These options were discussed at the ARC meeting on Dec. 14th. The ARC board directed their staff to whittle the list down to three for the next meeting.
I haven't had a chance to study these in detail yet, but a quick reading left me with these impressions:
Except for number 9, all of the options seem to have some merit.
All include long-distance service to varying degrees. Option #9 was obviously written by one of Amtrak's foes on the ARC. It is the only one that includes an editorial comment "long-haul service (which is a leisure market and not a travel market) should be operated only to extent that private sector able to operate them profitably." The item in parentheses is obviously an opinion, and doesn't really have a place in this sort of document. Unless you count all those college students riding the rails between school and home, or those unable to fly as "leisure travelers"
All options appear to involve separating the NEC infrastructure responsibilities to a separate entity.
Most options except #9 retain Amtrak in some form. In some cases as the primary operator, in some as a central entity to coordinate smaller operators. In at least one Amtrak is a transitional entity between present operations and future reorganization.
Number 3 struck me as a little odd. It reads in part "Allow states or regional authorities or compacts to take over the operations and assets of other developed corridors including the California corridors, the Mid-West Corridors, and the Pacific Northwest Corridor." In California the state already owns the assets. Amtrak is just the contract operator. I'm pretty sure the Pacific Nortwest corridor has the same setup. jointly funded by Oregon and Washington. How can they turn over these to the states if the states already own them?
There is little mention of the need to address the infrastructure limitations that make it so difficult for Amtrak to run trains on time. However, number 2 comes close by stating "A new government entity would be responsible for funding the development, maintenance and management of all passenger rail infrastructure. The entity would be funded by a trust fund." ------------------ Trust God, love your neighbor, and never mistake opinion for truth. -Mr. Toy
posted
I agree with you about the opinion expressed on Option #9. I would have guessed that long-distance train riding was only for the leisure market, and not the travel market. But, after riding several long-distance trains, I have been quite surprised by the amount of people I meet on the trains who are travelling a long distance and are not doing it for fun. They are only travelling on the train as a way to get from point "A" to point "B". I travel on Amtrak for fun, but many people I meet on the train are not there for fun.
------------------ Elias Valley Railroad (N-scale) www.geocities.com/evrr
posted
I hope that the ARC figures this out. I seriously doubt that Option #9 will be kept(because no one really wants Amtrak liquidated, according to every article and report I've read.) Many long-distance travelers are using sleepers now, so I'm wondering what the losses would be if the trains were discontinued or moved to less than daily service. And then there's the mail and express market, which almost every long-distance train is a part of. Many companies and people depend on these services as well. I see no mention of it in Option #9.
Posts: 553 | From: Flagstaff, AZ USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
When you rode the long-distance train, and people were riding not-for-fun, were they riding start to end, or entraining and detraining at intermediate stops ?
When I read the travelogues for several long distance rides, it's mentioned quite often that passengers board and deboard mid-trip.
Does that make a case for long distance trains, or should further analysis be done on viable city pairs ?
Etna
[This message has been edited by Etna (edited 01-08-2002).]
[This message has been edited by Etna (edited 01-08-2002).]
Posts: 9 | From: Vernon, CT USA | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Remember folks ARC can ONLY recommend to Congress what happens to Amtrak. Congress makes the ultimate decisions on what will happen w/ Amtrak. Congress has already shot down ARC once-big time.
Posts: 249 | From: Downey CA USA | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Etna: ....Does that make a case for long distance trains, or should further analysis be done on viable city pairs?
Though your question was directed at Konstantin, I'd like to respond to that if I may. Many people do ride long distance trains for their full length, but most do not. Average trip lengths on long distance trains range from about 700 miles to about 1,100 miles, depending on the route. People get on and off anywhere along the entire route, making for large number of of city pair combinations. Shortening a route would reduce the number of city pairs and thus reduce the number of potential riders. Conversely, the more city pairs on a route, the more potential riders.
posted
Remember none of this will happen if Congress doesn't OK it. ARC can only recommend, not dictate what happens to Amtrak.
Posts: 249 | From: Downey CA USA | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Eric: What is Congress' perspective on all this?
It depends on the congressman or senator. Some want to eliminate long-distance trains entirely, others are strong advocates of rail service, and among those, some are actually knowledgable about the issues. I've seen several on C-SPAN who are pro-rail but haven't done enough homework to properly defend their positions.
------------------ Trust God, love your neighbor, and never mistake opinion for truth. -Mr. Toy
Printer-friendly view of this topic
