Wall Street Journal
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-jP4vh3z_A
Victrola1 Wall Street Journal "Published on Jul 16, 2019 SUBSCRIBE 1.5M Amtrak’s proposals for altering or eliminating some of its long-distance train routes, in favor of more frequent service where the population is growing, is facing opposition among those who fear rural America would suffer. WSJ’s Jason Bellini reports." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-jP4vh3z_A
The mission should be to serve the most people possible given limited resources. If rural towns that are a ghost of what they were want LD train service, let them actually pay for the above wheel costs.
The American people, if not the previous poster, do not expecdt the elderly and handicaipped to pay for the facilities they require in public accomodation places and venues.
Long-distance trains serve a number of purposes, and the American economy would suffer if they were removed. But the primary purpose is to serve the specific elderly and handicapped who cannot fly.
daveklepperthe primary purpose is to serve the specific elderly and handicapped who cannot fly.
In which Amtrak-related legislation or organizational mission statement has it ever said anything remotely like that?
daveklepper But the primary purpose is to serve the specific elderly and handicapped who cannot fly.
But the primary purpose is to serve the specific elderly and handicapped who cannot fly.
Amtrak's mission statement, to provide transportation, does Not specify all its potential markets. It does not specifiy for able-bodied only, for long-distance, or tourists, for corridor only, or any such limitation. It is my Opinion that its long-distance trains are most useful for the elderly and handicapped who cannot fly. Amtrak historically has addressed this market with the handicapped room on the ground floor of the Superliner sleepers. But the owners of a hotel at the gateway to a national park regulalry served by Amtrak would be of the opinion that its long-distancd trains are primarily to serve tourists. And a military expert, and believe this may be happening, who advises Trump not to veto, may have the opinion that Amtrak's long-distance trains should be kept around to serve in emergencies.
Obviously corridor trains have greater ridership. But the facr that most of this ridership is repeat ridership, often even commuter ridership, means that the reduced patronage of the long-distance trains actually involves a greater number of People, of US Citizens paying taxes. If the Grandpa and Grandmother are deprived of their yearly trip to see their children and grandchildren, why should they wish to subidize the corridor commuter?
If you deprive the small town of the benefit they get from the subsidy (I don't use the train, bur I want it to stay in case i need it!), why should they agree to subsidize the big city.
And a two-hour car or bus trip to connect with a comfortable long-distance train is not the same as a more-than-a-day bus or car trip for an handicapped and/or elderly person who cannot flyl.
Charlie, please look up the definition of "ideologue," or "ideolog." Do you wish to be one?
Do you reallyl wish to deprive many people from the privilege of visitng the entire continental USA?
When Grandma and Grandpa cannnot make their trip, the children miss solmething tooi.
I am a pragmatist and prefer evidence, hopefully hard empirical data.
You made a claim and you were wrong. Now you claim more more people ride LD trains than corridor trains. Let's see your evidence.
I believe in democracy in which government strives to serve the most people with the least waste, i.e. the greatest good for the greatest number.
Didn't figure you to be a "let them eat cake" guy Charlie.
I'm with Dave
Dave, you still haven't addressed the majority of people in the US (old, young, handicapped, ablebodied) that Amtrak doesn't serve.
Also, the military doesn't care about passenger trains. Freight trains are very useful, but passenger ones are useless. Ever hear of CRAF? The military flies troops everywhere. Trains and ships are just for heavy equipment. How many years has it been since you've been in the States? Things change...
Miningman Didn't figure you to be a "let them eat cake" guy Charlie. I'm with Dave
That's nasty and erroneous name-calling. Dave is wanting some elitist approach to serving the small minority of the elderly, handicapped etc. who happen to live near an Amtrak LD route. He has no data to support his contentions. I think Amtrak should serve the greatest number of people in ways where rail passenger service makes sense. LD trains are an impractical means of transportation for any distance over 500-800 miles and thus used by very few people. A lot of their ridership in sleeping cars are well-off seniors taking heavily-subsidized land cruises. Sounds pretty elitist to me.
In spending OPM - Amtrak needs to continue the present LD 'network'. Where it views that 'corridor opportunities' will support higher frequency service between designated end points that are intemediate to the LD service - negotiate with the serving carriers to provide the service. There are those that actually use the LD trains from Origin to Destination as well as intermediate locations to intermediate locations and also intermediate locations to final destinations.
Balkanizing service to only intermediate O-D pairs is in fact killing the overall product.
Of course the death of Amtrak is what many want so they can 'save' 10 mills on their federal tax liabilities.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
IF you want to serve the various "special" people in little bitty towns along the railroad, why not have a railbus or an RDC make the entire run, instead of a big old passenger train? Then said people can get on and off in their little town. And get on and off in a big city so they can catch the plane or bus for the long distance part (if needed/desired).
Then: no food service. no sleepers. no lounge. no services personnel. Two employees: engineer and conductor/baggageman. Essentially a Greyhound bus on rails. THAT can't be that expensive. Maybe we'll call it the Zephyrette.
And it would make every stop where there was a flag station (flagstop).
Thus a cost effective method to serve those along the railroad who need rail transportation.
Ed
7j43kIF you want to serve the various "special" people in little bitty towns along the railroad, why not have a railbus or an RDC make the entire run, instead of a big old passenger train? Then said people can get on and off in their little town. And get on and off in a big city so they can catch the plane or bus for the long distance part (if needed/desired). Then: no food service. no sleepers. no lounge. no services personnel. Two employees: engineer and conductor/baggageman. Essentially a Greyhound bus on rails. THAT can't be that expensive. Maybe we'll call it the Zephyrette. And it would make every stop where there was a flag station (flagstop). Thus a cost effective method to serve those along the railroad who need rail transportation. Ed
Ahh Yes! Sundial Scheduling!
Dave's argument is ridiculous, but I give him credit for originality at least. It's not worth commenting on THAT "concept" anymore than someone wanting the government to run a scheduled Ocean-Liner services for the old people. Good try, but, really, grasping a straws...
Amtrak needs to get out of LD cruise train business, which it has shown (and the railroads in the 1950's DID show) is worthless to the majority of the population. What the majority of the population needs is: good public TRANSPORTATION, widely available, regardless of what mode it is.
Rural areas should have good bus systems. The congested urban areas should have good train and plane services. The buses should feed that train system, the trains should connect to the airports. The entire system - together - should be as fast a possible, and as convenient as possible for a MAJORITY of the population (you know, like how most of the 1st world countries are doing it NOW).
As an old-fart myself, the LAST thing I'd want is a RANDOM SMATTERING of old-farts in the country relying on a 1920's passenger-train if they get sick. It's an insane argument. The LD trains should have been eliminated decades ago. If a company wants to run a sight-seeing tourist train, let them do so.
Ideally, Amtrak would be providing the INFRASTRUCTURE to support a modern passenger rail and bus system. INFRASTRUCTURE, not operations. Then franchise out the routes to whoever wants to run the trains and buses; because after 50+ years now it's pretty obvious that Amtrak is incapable of providing good service. But, as an INFRASTRUCTURE provider, they should be capable of spending loot with the same uninhibited enthusiasm that the airport and highway people do now.
JOHN PRIVARARural areas should have good bus systems. The congested urban areas should have good train and plane services. The buses should feed that train system, the trains should connect to the airports. The entire system - together - should be as fast a possible, and as convenient as possible for a MAJORITY of the population (you know, like how most of the 1st world countries are doing it NOW).
Bus systems are deserting rural areas for the same reasons you want Amtrak to eliminate service in rural areas.
BaltACD Sundial Scheduling!
Sundial Scheduling!
Please define.
Sundial time? Balt may be referring to how train schedules were published before the adoption of standard time.
For instance, it was possible to travel, in one day, from Bristol, Virginia, to Chattanooga, Tennessee, with a change from one road to another in Knoxville. However, if you simply looked at the published schedules, you would say, "Impossible!" for the schedules showed the train from Bristol arriving in Knoxville after the train for Chattanooga departed. But--the ET&V operated on Bristol time, and the ET&G operated on Knoxville time, which is a few minutes later than Bristol time.
Indeed, in the 1850's it was possible to travel from Norfolk, Virginia, to Memphis, Tennessee, changing from one road to another in several places--as I recall, the changes were in Petersburg, Roanoke, and Bristol in VIrginia, and in Knoxville and Chattanooga in Tennessee. The greatest difference on local times on any one road was between Chattanooga and Memphis; as I recall the Memphis and Charleston operated on the same sun dial all the way. (I do not have my copy of the 1851 or so Guide that shows these schedules here--it is in a box at my daughter's house, and I will not ask her to look for it, for she does enough for me already.)
Johnny
Re: Bus systems are deserting rural areas for the same reasons you want Amtrak to eliminate service in rural areas.
Exactly. But, it's a #HECK# of a lot cheaper to run subsidized "throughway buses" on rural routes, than 1920's passenger trains waiting in sidings for 5 mile long freights running at 30 mph on single track lines with alignments from the 1880's.
Run the trains where they can serve the MAJORITY of the population in a way that is USEFUL to modern people (meaning: people in the 21st Century, NOT the early-20th century). And, run the buses where having trains isn't viable.
Amtrak should be running passenger trains for the 21st century, NOT the 19th century. They aren't competing the stage-coaches anymore.
charlie hebdo LD trains are an impractical means of transportation for any distance over 500-800 miles and thus used by very few people. A lot of their ridership in sleeping cars are well-off seniors taking heavily-subsidized land cruises. Sounds pretty elitist to me.
LD trains haul 40% of Amtrak's passenger-miles. It meets the practical needs of those people. Where is your data to say that there are any more well-to-do land-cruisers, than people riding the train because it is physically the easiest for them?
7j43kIF you want to serve the various "special" people in little bitty towns along the railroad, why not have a railbus or an RDC make the entire run... Maybe we'll call it the Zephyrette.
WP ran an RDC the length of their mainline, and actually called it the Zephyrette. They couldn't even fill the RDC combo. At the same time the CZ was well patronized. The Zephyrette did not last long.
Charlie, you know perfectly well that I am NOT saying more people, more citizens, use LD trains than corridior trains. But on one train vs another train, defintiely, yes. i am in no position to obtain the specific statistics, even if Amtrak would provide it. But any long distance train obviously have almost zero repeat ridership one day to the very next day, where as most corridor trains possibly half the ridership is repeat one day to the next day. Sure, I don't have statistics, but personal observation from anyone riding the trains fan come up with the same answer.
From what most of us undrstand, with Amtrak created under the Nixon administation, most believe it was creted specifically to put the long distdance trains painlessly out of business. So you have the real mission in mind that the Nixon Administration intended. Hats of to you for that. But the stated legal mission statement is to oprovide a National System. Remove the LDTs and you no longer have a Nationlal System.
I think people who actually ride the trains and contribute to this forum will back me up on my statements concerning ridership.
Again, if you tell the rural areas, if you want the minimum service you now have, you have to pay for it, they will be justified in responding, then if you want the maxium corridor service you now have, you have to pay for it, including such hings as catenary replacement, repairs of tunnels, expasion of capacity, and new euipment.
The passenger loads on the existing long distance trains happen to be greater than one bus, or one diesel railcar, or even two togher, can handle.
The average 1920s train did not have air-condiitoning or reclining-seat coaches. Come off it. Long distance trains today are far more comfortable.
BackshopAlso, the military doesn't care about passenger trains.
I would disagree with that statement. It depends on the rail transportation system and country. The military used a lot of mixed passenger trains in Europe during the 1980's where they couple the passenger cars to the flatcars carrying the equipment. Similar to the Auto-Train concept the troops move with the equipment. They do not do this as much anymore in Europe because the realignment of the bases put most of the training areas within a much shorter driving distance. They could not do this in the United States of course because the distances are greater and lets face it both the train dispatching and rail speed limits are fairly poor. Within the United States though the Army at least is still using Amtrak to move troops, you may not realize it and it might not be on a large scale but to and from Basic Training posts they use Amtrak. My Nephew went through initial training in 2007 and more than one of his cohorts had travel orders via Amtrak.
BackshopThe military flies troops everywhere.
I was speaking strictly about the military not caring about American passenger trains. It was in reply to Dave's stating "And a military expert, and believe this may be happening, who advises Trump not to veto, may have the opinion that Amtrak's long-distance trains should be kept around to serve in emergencies". They may ship individuals to Basic that way, but it's not a national resource needed in case of emergency.
I'm well aware of Marines riding on ships in ARGs, they are members of an MEU.
Amtrak now? Europe now, not 30+ years ago.
Even when I went for basic at Ft. Leonard Wood 50 years ago, it was by plane and bus from Chicago. And the number of inductees was much higher back then.
charlie hebdoAmtrak now? Europe now, not 30+ years ago.
I think he was supporting your general opinion, but...
Seems highly logical to me that there might be some 'conspiracy' to help subsidize Amtrak by routing some percentage of military orders on Amtrak trains, particularly those on routes more heavily subsidized through 'lack of riders'. It doesn't matter that this is one hand of the Government putting money into another; if it's money to the good side of Amtrak's secret ledgers, or perceived reason to retain otherwise-questionable passenger coverage, I'd be all for it, and perhaps so should we all.
Much of this thread, however, continues to dance around the elephant in the room that is the 2015 mandate requiring "profitable operation" by 2020. I don't see any wiggle room there for perceived benefits to elderly and disabled, even though there are clear avenues for funds to be provided Amtrak to improve and perhaps start toward optimizing them. Perhaps some of you can comment on how to substantiate the economic 'stakeholder benefits' of the LD trains as a whole, as opposed to neo-Balkanization into politically-willing corridors.
Overmod charlie hebdo Amtrak now? Europe now, not 30+ years ago. I think he was supporting your general opinion, but... Seems highly logical to me that there might be some 'conspiracy' to help subsidize Amtrak by routing some percentage of military orders on Amtrak trains, particularly those on routes more heavily subsidized through 'lack of riders'. It doesn't matter that this is one hand of the Government putting money into another; if it's money to the good side of Amtrak's secret ledgers, or perceived reason to retain otherwise-questionable passenger coverage, I'd be all for it, and perhaps so should we all. Much of this thread, however, continues to dance around the elephant in the room that is the 2015 mandate requiring "profitable operation" by 2020. I don't see any wiggle room there for perceived benefits to elderly and disabled, even though there are clear avenues for funds to be provided Amtrak to improve and perhaps start toward optimizing them. Perhaps some of you can comment on how to substantiate the economic 'stakeholder benefits' of the LD trains as a whole, as opposed to neo-Balkanization into politically-willing corridors.
charlie hebdo Amtrak now? Europe now, not 30+ years ago.
Supporting or differing doesn't matter.
It seems to me Amtrak doesn't serve basic training camps or large military facilities very well today, so counting on a military subsidy seems a forlorn hope.
The 2020 deadline is likely taken less seriously than the debt ceiling. That said, Amtrak will likely be able to show Congress a neutral balance sheet if LD services are drastically curtailed or modified.
Then those services for the elderly handicapped folks and undeserved areas could be a separate subsidy line item apart from rational services, if Congress saw it as socially needed.
daveklepper ....if you tell the rural areas, if you want the minimum service you now have, you have to pay for it, they will be justified in responding, then if you want the maxium corridor service you now have, you have to pay for it, including such hings as catenary replacement, repairs of tunnels, expasion of capacity, and new euipment. The passenger loads on the existing long distance trains happen to be greater than one bus, or one diesel railcar, or even two togher, can handle.
1. An emergency that grounds commercial airlines, may such never occur again, may also ground other aircraft.
2. An analogy, not quite as long as the apartment hunt one:
Every Sat morning when in NYCity around 7am I helped distribute bagsof food to poor people, some probably homeless. Many came every week. But there were occasionally new faces and some who came onlyoccasionally.The food and bagging had been prepared by other volunteers and waskept overnight in a refrigorator. Uusally. there was more thanenough, with each person on line receiving only one bag. There wasalso a pile of used clothes, and anyone on the line could take oneitem. Not everyone who took food also took clothing. Most did not.Extra bags left when all on the line were given food was returned tothe frig to be used during the week by the donating community.One day. we counted, and there were just enough bags for the number ofpeople. But one case on line said he needed more than one because ofa calamity that had occurrred to him. The response was a question:"Do you want the last person on line to go without? Because today theline is longer than usual, and we have just enough for everyone." Hesaid: "But the last person on line only comes once-and-a-while, and I cine every week. And I waited longer than him." He was told: "Itis a greater sin for us to turn him away without getting anything thannot giving you all you want and may need."3. If you want rural America to support massive Amtrak investment inexpansion, catch-up-of differed maintenance, Sandy repairs, you haveto show some consideration of what rural America wants from Amtrak.And their elected representatives say they want the long-distancetrains to continue.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.