posted
While I have a great deal of respect for Mr. Resor, and do not want to argue with him, he is using the same data used by many others to promote the NEC versus the rest of the system: Passenger-units rather than passenger-miles. It is also worth asking, what would the NEC ridership be if there was only one train a day and it went through in the middle of the night? Also, Federal Transit Administration funding is still Federal Tax money pulled from the country as a whole. There should be no fight between proponents of long distance and corridor services. It is a form of cannibalism at the end of which all rail service suffers. We dod not see any such fights between proponents of vvarious forms of air service nor of Freeway versus non-limited access highway proponents.
NEC imporvements help the east coast long distance trains, at least. The various california corridor state funded projects have helped the Starlight / CZ in the areas where they run.
To approximate a quote by one fo the founding fathers, if we do not all hang together, we shall certainly all hang separately.
Posts: 2808 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by JONATHON: Cut Amtrak Long-Distance Trains???
Wheres the fun in a short Train Ride?
The point of Amtrak is to transport people; not to entertain them. Atleast I hope my tax dollars aren't being spent on entertainment. I think jonathon demonstrates the crux of my arugment: LD routes serve more as a means of relaxation than transportation.
quote:Originally posted by polarbearucla: The point of Amtrak is to transport people; not to entertain them. Atleast I hope my tax dollars aren't being spent on entertainment. I think jonathon demonstrates the crux of my arugment: LD routes serve more as a means of relaxation than transportation.
--
I think Amtrak would disagree, poeple do take the Train to enjoy the ride, like vacations, some poeple who have to a long distance to work, might not want to do any driving on a vacation, and, if go to the Fullerton Train Station, about half a block from the platform, near the fire station, you'll see an Amtrak add, it show the Pacific Surfliner, and a 1 word sentance: Dream.
------------------ JONATHON D. ORTIZ
Posts: 989 | From: DIAMOND BAR CA. U.S. | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by polarbearucla: The point of Amtrak is to transport people; not to entertain them. Atleast I hope my tax dollars aren't being spent on entertainment. I think jonathon demonstrates the crux of my arugment: LD routes serve more as a means of relaxation than transportation.
So you don't agree with the millions -- hmm hmm BILLIONS a year -- spent on funding other ground transportation, such as waterways and buses?
How many cruise ships could dock if the feds didn't fund and maintain the ports?
How 'bout them buses to Branson and the casinos? They wouldn't move an inch if tax dollars ($30 billion a year in fed. money alone - more than Amtrak has received in its lifetime BTW) didn't build the roads.
We haven't even started to tab the costs of law enforcement, the court system, the FAA, highway traffic safety administration, etc.
You need to look at the full picture. Stop relying on so-called "think-tank" slogans that sound good but when examined closely, are straw men.
Here's a primer on our imbalanced transportation system that like the poster here, favors air and highways with almost limitless tax funding while singling out Amtrak to be profitable, something no other mode is even remotely capable of accomplishing. http://www.trainweb.org/moksrail/advocacy/resources/essays/subsidies.htm
[This message has been edited by MOKSRail (edited 07-26-2004).]
posted
Polarbear, the primary flaw in your argument is that it is based on nothing more than anecdotal evidence regarding the reasons people travel by train. Then you base your conclusion solely on that. You don't really have any solid data to support your premise, thus your conclusions are quite unconvincing.
Posts: 2649 | From: California's Monterey Peninsula | Registered: Dec 2000
| IP: Logged |
I think you (and most of the memebers of this board) see the purpose of Amtrak quite differently then I do. I see the purpose of Amtrak being an efficent (time and money wise) TRANSPORTER of people. Sure I enjoy trains, but I believe the purpose of having a rail network is for transportation!
Interestingly, it appears to me that most people are blind to the faults of Amtrak because of a passion for trains. However, this passion for trains overshadows the fact that Amtrak does little in the way of fulfilling the role of a train (TRANSPORTING PEOPLE); rather most posters here seem to believe that it is a comfortable means of combining transportation and pleasure and thus deam it as a successful means of transit. Thus I think that most posters are sadly failing to perceive and judge Amtrak by the correct standarts. Airlines are judged by how on time they are; because the basic goal of an airline is to transport individuals. Cruises are not judged by time but rather by the experience on board because the purpose of a cruise is to relax. However, many individuals on this board are judging Amtrak by how "fun" LD routes are. This mindset by posters and many riders pushes amtrak away from one day becoming a successful alternative to air travel and relegates it to competing with other forms of transportation entertainment.
The primary goal of Amtrka has to be transportation; the amenities of the trip can come second. However, whenever I remark that Greyhound does a very good job at transporting people and should be an alternative to Amtrak - the common reply is that Greyhound stations are to dirty or the bus is crampt. Well - thats just too tough- Greyhound does a fine job at transporting people in a timely manner...and last time i checked the purpose of taking a bus was to get somewhere.
Now I'm sure that many people are going to label me as crazy, an idiot, an Amtrak hater or something of that manner. However, let me stress that I enjoy trains! Yet if trains are not going to serve as a efficient means of transportation, then I believe that a train has lost its purpose. Nor do I believe that trains should be in the entertainment/vacation business; I can think of many other ways I'd rather spend my money. Trains will never be able to compete in the luxury/entertainment world, and without a good rethinking the transportation world. However, if Amtrak focused on small routes that could directly compete with air travel - it would thrive!
BTW i'm sure my spelling is terrible in the post becuase I wrote it in a fit of passion
posted
PolarBear: If Greyhound is as efficient as you claim, why are they dumping 56 cities in Minnesota next month. Why are they asking for subsidies? We paid for their roads already. Didn't they declare bankruptcy a short time ago?
Posts: 1572 | From: St. Paul, MN | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by polarbearucla: I see the purpose of Amtrak being an efficent (time and money wise) TRANSPORTER of people. Sure I enjoy trains, but I believe the purpose of having a rail network is for transportation!
Interestingly, it appears to me that most people are blind to the faults of Amtrak because of a passion for trains. However, this passion for trains overshadows the fact that Amtrak does little in the way of fulfilling the role of a train (TRANSPORTING PEOPLE
if thats a Train's only perpose, then why do they have kiddie cars, or the Sight Seer Lounge, or show movies, and if this is the airline's only perpose to, then why do they show movies?
------------------ JONATHON D. ORTIZ
Posts: 989 | From: DIAMOND BAR CA. U.S. | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
MR Ortiz you are clearly not to smart if you are not able to understand what polarbear's point is. If the airplane you were takin showed a bad movie but arrived on time then u likely wouldnt be to upset. With the exception of private airplanes and airplane's purpose is to get people from one place to another as fast as possible. Movies and music are shown to make the flight easier for people, you cannot actually tell me that you fly so that you can watch the movies on the airplane.
Polarbear is saying that amtrak needs to focus on its role of transporting people from one place to another, rather then the idea of a land cruise. Amtrak's role is not clear. It does not have the ameneties that or class that the AOE has, but the long distance trains dont run ontime, and even when they due run ontime the trains take to long when compared to flying and even greyhound.
posted
Mr/Mrs. Polarbear, I see that you wanna talk about efficiency and time and money. Doesn't that belong in a Business or economic forum.
Little train, how do you spell CHENEY? H-A-L-I-B-U-R-T-O-N (sorry guys but I had to) I agree that I would like to see AMTRAK as for more of transportation than land crusing, but doesn't taking your family on vacation to FL or CA count as transportation. I don't think that Amtrak LD trains fall into the catagory of Business travel, but as a low cost alternative(coach obviously) for people that would other wise drive or ride the bus.
You da man Jonathon
Posts: 143 | From: Richmond, VA | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by JONATHON: you& polarbear realy are the same person arent you
I’m really getting tired of this lame theory.I never personally insult people and I am offended to be connected with anyone who uses such language. Go check the IP records if you wish, since no one seems to believe me around here.
What really gets me, is when one brings up a topic that is extremely controversial, personal attacks become all too common! I started this thread to better understand and learn about how to improve Amtrak; not be called a fake poster! So to people on both sides of this argument: lets keep it civil and on topic!
[This message has been edited by polarbearucla (edited 07-26-2004).]
posted
MR Ortiz why is it allowed to insult me? all i was saying is that you clearly did not understand what polarbear was saying. Maybe when you reach puberty you will be able to understand many more things in life. My apologies as i forgot how young you are.
Posts: 117 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by littletrain: MR Ortiz why is it allowed to insult me? all i was saying is that you clearly did not understand what polarbear was saying. Maybe when you reach puberty you will be able to understand many more things in life. My apologies as i forgot how young you are.
why? Because you insulted me first, and then act as if you've been wronged after you open your mouth first, thats why, saying someone is "clearly not to smart" is an insult, so dont act all inocent like you did do anything, and since you think I'm so "young", then how old are you
------------------ JONATHON D. ORTIZ
Posts: 989 | From: DIAMOND BAR CA. U.S. | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by polarbearucla: To Mr. Toy I think you (and most of the memebers of this board) see the purpose of Amtrak quite differently then I do. I see the purpose of Amtrak being an efficent (time and money wise) TRANSPORTER of people.
I can't argue with that one bit. But I do argue with your conclusion that just because a train trip is pleasant, and not always on time, that it is therefore not relevant as transportation.
I, as do many others on this board, do in fact use the trains for transportation. My aim is to get somewhere. The fact that I have fun along the way in no way changes the fact that it is both convenient and cost effective for my trips. The two concepts are not mutually exclusive.
quote: Interestingly, it appears to me that most people are blind to the faults of Amtrak because of a passion for trains.
Hardly. I think everyone here is well aware of Amtrak's shortcomings. We've all been on late trains, and we've all encountered the occasional cranky employee, and other issues.
But we are also keenly aware of Amtrak's POTENTIAL, if it were properly funded, and treated as an equal partner in our nation's transportation systems. We know, for example, that Amtrak's trains are quite capable of running on time, and at even faster speeds, if the tracks weren't overcrowded with freight traffic. That in turn is due to a lack of capital investment, not an inherent defficiency in train travel.
quote: However, this passion for trains overshadows the fact that Amtrak does little in the way of fulfilling the role of a train (TRANSPORTING PEOPLE);
Tell that to the people who are traveling overnight in coach. They're doing it because it is cheap and reasonably comfortable, not for any "cruise" experience.
quote: Thus I think that most posters are sadly failing to perceive and judge Amtrak by the correct standards.... However, many individuals on this board are judging Amtrak by how "fun" LD routes are.
I don't think that is the sole standard on this board for judging any train. It is the icing on the cake, not the cake itself. Right now I would not recommend the Sunset Limited to anyone, because it is having horrible troubles staying on time. Due to UP's latest meltdown, it is certainly not meeting my standards as a transportation service. Yet I will fight for its survival, because I believe it CAN be a reasonable mode of basic transportation, when (not if) UP gets its act together.
quote: This mindset by posters and many riders pushes amtrak away from one day becoming a successful alternative to air travel and relegates it to competing with other forms of transportation entertainment.
I disagree. I think it is those, like you, who believe Amtrak is a cruise experience are making policymakers believe that as well, and they in turn are pushing Amtrak aside as irrlevant. We're not doing that here. I can't speak for everyone here, but I think the vast majority understand the benefits of rail transportation as transportation first, fun second. These benefits include superior energy efficiency, minimal environmental impact, and yes, comfort. It can't be everything for everyone, or for every trip, but neither can other modes. Its all about having alternatives that best meet the needs of the traveler. For many trips, Amtrak meets my needs better than flying or driving. Period.
quote: The primary goal of Amtrka has to be transportation; the amenities of the trip can come second.
I agree to a point. On a trip of any length, certain amenities are essential. Food service, for example.
quote: However, whenever I remark that Greyhound does a very good job at transporting people and should be an alternative to Amtrak - the common reply is that Greyhound stations are to dirty or the bus is crampt.
A bus, by its limited size, lacks the necessary facilities to meet passenger needs for longer than a few hours. It is therefore not suited to trips of much more than about 200-300 miles. The average long distance Amtrak train rider goes about 800 miles.
quote: Well - thats just too tough- Greyhound does a fine job at transporting people in a timely manner...
Over short distances. For short trips, a bus is often the better alternative, due to greater flexibility in routing. For long trips, a bus just can't meet basic human needs such as for food, toilets, sleeping space, etc.
quote: Now I'm sure that many people are going to label me as crazy, an idiot, an Amtrak hater or something of that manner.
I don't think you are an idiot. But I do not think that your beliefs are largely theoretical, and not based on real passengers who are every day riding the trains.
quote: ...if trains are not going to serve as a efficient means of transportation, then I believe that a train has lost its purpose.
I see where you are coming from, but I still say they are convenient for many trips, and could be a lot more convenient if they were properly funded. If Amtrak can fill these trains even with all of their shortcomings, think how many trains they could fill if they did run on time! So the goal should not be to eliminate them, but to fully support them, so they can fulfill their potential!
quote: Nor do I believe that trains should be in the entertainment/vacation business;
We've gone over this before. Please re-read my earlier posts. I see no need to repeat myself.
quote: if Amtrak focused on small routes that could directly compete with air travel - it would thrive!
Actually, no. The corridor trains in California cover less than 50% of their costs at the farebox. The rest is subsidies. What would allow Amtrak to thrive would be a reliable source of capital, such as the aviation and highway trust funds, to enable it to effectively compete against airlines and highways.
posted
It has been said before, and is blindingly obvious to those in the transportation business. The profit is in the long haul. It does not matter whether it is freight or passenger, train, bus, ship, or airplane, the profit is in the long haul.
It is the long haul Amtrak trains that come closest to breakking even. It was the long haul major streamliners that covered their costs through the 50's and early 60's.
Airlines tend to consider a lot of their costs as being per "cycle" A cycle being a takeoff and landing. Northwest claims their long haul trans-pacific routes to be the most profitable part of the airline. Yet, the per-mile fares are much lower than the normal domestic flights, and the amenities are better. But notice, these are always big planes with near full loads. Lots of competition, too. I can leave Taipei on any one of SIX airlines to go to the US. But once in the plane, they have you for 14 hours to the US west coast, or in the case of Northwest some 13 to 15 hours from Tokyo to one of several interior points as well. (Tokyo is 3.5 hours in another big plane.) More can go wrong on these long hauls, too. I would say between 5% and 10% of my trans oceanic trips have had at least one hotel night courtesy of the airline because of some difficulty.
That low price per mile big plane is bringing a lot more cash to the bottom line than the high price per mile small plane making the the 45 minute to 90 minute hop.
Terminal costs are the killer in transportation no matter what you are. That is also of course what gives the airlines and cruse ships such a big advantage, the terminals are all provided by someone else and they are only paying some sort of "user fee" if that.
Ever notice that Greyhound stations in small towns really do not exist? They are usually only a sign stuck on a gas station or restaurant with an employee of that facillity doubling as the bus agent. And of course, the big stations are always low rent facilities. Even, in the 50's the package express was as important or more important than the passengers, and my understanding is that it still is.
Posts: 2808 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
See that I left off my conclusion. It is this:
Corridor trains will not save Amtrak.
Corridor trains only will sink it absolutely and completely, and they will require HUGE subsidies to continue.
Amtrak must have a system of reasonably reliable long distance trains serving the majority of the country to survive. A set of disconnected regional corrider services will degenerate in a bunch of glorified Chicago or Los Angeles or New Jersey Transit style commuter systems.
Posts: 2808 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
This was posted in an entirely new thread, but posting here to make sure POLARBEAR reads it...
quote:Originally posted by polarbearucla: I believe the purpose of a rail network is not for enjoyment but rather for the purpose of transporting people in an efficent and timely matter. Do you know how much time/money/polluiton could be saved if anyone at Amtrak decided to build a railline from Las Vegas to Los Angeles? I think a lot more people in LA would utilize this than any LD train out of union station.
This is a misunderstanding as well. Just because one route is shorter than another, that doesn't necessarily mean it will have higher patronage.
Look at commuter rail. Although it's enjoying a rennaisance, with more riders than ever before, you still get the nagging critics claiming it's a waste, that more people still drive to work, etc. That doesn't mean it's not necessary and useful.
Longer routes are likely more efficient because they are available to more people. A passenger paying $800-1000 for a trip in a sleeper from OMAHA to VEGAS or LINCOLN to PROVO brings in more TRAIN MILES/ PER PASSENGER REVENUE than one, say, travelling from KANSAS CITY to STL, which fares are around $50.
For instance, the common assumption that shorter distance trips are more "profitable" than LD trips is debunked. Rail's share for a 1,000 mile trip v. a 50 mile trip is similar.
posted
It is a valid role of government in a democracy to provide for the safety and quality of life of its citizens. It is also a tradition of Americans to explore their country as a personal or family activity, that to some of us is our reward for toiling through the more mundane activities of life.
To this end, in return for working 3+ months a year to pay my taxes, I think it is perfectly reasonable for me to expect National Parks, highways, and as the biggest bang for my taxpayer buck, trains.
It is not always the objective to get from point A to point B, but to see what is between point A and point B. It is much safer and more relaxing to see America from the window of a train than to be competing with the millions of Griswolds in their family trucksters in a traffic jam on I-80 200 miles from the nearest city.
Exploring our country is a defining role of Americans. Tourism is a major business. Railroads built our country, and are part of who we are as a nation. My taxes go to many things that I do not want or need or agree with. The long distance passenger tain compensates me for that. For what, about $3 a year if you take out the NEC?
Posts: 1572 | From: St. Paul, MN | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would like to address Amtrak as a railroad retiree and one who watched Amtrak become a reality in 1971. Congress created Amtrak because the freight railroads wanted out of the business. The railroads seen the future of the passenger business as non-profitable and discouraged ridership by downsizing the amenities such as by not buying new equipment,removing dining cars and sleepers so Congress would step in--which they did--and take over the passenger business.
Americans have to approach rail passenger service as another mode of transportation. We subsidize airports, waterways, freeways and no one ever mentions a thing about the cost. The reason is we all love our automobiles and airplanes. I might bring you back to 9/11 when the only way you could travel was by Amtrak. All the politicians on the east coast were traveling by rail. There is no rail passenger system in the world that pays for itself at the farebox and that includes Japan and Europe.
What Congress needs to do is supply a means of funding that is permanent and not appropriate from general funds as they do now. If they just used one cent of the gasoline tax that goes to highway funding it would raise millions of dollars. Remember that Amtrak has to pay for their fuel just as airlines and other modes of transportation does. I could go on about all kinds of inequities as to why Amtrak is second fiddle because most of it political.
quote:Originally posted by Tom Dwyer: If they just used one cent of the gasoline tax that goes to highway funding it would raise millions of dollars.
I recall an article in Trains magazine one month that said one cent of the gasoline tax would raise approximately $1.5 billion per year!! Think of what that could do for Amtrak.
posted
In 1993, clinton and Congress raised our gas tax by 4.3 cents a gallon. All of this money went into the general revenue.
If we could convince our congress critters to snag a penny of that gas tax for Amtrak, we would be on the way to a real national rail system. If we could convince our congress critters to adopt "Interstate II" with 2 cents of that gas tax increase, we could be on our way to a real 3rd choice for mass transit between the States.
Posts: 1418 | From: Houston, Republic of Texas | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have read all 68 posts on this thread and I think it should have ended not much past Mr. Toys first post.
Dixiebreeze, How are you so certain when you say "John Kerry will NOT win" ????
Captltd. You have some good points Lay off the insulting on littletrains stupid thread.
Jonathon, Think about politics too, not just movies in the Sightseer lounge!
The bottom LINE_____________________________
Amtrak right now is in OK shape to continue running there routes, if there financial situation gets worse than GUNN has to start planning. Its not a rush thing. I just hope that Kerry wins..(for other reasons than Amtrak)
Am I right?
im only 13
------------------ --Anton L. pillsbury09@excite.com AIM: pillsburyMN
Posts: 1082 | From: Los Angeles, CA. USA | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I ride the long distance trips because of a fear of flying I have always had and do not feel like conquering anytime soon. As far as greyhound being similar priced as Amtrak, have you looked recently? My trip from Reno to Galesburg, IL was twice as much by Greyhound. Just to go from Springfield, IL to St. Louis Mo by greyhound is twice as much as going by Amtrak. Greyhound is not cheap, not even close to being cheap and if you have ever taken a long distance trip on a Greyhound bus you know how nasty, dirty, crunched up and disgusting it really can be! When I was in my young 20's I went all over by Greyhound because back then it was a bit cheaper and faster then Amtrak, but it's for sure not cheaper anymore, I just checked I know! But I do see your point somewhat on comparing Amtrak to if the government funded cruise ships, I do see what your saying I personaly had never thought of it that way, but I see your point. But as someone completely terrified of flying and really about as terrified of dealing with Greyhound buses, I must say from a very selfish point of view I am extremely grateful for the long distance Amtrak trips. I may whine and complain when it takes me a million hours to go home and visit my grandmother in the summer with my kids from Reno to IL But if it wasnt for Amtrak my kids would never see their great grandmothers and maybe that is worth it for this country you know? Sometimes building a country and its morale and its worth is more then just money and how fast you can get from point A to point B. Maybe a government providing a service just for people to take their time, see parts of the country they would of never seen before and visit loved ones and friends is something worth paying for?
My big complaint with Amtrak is that you cant get on and off the train and stay over night in more places without paying more, for example, I have 2 young children, we go from Reno to Galesburg IL that is a long long trip with 2 kids, so this year I decided to stop in Glenwood Springs, co and just stay one night in a hotel there, just for the heck of it. Now I dont know anyone in Glenwood Springs, I never heard of the place till our Amtrak trips back and forth between Reno and IL, but it looks like such a cute town we just picked it to stop in. What I didnt realize till I went to buy my tickets is that if we go straight through from Reno to IL its like 400 and some , stopping in Glenwood over night bumped our tickets up to 700.oo I personaly think that is a rip off. I am really upset about that. I know I am gonna spend some money in Glenwood its good for their economy, I wouldnt of gone to that town if it wasnt for Amtrak. I think if more people, espicaly ones traveling with small children could just get off half way in a long trip and take a break they would, which you know they will spend money on them breaks and that just goes back into supporting a local economy. So if I could change one thing with the long distance trips I would change the punishment for wanting to get off at a town along the way and just take a break in that town and then reboard the next day.
Posts: 12 | From: carson city, nv usa | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree, Ms. Nirvana; from now having just priced a Reno to Galesburg compared with a Reno-Glenwood and Glenwood-Galesburg the surcharge for your stop off appears to be in the range of 60% over the through trip.
I can recall that the railroads always offered "stopovers" where you could stop en route to your heart's content and still pay only the through fare. I can also recall when airlines, circa 1950, offered similar pricing.
However, I guess carriers recognize that they are providing you with additional benefit with the stop over, and they have their station costs to consider as well.. Also be mindful that boarding and alighting are some of the more dangerous parts of a rail journey (ever noted how you may only do so through an attended vestibule).
Nevertheless, if you choose to stop at Glenwood, the best known hostelry there is the Hotel Colorado which is located on the opposite side of the River from the town. However, the Hotel Denver is opposite the train station, and while hardly as elaborate as that across the River, you may be favorably surprised by its rates.
Once upon a time, Glenwood was "where the help lived" i.e. "the help' for Aspen. However, that has been eliminated over the past 40 or so years and Glenwood today is a destination resort town in its own right.
Posts: 9975 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
Lay off the insulting on littletrains stupid thread.
