daveklepperWhen you start lookiing at subsidy per citizen customer instead of passenger miles, the political justification of LD trains makes sense.
Well, then...
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Witty retorts are standard equipment, biting sarcasm a small extra charge.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Boardman said... But because Amtrak is not a policy-planning or a funding agency, he reiterated, only Congress or individual states can provide the funds and the programs to create a larger, busier passenger-train network.
http://ccrail.com/amtrak-ceo-tells-chicago-audience-long-distance-trains-vital-but-union-station-needs-plans-funding-to-handle-more-trains-and-passengers/
Yes, they plan but the role is not transportation policy planning as I take it.
Oltmond, it is any college student, any disabled veteran who gets to see his family, any elderly who still hs some mobility, not just memememememe who wants to use Amtrak long distance, and Amtrak LD benefits not only the specific disabled veteran but his relations who get to see him as well.
But of course all corridor and transit subsidization, buses, streetcars, light rail, metro, elevateds, monorals, ferry boats, commuter trains, inclines, absolutely necessary to make the cities function, is simply a generalization, available to the population in general and not just you, of exactly what you are asking for!
So you may be very very clever with your sarcasim, but the sarcasim itself is dumb..
daveklepper Oltmond, it is any college student, any disabled veteran who gets to see his family, any elderly who still hs some mobility, not just memememememe who wants to use Amtrak long distance, and Amtrak LD benefits not only the specific disabled veteran but his relations who get to see him as well. But of course all corridor and transit subsidization, buses, streetcars, light rail, metro, elevateds, monorals, ferry boats, commuter trains, inclines, absolutely necessary to make the cities function, is simply a generalization, available to the population in general and not just you, of exactly what you are asking for! So you may be very very clever with your sarcasim, but the sarcasim itself is dumb..
Rats! Nobody wants to take me up on my offer.
I'd like to see the LD trains continue, but I think we are fooling ourselves if we keep trotting out the same old arguments that are, at best weak and at worst, fallacious.
You are arguing from the "common good" and "social justice" point of view, saying that since access to LD trains that only costs a few dollars per capita, it's worth it.
I'd argue both points of view are weak. LD trains are a very weak "common good". The problem is that Amtrak LD train service isn't available to the population in general. It's only available to a small slice of the population that is "privileged" to be living along the historic routes. For example, what makes the people in southern Kansas more "worthy" than the people in South Dakota or most of Idaho?
As for "social justice", I think that's a worthy goal, but if providing a basic intercity transportation option to those who can't drive or fly is the goal, I suspect there are much more effective ways to employ our tax dollars that would serve more people going more places. (Coach day trains and buses come to mind)
The real bottom line on the LD trains is, if "the people" want them, we get them. So far, so good. But, as the budget deficit becomes a bigger and stinkier "dead elephant in the living room". I'd prefer to have LD trains on a more solid footing. I have no delusions that about profitability, but there is a lot of room for improvement. If Amtrak isn't interested in figuring things out on their own, then we need to push them!
I see that Amtrak has a new position that oversees the LD trains. Each route will then have a route manager reporting to him. He reports to the VP of operations. This is a hopeful sign.
schlimm Witty retorts are standard equipment, biting sarcasm a small extra charge.
I get really tired of the same old lies we tell ourselves over and over to attempt to justify the LD train status quo.
When these justifications get rejected because they are, in fact, weak and/or empty, we will always have righteous indignation to fall back on -- but the trains will be gone.
daveklepper So you may be very very clever with your sarcasim, but the sarcasim itself is dumb..
There is a man who had a career as a writer and an entertainer specializing in political satire (the "Al Franken Decade", which was a scheme much like the one Don Oltmann is proposing, and Why Not Me, a fictional account of this same man getting elected President of the United States who effects needed reforms, that is, until his personal mental health "issues" come to the fore), who was elected to the United State Senate and contributed to passenger trains by getting the 8 billion in ARRA money (or maybe he didn't -- his election almost 6 years ago was a "close thing" and it took a while to get past the challenges and get him seated).
So sarcasm has its place.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
V.Payne Boardman said... But because Amtrak is not a policy-planning or a funding agency, he reiterated, only Congress or individual states can provide the funds and the programs to create a larger, busier passenger-train network. http://ccrail.com/amtrak-ceo-tells-chicago-audience-long-distance-trains-vital-but-union-station-needs-plans-funding-to-handle-more-trains-and-passengers/ Yes, they plan but the role is not transportation policy planning as I take it.
"Amtrak has contended they are not a planning organization." This comment is distinctly different from not being a policy-planning or funding agency.
In the aforementioned context, airlines, bus companies, barge lines, etc. are not engaged in transportation policy planning. Nor should they be. However, they along with Amtrak can and probably do have a say at the table where transportation policy planning takes place.
oltmannd Sam1Their role is to plan train and connecting bus service. The development of the Thruway bus system, with the latest flowering being in North Carolina, suggests Amtrak has some notion of planning beyond the rails. California blazed this trail and NC followed in their footsteps. However, it was not Amtrak the pushed this. It was the states themselves.
Sam1Their role is to plan train and connecting bus service. The development of the Thruway bus system, with the latest flowering being in North Carolina, suggests Amtrak has some notion of planning beyond the rails.
California blazed this trail and NC followed in their footsteps. However, it was not Amtrak the pushed this. It was the states themselves.
Unless one was at the executive table when the idea of using Thruway bus service to expand the reach of California Amtrak's trains was birthed or has access to the minutes or one or more of the persons present, it is impossible to know who initiated the idea.
Especially when dealing with the regulators, but vendors as well, our company planted an idea in their minds so as to cause them to believe that it was their idea. People are more likely to take ownership of an idea if they believe that they originated it. Also, in many instances, a concept is born and developed from multiple inputs, each building on what the previous person said. At the end of the day it is nearly impossible to say who originated the idea.
Sam1Unless one was at the executive table when the idea of using Thruway bus service to expand the reach of California Amtrak's trains was birthed or has access to the minutes or one or more of the persons present, it is impossible to know who initiated the idea.
No, it is possible. There is a quasi-independent version of Amtrak called "Amtrak California" that calls the shots - and funds - the California Amtrak service. It was there that the integrated feeder bus network was created. Up until then, Amtrak Thruway bus service was just a few routes, here and there.
http://www.amtrakcalifornia.com/index.cfm/about-amtrak-california/
"These two California train routes (San Joaquin and Surfliner) and numerous Thruway bus routes, collectively referred to as Amtrak California, are funded and managed by Caltrans, but operated by Amtrak in addition to Amtrak's own interstate trains - the Coast Starlight®, California Zephyr®, Southwest Chief®, and Sunset Limited®. "
A very similar thing is going on in NC. The NC DOT is deeply involved in their service.
Amtrak is pretty much just the contract operator in both cases.
Similar here. The upgrade of CHI-STL to 110 mph and other projects in Illinois were initiated by IDOT, not Amtrak. You want real passenger services initiated (outside of the NEC)? Look to the states or maybe some state partnerships with private corporations, not to the broken reed otherwise known as Amtrak.And to take it one step further, finding other contracters to operate these services may be next. Amtrak's locked in, high labor costs (higher apparently than for similar job descritions outside Amtrak) likely make operating costs higher than they need to be.
daveklepper it is any college student, any disabled veteran who gets to see his family, any elderly who still hs some mobility, not just memememememe who wants to use Amtrak long distance, and Amtrak LD benefits not only the specific disabled veteran but his relations who get to see him as well.
it is any college student, any disabled veteran who gets to see his family, any elderly who still hs some mobility, not just memememememe who wants to use Amtrak long distance, and Amtrak LD benefits not only the specific disabled veteran but his relations who get to see him as well.
Talk about niche marketing!!
oltmannd Sam1Unless one was at the executive table when the idea of using Thruway bus service to expand the reach of California Amtrak's trains was birthed or has access to the minutes or one or more of the persons present, it is impossible to know who initiated the idea. No, it is possible. There is a quasi-independent version of Amtrak called "Amtrak California" that calls the shots - and funds - the California Amtrak service. It was there that the integrated feeder bus network was created. Up until then, Amtrak Thruway bus service was just a few routes, here and there. http://www.amtrakcalifornia.com/index.cfm/about-amtrak-california/ "These two California train routes (San Joaquin and Surfliner) and numerous Thruway bus routes, collectively referred to as Amtrak California, are funded and managed by Caltrans, but operated by Amtrak in addition to Amtrak's own interstate trains - the Coast Starlight®, California Zephyr®, Southwest Chief®, and Sunset Limited®. " A very similar thing is going on in NC. The NC DOT is deeply involved in their service. Amtrak is pretty much just the contract operator in both cases.
There is nothing in the referenced document that tells us who initiated the idea for Thruway buses to extend Amtrak California. Or who initiated the idea for state supported trains. It may have been the state DOT, or Amtrak, or a combination thereof. That's my point.
Unless one is a fly on the wall when the executive decision makers (federal, state, Amtrak, etc.) decide, or has access to meeting minutes or one of the participants, one does not know for sure who put forth the idea. It could have been the state, Amtrak, a consultant(s) and some little green men who acted simultaneously.
I am not a fan of Amtrak. Monopolies are not very efficient. And government monopolies are even less so. I would privatize it in a minute. But that does not mean Amtrak has not had some good ideas from time to time.
"In addition to Amtrak California, the Caltrans Division of Rail (DOR) manages and coordinates intercity passenger rail services in an effort to improve the state’s air quality and reduce highway congestion and fuel consumption.
The DOR performs long-range planning, coordinates with Amtrak on operations issues, administers the state rail program marketing contract, and procures and manages the rehabilitation of equipment. The DOR also works with local agencies to manage the capital program for projects on the San Joaquin, Pacific Surfliner and Capitol Corridor routes which includes track and signal projects resulting in increased train frequencies, reduced travel times and improved on-time performance."
It does not explicitly state that DOR initiated the buses or the three California state-funded routes. However, knowing the state-funded prcedures, it is hardly a quantum leap to infer that the ideas did NOT originate with Amtrak in DC. None of the state-funded routes did/do/will.
http://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/298/423/Corridor-Trains-2011-Final.pdf
Intelligent sarcasim may have its place. The pollitical reality is that for the Feds to subsidize the transportation that makes cities function, the rest of the USA does want something in return. I think this is fair. Others may not. But it is the political reality, and thus the LD trains continue.
Average American: considers Amtrak LD (if he thinks about it at all), as something nice to have around just in case he might possibly need or want to use it, and worth the three bucks a year for that reason.
Freight railroader: If Amtrak went away, my job would be easier.
Many railfans on this forum: Just as much car nuts as railfans. Only photograph, discuss, and read trains, but USE the car.
I am at a loss to understand the 7 minute transfer comments in a US context, where arrivals into major terminals have 30 minutes or more of schedule pad and connections are made only once or twice a day. Yes, I agree a short transfer system would be great to serve all destinations. The ICE and regional network is a marvel to behold when I have used it. However, as one poster mentioned, there are also less frequent through schedules provided on the ICE network where no transfer is required, but transfers to branching or crossing services are possible. My observation is that these through schedules are provided at peaks of demand and better serve the needs of the consumer. There is a balancing point, but you arrive at that point by factoring in a travelers perception of time.
But in the US we would need to increase our trainmiles by a factor of 2 (NEC) to 20 (LD) to just roughly approximate the ICE network on the routes we have. A realistic near term goal is two to three frequencies a day per direction in the rest of the USA, implemented in a way that the consumer will find the most value at the lowest cost and hence contribute the most through fares.
I’ll stand by my original statements.
Amtrak is not a policy-planning (planning) organization, per their own admission (see above Boardman speech link) and actions. Consider the PRIIA reports, there is no reference to adding capacity to existing schedules beyond a car or two (mostly by rearranging) or even increasing the frequency of the routes. There is no articulation of a declining Long-Term Variable cost curve. This would seem to be a massively important point to make. Now there is also a viewpoint in Congress, evidenced in questioning, that they should not be advocating for expansion, which gets back to the mission statement differences in the FAA and FRA within the USDOT.
As to corridor planning, I have seen the “corridor end point” effect in both US freight and passenger rail planning. Typically the study bounds of the corridor are set based on the limits of perceived highway congestion. Rail is studied as a band-aid to that corridor segment only, with no consideration of improving the feeding flows into that corridor.
The current “freight” planning from MAP 21 is only being done for highway freight only. My sense of it is this is what the consultants are equipped to study based on the kick-off meetings I have attended. To the consultant’s I have observed, the railroad is a black box and to a degree the Investor held railroads want it that way for pricing reasons.
The current “passenger” corridor planning is best illustrated by the SunRail commuter route in Florida. From what I can tell this project was initiated along with the I-4 corridor upgrades, and roughly follows that corridor’s endpoints. But it ignores rail passengers feeding from beyond the bounds of the defined corridor such as the Silver Service trains or possible longer distance commuters. Logically, longer distance commuters would be more inclined to use a rail service compared to say those using the Interstate for three exits. For reference, the I-4 project will use tolls on some managed lanes, tolled at a rate to keep them free flowing, to recover very little of the total capital cost with the rest coming from the “trust fund” slush being propped up by Federal General funds.
This destructive thought, that rail is only an alternative to congestion, is a highway planning driven concept. It was first fully expressed in the 1961 Highway Cost Allocation report, though not proven, repeated by Volpe, though he seemed to be doing his best given the times. It sweeps under the rug the financial cost recovery of highways but demands that rail not be expanded unless it “pays its way”, even though the current long distance network is operating within a cent or so of the Interstate financial cross-subsidy per vehicle mile. It is a check the box notion that “alternatives” have been deployed like decoy flares, once a 8-lane interstate becomes a public nuisance. But rail is only allowable within the area where the impacts are the highest. In other words rail exists in that case to serve the needs of a highway expansion project, not the consumer needs of passengers.
The defined corridor study method gets correct roadway modeling results, as a network exists to feed the end of the corridor. But a provision needs to be made for ongoing travel if a corridor train is proposed here in the US. One way to do so is to extent select frequencies to longer distances on existing moderately upgraded lines, but do heavy infrastructure improvements only on the heavily used route segments. This is the VA model to a degree.
This limitation in current policy is one of the things I try to communicate when I write about an underlying cross-subsidy to the complete intercity Interstate network, by leverage from the broad gas excise tax and Federal medical sending. It must be understood and accounted for in financial models or serious errors result. The LD rail network is a partially implemented option, serving a variation of the consumer travel demand seen on the Interstate network, in a complementary way. However there are a lot of holes missing and too few daily frequencies.
Many good arguments on all sides. What has not been looked at is the long term capacity problems of the various freight RRs. There are several government reports that have mentioned the possible demand for freight service.by 2040. Most of us realize that capacity is now constrained by the lack of speedy double tracks for the freights. Mainly they need to get rid of the slow sectons. Maybe 100 % tax credits for those routes that meet certain speed allowances. Credits would be allowed only if unlimited no trackage charge for passenger trains is allowed. Big reduction in operating costs especially those routes that will support more than one frequency a day.
For the freight RRs to meet all the possible 2040 demand a double track system for say ( 16 ? ) trains or more a day will be a requirement. LD trains might not be able to exceed the average speed of intrmodals ( 60 -- 70 MPH ) but certainly could travel 80 -- 90 betwen stations to keep the 60 - 70 speeds of non stop intermodals. Second track certanly allows for free flow of passenger and freight trains whenever any section between CPs needs regular maintenance. My just past trip on UP from Tucson -- El Passo was almost all 79 MPH running except those few final miles into ELP. Our average speed from TUS -- new yard was about 72.
As well certain routes with fewer trains might need the same treatment to provide alternate routes whenever there is a track disruption on another route. IMHO the RRs ( pas & frt ) need to be able to provide the service that is demanded of themselves.
Sam1Unless one is a fly on the wall when the executive decision makers (federal, state, Amtrak, etc.) decide, or has access to meeting minutes or one of the participants, one does not know for sure who put forth the idea. It could have been the state, Amtrak, a consultant(s) and some little green men who acted simultaneously.
Or, you can go back an read the new articles before, during and after Amtrak-California came to be and see who was leading the effort. It's pretty plain it wasn't Amtrak.
daveklepperAverage American: considers Amtrak LD (if he thinks about it at all), as something nice to have around just in case he might possibly need or want to use it, and worth the three bucks a year for that reason.
Pretty fair statement. I'd go a bit further and say that most Americans outside the Northeast, Chicago and West Coast never think about Amtrak trains. My estimate is that less than 25% of my neighbors know that Atlanta has train service - and most of them are because I told them!
He also has no idea what those Amtrak trains cost to keep running. Ignorance is bliss. I ride a commuter express bus everyday. It cost $5 to go 25 miles. Farebox recovery is around 33% for the service. They recently raised the fares from $4 to $5. Many riders were indignant. They didn't understand how the buses weren't turning a profit at the $4 fare! They had no clue about the level of subsidy.
daveklepperFreight railroader: If Amtrak went away, my job would be easier.
Very fair statement. Amtrak is viewed as a political necessity. You have to play nice with Amtrak to help win a favorable view from the Feds.
daveklepperMany railfans on this forum: Just as much car nuts as railfans. Only photograph, discuss, and read trains, but USE the car.
Railfans are not much different from "Avg Americans". Nearly all travel is by car - particularly for suburban and rural Americans.
oltmannd Sam1Unless one is a fly on the wall when the executive decision makers (federal, state, Amtrak, etc.) decide, or has access to meeting minutes or one of the participants, one does not know for sure who put forth the idea. It could have been the state, Amtrak, a consultant(s) and some little green men who acted simultaneously. Or, you can go back an read the new articles before, during and after Amtrak-California came to be and see who was leading the effort. It's pretty plain it wasn't Amtrak.
Assumes the news media had inside information regarding discussions. The media thought that they knew a lot about the electric utility business in Texas and our company in particular. In fact they did not have a clue re: the inner workings of the company and its relationship to outside parties. They only knew what we wanted them to know.
Do you have any references for the news media articles?
Sam1 oltmannd Sam1Unless one is a fly on the wall when the executive decision makers (federal, state, Amtrak, etc.) decide, or has access to meeting minutes or one of the participants, one does not know for sure who put forth the idea. It could have been the state, Amtrak, a consultant(s) and some little green men who acted simultaneously. Or, you can go back an read the new articles before, during and after Amtrak-California came to be and see who was leading the effort. It's pretty plain it wasn't Amtrak. Assumes the news media had inside information regarding discussions. The media thought that they knew a lot about the electric utility business in Texas and our company in particular. In fact they did not have a clue re: the inner workings of the company and the its relationship to outside parties. They only knew what we wanted them to know. Do you have any references for the news media articles?
Assumes the news media had inside information regarding discussions. The media thought that they knew a lot about the electric utility business in Texas and our company in particular. In fact they did not have a clue re: the inner workings of the company and the its relationship to outside parties. They only knew what we wanted them to know.
No. It was quite a while ago all of this got rolling. I remember reading about it at the time. There was a pretty good Trains mag article about Amtrak California about a decade ago that had some interview material with the person in charge of figuring out the Thruway routes.
Oltmannd, I am glad we agree completely on the facts. What is fair or not fair is a matter of opinion.
I just happen to like the long-distance trains, Rose many of them in my younger days all over the US with my parents, pre-Amtrak. So I grew up being used to long rides, and with Dad having a pass, many times we had a slower schedule or connections in the middle of the night. But it was all well-coordinated and we didn't care, we were riding a train and for free too.
We saw many parts of the country that we would have never seen from a plane, and it's still that way with Amtrak. I am not a big fan of flying any longer, too much hassle and commotion. And since TWA went under, it has not been the same.
So I hope Amtrak is able to keep long distance service going.
daveklepper Oltmannd, I am glad we agree completely on the facts. What is fair or not fair is a matter of opinion.
Sunnyland I just happen to like the long-distance trains, Rose many of them in my younger days all over the US with my parents, pre-Amtrak. So I grew up being used to long rides, and with Dad having a pass, many times we had a slower schedule or connections in the middle of the night. But it was all well-coordinated and we didn't care, we were riding a train and for free too. We saw many parts of the country that we would have never seen from a plane, and it's still that way with Amtrak. I am not a big fan of flying any longer, too much hassle and commotion. And since TWA went under, it has not been the same. So I hope Amtrak is able to keep long distance service going.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.