The consensus I keep hearing from people is that corridors are what is important. In my view both corridors and long distance trains should be part of the plan. LD trains continue because they cross multiple states and thus many states want them. Federal funding for corridors is limited because it would only benefit a small number of states. In my view focus should be on both and effort towards a quantum leap system of some sorts should be done which in my view would get far more support.
Railroad to Freedom
If Amtrak was fast, frequent, and on time, in the areas it serves then other areas would desire the service.
One train a day is not useful transportation. 79 mph or even slower is too slow for distances much over 100 miles.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
Amtrak...or any passenger or freight railroad...should not be running trains but should be providing service.
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
ontheBNSF The consensus I keep hearing from people is that corridors are what is important. In my view both corridors and long distance trains should be part of the plan. LD trains continue because they cross multiple states and thus many states want them. Federal funding for corridors is limited because it would only benefit a small number of states. In my view focus should be on both and effort towards a quantum leap system of some sorts should be done which in my view would get far more support.
Oh, I get it! April Fools, right?!? May the 6th? Really?
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
oltmannd ontheBNSF The consensus I keep hearing from people is that corridors are what is important. In my view both corridors and long distance trains should be part of the plan. LD trains continue because they cross multiple states and thus many states want them. Federal funding for corridors is limited because it would only benefit a small number of states. In my view focus should be on both and effort towards a quantum leap system of some sorts should be done which in my view would get far more support. Oh, I get it! April Fools, right?!? May the 6th? Really?
What is so funny about what he said? It's an opinion; you can disagree with it if you want, but that's no cause to mock it.
1) LD trains that cross, and implicitly serve, multiple states are best Federally funded (and where necessary, subsidized from Federal-level funds). In part Congress has its authority for this under the commerce clause.
2) We have already seen that strictly-intrastate service -- corridor trains or otherwise -- is something that devolves on the state involved to finance, whether or not 'Amtrak' operates the trains, coordinates operation, etc. There is some implicit subsidy when Amtrak provides equipment to run those trains that has not been pro rata compensated by the state, or state revenues, but that is a matter to be dealt with between the state agencies and Amtrak, or 'fought out' between state and Federal politicians.
3) Corridor services, explicitly including the Northeast Corridor, that span multiple states can be disproportionately subsidized by the states that most benefit from them. What BNSF is saying is that there's a place for Federal 'development money' to subsidize massive capital improvement, or vastly expensive new spine construction, and research into new equipment design, and probably provision of "better" equipment and support.
I'll grant you that 'quantum leap system of some sorts' is a bit vague, but I think it's pretty clear in context what he means, and why it would justify some (perhaps major) Federal-level participation in upgrading a service that is nominally regional. It is fine to argue with that, as you already have done in other places. Perhaps it would be ultimately unworkable, politically or equitably. But ...
Argue the points, on the facts (even if you're having to do it all over again for the nth time, and you more than suspect the party in question is not completely listening). Don't just do that birth-certificate thing and wave your hands, call it stupid, and expect that will prove your opinion is correct.
A quantum leap solution would be a nationwide Maglev or a nationwide rail system. In my view the government could spend R&D money towards maglev tech and gradually implement it. The R&D could be done by the military since it has defense value.
OvermodWhat is so funny about what he said? It's an opinion; you can disagree with it if you want, but that's no cause to mock it.
You have to consider his body of work as a whole.
OvermodWhat BNSF is saying is that there's a place for Federal 'development money' to subsidize massive capital improvement, or vastly expensive new spine construction, and research into new equipment design, and probably provision of "better" equipment and support.
That's not what he's saying. Read some of the older threads of his. I've "butted" and rebutted again and again. There is no two-way communication. His world view of passenger trains remains unswayed by facts.
oltmannd OvermodWhat BNSF is saying is that there's a place for Federal 'development money' to subsidize massive capital improvement, or vastly expensive new spine construction, and research into new equipment design, and probably provision of "better" equipment and support. That's not what he's saying. Read some of the older threads of his. I've "butted" and rebutted again and again. There is no two-way communication. His world view of passenger trains remains unswayed by facts.
That is what I am saying.
OvermodArgue the points, on the facts (even if you're having to do it all over again for the nth time, and you more than suspect the party in question is not completely listening). Don't just do that birth-certificate thing and wave your hands, call it stupid, and expect that will prove your opinion is correct.
Well, since I've tried the "argue on points" approach more than a few times, even to the point of asking simple questions to try to start a discussion based on his statements, I decided to try cage rattling. I doubt it will work any better.
You'll get no objection from me regarding much of his previous 'body of work', even before we get into the definition of borderline trolling.
But it is possible that he has in fact learned something, or at least thought about some of what has been discussed.
I am sure he will cheerfully come in and 'rebut' my interpretation if it is wrong. And that, if his explanation is wack, you can then deliver the April Fool's comment directly to the point(s) he makes, or fails in. I think the issue for me, in this particular circumstance, is that a pre-emptive attack, regardless of how often BNSF may have tried to cause issues, is not a particularly good approach itself. (Or, in other words, wait for the actual sin before castigating the sinner... ;-} )
Overmod You'll get no objection from me regarding much of his previous 'body of work', even before we get into the definition of borderline trolling. But it is possible that he has in fact learned something, or at least thought about some of what has been discussed. I am sure he will cheerfully come in and 'rebut' my interpretation if it is wrong. And that, if his explanation is wack, you can then deliver the April Fool's comment directly to the point(s) he makes, or fails in. I think the issue for me, in this particular circumstance, is that a pre-emptive attack, regardless of how often BNSF may have tried to cause issues, is not a particularly good approach itself. (Or, in other words, wait for the actual sin before castigating the sinner... ;-} )
oltmannd just doesn't like me. I was simply pointing out that the Acela doesn't make money and that the costs of LD trains are exaggerated. The Acela really doesn't make money contrary to the talking points. Can you blame me for using that Info it did come from trains magazine so I thought it was reliable.
ontheBNSFIn my view focus should be on both and effort towards a quantum leap system of some sorts should be done which in my view would get far more support.
It looks to me like Amtrak shares your view. Historically Amtrak has maintained both corridor trains and long distance trains. Today, of course, current legislation burdens states with the obligation to maintain there own corridor trains. I suspect some states will shoulder the burden and other states will not. We'll have to see how it works out.
John WR ontheBNSFIn my view focus should be on both and effort towards a quantum leap system of some sorts should be done which in my view would get far more support. It looks to me like Amtrak shares your view. Historically Amtrak has maintained both corridor trains and long distance trains. Today, of course, current legislation burdens states with the obligation to maintain there own corridor trains. I suspect some states will shoulder the burden and other states will not. We'll have to see how it works out.
Can you how Amtrak supports the assertion that a "quantum leap" for LD routes is needed? I hear Amtrak say "The western LD routes are staying. Now, lets talk about the NEC!" That's support for a status quo for LD trains. Not a call for new investment.
What did I miss?
I was talking about the "dual focus" part of the post rather than the "quantum leap" part.
ontheBNSFA quantum leap solution would be a nationwide Maglev or a nationwide rail system. In my view the government could spend R&D money towards maglev tech and gradually implement it. The R&D could be done by the military since it has defense value.
More evidence of the quality body of work in question. Perhaps the best approach is to not respond directly to such posts (if at all), since responding only reinforces the behavior.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
schlimm ontheBNSFA quantum leap solution would be a nationwide Maglev or a nationwide rail system. In my view the government could spend R&D money towards maglev tech and gradually implement it. The R&D could be done by the military since it has defense value. More evidence of the quality body of work in question. Perhaps the best approach is to not respond directly to such posts (if at all), since responding only reinforces the behavior.
Well, I made myself laugh. I would have laughed just at the thought, though. No more "bait and switch" for me...(trolling for trolls?)
oltmannd schlimm ontheBNSFA quantum leap solution would be a nationwide Maglev or a nationwide rail system. In my view the government could spend R&D money towards maglev tech and gradually implement it. The R&D could be done by the military since it has defense value. More evidence of the quality body of work in question. Perhaps the best approach is to not respond directly to such posts (if at all), since responding only reinforces the behavior. Well, I made myself laugh. I would have laughed just at the thought, though. No more "bait and switch" for me...(trolling for trolls?)
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Murphy Siding oltmannd schlimm ontheBNSFA quantum leap solution would be a nationwide Maglev or a nationwide rail system. In my view the government could spend R&D money towards maglev tech and gradually implement it. The R&D could be done by the military since it has defense value. More evidence of the quality body of work in question. Perhaps the best approach is to not respond directly to such posts (if at all), since responding only reinforces the behavior. Well, I made myself laugh. I would have laughed just at the thought, though. No more "bait and switch" for me...(trolling for trolls?) But how can you be sure we're talking trolls, and not ogres? I mean, as has been pointed out on other threads (and in poems) there is a difference. Maybe the difference is that ogres aren't given as much free reign on the forum?
Funny, Murphy, I was thinking some ogres are given much more free rein [the origin of the term relates to horses] or even carte blanche!!
I tried to follow this thread and got thoroughly confused. On the west coast we suffer severely from such a total lack of Amtrak services, both statewide and interstate. The Coast Starlite has only two trainsets and takes forever at its limp along speed and long delays. Since there is only one northbound and one southbound train each day, it is too infrequent to connect major metropolitan areas conveniently. It also passes through some of the most scenic countryside only in the dark of night. And to have to board a train at 2:30 am in a dark and unstaffed station is just asking for trouble. The same is true of the California Zephyr, only two trainsets (and no spares) connecting Oakland with Chicago. The overnight facilities are expensive and inadequate for all but the hardiest travellers and constant breakdowns in equipment as well as delays discourage anyone from depending on it as a mode of interstate travel. We can do much better if only we would try.
Whether one believes that the long distance trains, or Amtrak for that matter, are in the national interest or are a waste of money, the long distance trains, as well as Amtrak, probably will be with us for a long time.
In FY10 Amtrak's comprehensive losses averaged $15.50 per federal income tax payer - a person who filed a federal income tax return and paid some federal income tax. The losses on the long distance trains were $7.64 per taxpayer. This analysis assumes that all federal revenues are derived from income taxes, which of course is not correct.
Advocates for special interests - those of us who love trains are special interests - figured out a long time ago that the way to raid the federal treasury is to take just a little from everyone. Thus, although Amtrak loses more than a billion dollars per year, for the typical American median family income taxpayer, whose average federal income tax bill in 2010 was $4,828, the Amtrak subsidies don't even register on their tax radar scope.
Perhaps we should provide for conscientious objector status when it comes to paying taxes. People could provide that they do not want their tax money to be used for programs they oppose. It would not change the total amount due; only how the money could be used.
I personally wish I could object to my money being used for space research which I regard as welfare for highly educated people. But I can't do that. Nor can Amtrak objectors.
dmikee (snip) The same is true of the California Zephyr, only two trainsets (and no spares) connecting Oakland with Chicago. The overnight facilities are expensive and inadequate for all but the hardiest travellers and constant breakdowns in equipment as well as delays discourage anyone from depending on it as a mode of interstate travel. We can do much better if only we would try.
(snip)
The same is true of the California Zephyr, only two trainsets (and no spares) connecting Oakland with Chicago. The overnight facilities are expensive and inadequate for all but the hardiest travellers and constant breakdowns in equipment as well as delays discourage anyone from depending on it as a mode of interstate travel. We can do much better if only we would try.
That is not true of the Zephyr. Right now (early in the morning) there is a westbound and an eastbound trainset In Nebraska and two more sets in the Utah/Nevada area. In addition, because the next westbound will leave Chicago before the eastbound arrives, a 5th set may be overnighting in Chicago.
dmikeeThe Coast Starlite
dmikeepasses through some of the most scenic countryside only in the dark of nigh
Why do you think this is? (hint: go here and compare to today) Who rode the train in 1950? Who rides now? Why has nothing changed?
The schedule of the "Coast Starlight" north of the Bay Area covers the schedule of the "Cascade", which I believe was the only schedule on the line just prior to May 1, 1971. Amtrak cobbled together a through Seattle-San Diego schedule on Day One based primarily on the "Cascade" and "Coast Daylight" with add-ons north of Portland and south of Los Angeles.
CSSHEGEWISCH The schedule of the "Coast Starlight" north of the Bay Area covers the schedule of the "Cascade", which I believe was the only schedule on the line just prior to May 1, 1971. Amtrak cobbled together a through Seattle-San Diego schedule on Day One based primarily on the "Cascade" and "Coast Daylight" with add-ons north of Portland and south of Los Angeles.
Dang. Picked the wrong one. Try this one...
The questions still stand!
dmikee I tried to follow this thread and got thoroughly confused. On the west coast we suffer severely from such a total lack of Amtrak services, both statewide and interstate. The Coast Starlite has only two trainsets and takes forever at its limp along speed and long delays. Since there is only one northbound and one southbound train each day, it is too infrequent to connect major metropolitan areas conveniently. It also passes through some of the most scenic countryside only in the dark of night. And to have to board a train at 2:30 am in a dark and unstaffed station is just asking for trouble. The same is true of the California Zephyr, only two trainsets (and no spares) connecting Oakland with Chicago. The overnight facilities are expensive and inadequate for all but the hardiest travellers and constant breakdowns in equipment as well as delays discourage anyone from depending on it as a mode of interstate travel. We can do much better if only we would try.
I agree that boarding in the early hours of the morning (3:00 am when I go east; the station is staffed) is inconvenient.
On my last trip, riding only two trains each way, we arrived a few minutes early at each station where we detrained--amazing!
Johnny
John WR Perhaps we should provide for conscientious objector status when it comes to paying taxes. People could provide that they do not want their tax money to be used for programs they oppose. It would not change the total amount due; only how the money could be used. I personally wish I could object to my money being used for space research which I regard as welfare for highly educated people. But I can't do that. Nor can Amtrak objectors.
Brilliant! I love your remark about conscientious objector status. We have such a thing, it is called a market economy or "the free market." If you don't want a thing, don't pay for it.
Some while back, I suggested to a colleague in the local bricks-and-morter advocacy group that NASA is "Amtrak in space" and that to advance our cause, we would do well to learn how their advocacy and lobbying operations functions. I got an earful that "NASA is nothing like Amtrak" and that NASA got 13 times as much money as Amtrak because right-wing Congressman Tom DeLay was against the gummint except when the money came to his district.
Well guess what, people, that's how things how the gummint gets 'er done.
But just as you as a reasoning person think the NASA budget is corporate and aerospace engineer welfare, do you suppose that a reasoning person who does not have the connection to trains you have living in the Northeast thinks the same way about Amtrak? That is, you know yourself, that you are not a bad person and that you are not evil for disrespecting NASA, do you think for a minute or even for a second that a reasoning well meaning person who does not have cloven hoofed feet like, say, Representative Mica, might have reasoned objections to Amtrak?
Let's turn this around. Suppose as a passenger train advocate, you happen to know all of the reasons why we should fund Amtrak that other people "simply don't get" -- pollution and peak oil and congestion and auto highway deaths and accomodating people whose religion, old or young age or health don't allow them to drive or ride airplanes. Suppose that you as not a space exploration enthusiast "don't get" what NASA is all about, corporate welfare for aerospace, but maybe a way of keeping a technical aerospace capability in the civilian sector so it isn't spent on the military? That is insurance in case we need to rearm for an "existential threat" as what happened before WW-II?
Let's take this further. Maybe your remark about "conscientious objector status" was a way of reminding us that we collectively seek certain aims through government, that you favor Amtrak but not NASA and someone else favors NASA and not Amtrak, but we vote on our government and accept the outcome of elections, of legislation, and of court decisions and have some NASA funding, more than you want but less than some space advocates, some Amtrak funding, less than what you want, but more than some anti-train people want, but as a people we accept this outcome?
Or are you saying that you are smart and the pro-NASA people are stupid, and that the government should fund Amtrak but there is no reason on Earth to fund NASA, and why are people so dense as to not see things my way?
What I am saying, and I have been saying this over and over again around here that I am getting to be annoying, "If you live by the sword, you die by the sword." If passenger rail is something that requires government assistance, it becomes part of the political process and not simply a player in the broader market economy. As such, it competes not in the free market but in the "political market" with, yes, the gobnormous money spent on Defense, the even more gobnormous money spent on old-age pensions and health care, and yes, with NASA.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
You raise many issues, Paul, and to answer all of them would, I think, make any reader weary. But let me try to address one.
I agree that we subsidize Amtrak and that every person who rides Amtrak (except, perhaps, Acela passengers who seem to pay their own way) benefits from that subsidy.
And I do not see people who oppose Amtrak as necessarily being in bad faith. In government I see them as the loyal opposition. In the United States people have differing views about everything I can think of; I don't see that Amtrak is any exception to this. However, as I type this post the majority opinion is that we should continue to fund Amtrak. That is where the majority has been since 1970 and that's where it is today but I am not sure that majority will continue. If the majority opinion on the issue changes we will loose Amtrak; if that happened I could live with it but I would prefer not to.
I would never question the good faith of those who oppose Amtrak unless there were a substantial reason to. However, I do think Congressman Mica's "Holy Jihad" statement is a substantial reason.
John
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.