything? The numbers you refer to are not from Slate; they are from the Brookings Institute report. And, with all due respect for Paul who may well have posted the numbers from that report, I posted those same numbers myself. And when I posted the losses I put them in Red Letters. So I hope we can agree at least on what the numbers are.
The WPPR website should be www.wpprrail.org.
That should be www.wpprrail.org.
Western Pennsylvanians for Passenger Rail (WPPR) is leading the effort to save the Pennsylvanian, and while there is still much work to do, it appears that the state is listening. WPPR's website (www.wpprrail,org) has links to numerous articles, news reports, editorials and interviews (most endorsing retention of the train) that show the issue is being well covered. Also, links to statements made by state representatives plus one showing a video of the recent exchange between the state House Transportation Committee and the Secretary of Transportation illustrate that support is steadily building in the legislature to fund the train. The many letters and calls to state officials have had a big, positive impact. It's very important that residents keep contacting their legislators.
You're doggone rfight I won't be one of the celebrants. I wish I were wrong and at a certain level hope someone does prove me wrong. There is an effort going on to try to save this train but I just don't thing the State is going to listen.
If you don't believe Paul's numbers, get an Amtrak report and do the math. you will see, as in the report the Slate article referred to, that Amtrak has a large operating loss, primarily from LD services. That loss is the operating subsidy. And that does not include infrastructure capital investment from the government (which i believe is a proper government role).
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.