Yet, it would be unwise to say that people dont travel amtrak for other reasons; such as health or fear of flying. However, there are always good ol' GreyHound and best of all a nice road trip down an interstate. The basic idea is that a car provides greater speed than amtrak; while greyhound provides greater savings than amtrak. Thus the way I see it - one of these two options should fit the needs of 99% of amtrak long distance travelers. However, it is quite obvious that neither of these options (exspecially the bus) equals the leisure and luxury of an Amtrak trip. However, I state once again that the government has no obligation to make your travel overly relaxing. And if you really want to relax on a train- then take the American Orient express.
Now that being said - Amtrak serves many purposes in the NE US and down here in So. Cal - the service is fine and is *almost* as quick as car a way less stressful.
Who cares if it looks as if Amtrak lost to UP.
quote:
Originally posted by polarbearucla:
I think what has become clear through the John Kerry thread is that long distnace routes make little sense in terms of money and time.
I don't recall any such conclusion posted there. One trip for one person was used as an example. You can't extrapolate that into all trips for everybody.
quote:
Amtrak may or may not cost more than a flight but will surely take a lot longer,
So? Time isn't everything.
quote:
and as someone pointed out delays are measured in hours not minutes.
That is not an inherent deficiency of rail travel, but rather the result of inadequate capital investment in infrastructure quality and capacity.
quote:
Thus if Amtrak's long distance routes don't serve business they must serve the leisure crowd - ie perosnal trips where travel time is not a major factor.
You are making a common assumption that trips break down into only two categories, business (related to one's profession) and pleasure. There is a third category called personal business. This covers things like attending family events (weddings, funerals), students shuttling between home and school (which I did a lot in the '70s by the Coast Starlight), and all sorts of other personal matters that are as diverse as the people traveling. A large chunk (30%-40%, I forget the exact number) of Amtrak long-distance customers travel on personal business.
quote:
While I totally agree that travel by train is a great vacation within itself, I'm not sure that it should be on the Federal government's tab. I dont see the federal government running AmCruise or any other luxury cruise ship.
In all modes of travel, Amtrak included, leisure travel constitutes about a third of all travel business. Amtrak is actually pretty consistent with other modes in that regard. As for cruise ships, (which are 100% leisure travel) the government does fund the ports, waterways, security via the coast guard, customs, etc, which those cruise ships require. The government also funds the aviation infrastructure, including air traffic control, so tourists can spend a few days lounging at resorts on Maui. (You seriously don't think they're flying to Hawaii on business do you?) And the government supports the highways for the leisure traveler's motor homes.
quote:
I dont see the federal government running AmCruise or any other luxury cruise ship.
You're right, Government doesn't run the ships. Nor does the government fly the planes or drive the cars. Government supplies the infrastructure so these things can function. With the long-distanced trains, the situation is reversed. Private companies supply the infrastructure, the traffic control, security, etc, with virtually NO government money. Just because, in this one case, the setup is different doesn't mean no government money should be involved anywhere.
quote:
I dont think very many people would argue that the goverment should sponsor cruises.
As mentioned above, the government does sponsor cruises, just not directly.
However, implicit in your comments is the idea that leisure travel is somehow less legitimate than business travel. There are several problems with this. Tourism is a huge part of the national economy, if not the largest. The government helps support tourism in many ways, such as transportation infrastructure (as already noted) and state and national park systems, and many states pay for advertising to promote tourism. Government pays for all sorts of tourist activities.
In the terrorist attacks of 9/11, the only industry that was directly attacked was the travel industry, specifically the airlines. Travel was really the only segment of the economy that was directly affected, and the tourism industry was especially hard hit. (Business travelers could compensate with teleconferencing and that sort of thing, but tourists can't do that.) The loss of tourism business dragged down the entire national economy for a over year afterwards. It hurt restaurants, retail, hotels, and on down the line. Tourism is indeed economically vital.
So even if your assertion is correct, that almost all long distance train travelers are tourists, why should that be a problem? Tourism is an essential part of the economy, and Amtrak supports tourism. I think that's great!
It might also be noted that Amtrak goes to many popular tourist destinations with little or no air service. Glenwood Springs and Winter Park in Colorado come immediately to mind.
quote:
Yet, it would be unwise to say that people dont travel amtrak for other reasons; such as health or fear of flying. However, there are always good ol' GreyHound and best of all a nice road trip down an interstate.
Greyhound is horrible for a trip much over 200 miles. Private auto is better, but not suitable for all trips, especially long-hauls across the deserts, or for the elderly.
quote:
The basic idea is that a car provides greater speed than amtrak;
Not if you factor in lodgings en route. If you do that Amtrak is both cheaper and faster. I calculated that our trip from Emeryville to Denver in 2000 cost my wife and I just 32 cents per mile on the California Zephyr. That's 16 cents per person per mile. Total time, including delays was about 35 hours each way. It would have taken three days to drive that in blistering heat. No thanks.
quote:
while greyhound provides greater savings than amtrak.
You get what you pay for.
quote:
Thus the way I see it - one of these two options should fit the needs of 99% of amtrak long distance travelers.
Unless you back that up with some hard empirical data, it amounts to nothing more than a pet theory.
quote:
I state once again that the government has no obligation to make your travel overly relaxing.
The government has no obligation to provide roadside rest areas either. But at those certain moments I'll bet you're sure glad they do! Remember, the "government" is you and me, so I have no problem with my tax dollars being spent to make my life a little easier.
quote:
And if you really want to relax on a train- then take the American Orient express.
Problem is, AOE doesn't provide regularly scheduled service to over 500 cities from coast to coast. Nor do I have the $3000+ necessary to travel by train and see a few parks on AOE's limited schedule. I take Amtrak long-distance trains because I need to get somewhere, and because, for my needs, it is cost effective and convenient. And with that statement, there goes your entire theory. Amtrak long-distance trains work for me as basic transportation, as it does for many of the people I meet on the trains.
quote:
Now that being said - Amtrak serves many purposes in the NE US and down here in So. Cal - the service is fine and is *almost* as quick as car a way less stressful.
It serves many other places as well. Long distance trains are all I have access to, and I use them because they meet my needs.
------------------
Sing to the tune of Humoresque:
Passengers will please refrain,
From flushing toilets while the train,
Is standing in the station,
I love you.
[This message has been edited by Mr. Toy (edited 07-21-2004).]
What you meant to state was that it would cost $6,000+.
Amtrak can never improve its efficiency until it is properly funded. I would like to see what a properly funded Amtrak would look like. I imagine that a more efficient Amtrak would encourage new riders. A more efficient Amtrak is one that is user friendly to all potential riders regardless of the state that they come from. What is really not fair is that the east and west coasts get the very best of Amtrak while the middle of the country is treated as a step child. If you make it easier to catch a train, more people will ride.
For what its worth,
Brian
Like it or not, there is only one place in which if intercity rail service did not exist, severe economic impact would occur - and that is within the Northeast Corridor.
By right, this is a regional operation, and in some kind of unattainable perfect world, it would be funded without any burden whatever to taxpayers residing in, say, Wyoming. But, like the Walgreen TV ads state, we do not live in a perfect world, and the track record of multi-state regional authorities garnering funding at regional level is to say the least disappointing.
The "framers' of RPSA '70 knew that the only reasonable and practical way that the Corridor would get funding was at Federal level, and to obtain such funding, the "goodies have to be passed out' in the form of a train here, a job there, a procurement here, a consultancy there. It aint pretty, but it is simply how it's done, folks!!!
Fortunately, and this should be of great interest to the large West Coast constituency of this board, the framers provided a means to accomodate any local jurisdiction that chose to fund intercity trains, and that of course is the "Section 403-B" provision of the Act. California has made notable use of this provision, as have, albeit to a lesser extent, the two other West Coast states.
So I totally concur that the National System is an integral part of the continuing Federal level initiative to fund rail passenger service. This thought is not brought about account any real economic need for a National System, but rather it represents simply "how things get done".
And in response to Uncle Buck, eliminating the sunset limited in some ways would make sense, punctuality, loss per passenger.
but in many more ways it would not make sense, loss of service to large cities, pensacola, houston, el paso, and tucson as well as connections in new orleans, san antonio, jacksonville, and LA.
Loss to many other small towns. SOmthing definetly needs to be done( destroying UP j/k), but elimination is not the answer.
Remember, everyone, Kerry is just a heart beat away from the presidency
Huh?
Mr Norman has it right. The NEC needs the votes of the West Coast and flyover country states. So, we will have a national grid for some time to come.
Of course, with all the expertise of railfans in the NEC, maybe they DO have enough knowledge, skills, and business acument to run their own railroad
(ducking and running)
quote:
Originally posted by mikesmith:
Mr Toy:
I only have one point of contention with your post. You stated that the AOE would cost $3000+. YOu are mistaking if you think your wife would allow you to travel via the AOE without her....What you meant to state was that it would cost $6,000+.
LOL, Mike. I stand corrected!
Well put, Capltd29: I would pogo stick at your side should it come to that. You certainly have a way with words and look forward to hearing more of your thoughts in the future.
We are surrounded by conservatives on this board, Capltd29. They certainly do have a way of pushing one's buttons, especially now that they are having to deal with the fact that George W. Bush, like his father, will not be re-elected.
Now, ill play politics for a second, even in John Kerry is elected there is a reasonable chance that he will not have control of the Congress (senate or house) and thus will have little or no control over the budget process. Thus regardless of who is president, it seems to reason that amtrak will not get more funding.
Of course you'd like to see more investment in CA: You live there.
I live in New Mexico. I think shoring up the Southwest Chief would be a good idea. Have you ever even climbed aboard the Southwest Chief, my friend? Could you sleep at night knowing you were instrumental in its demise?
I wish you would explain to me what you mean by "sound investment?" I don't have a clue what you mean by that combination of words.
I know you boys out in California have your heart set on high speed rail. Do you call that a sound investment and if so, why?
Let me tell you what I consider a sound investment:
Off the top of my head, I think the long hauls cost the taxpayer a few hundred million dollars. Now then, what do we get for that money? I know what I get: I get to Chicago and Los Angeles for practically nothing whenever I please.
What do you get for that investment? Maybe *you* get nothing now, but someday, in the future, you get the option of turning those routes into something really awesome. It might be high speed rail, it might be maglev, who knows?
Boy, if you let those routes slip through your fingers, you may never get them back again. Those freight lines might just decide not to let you have them again for passenger rail. And why should they? In the world of business, you don't have to be a nice guy.
From what I understand, Amtrak is a bit of a thorn in the side of the freight companies. Life would be so much easier for them if those passenger trains weren't in the way all the time. Furthermore, the liability of having to rent out lines that transport humans is somewhat of a nuisance.
I assume you are a young man. I am getting on in years. It's your world and you have to decide if you want to plan for the short term or the long term. Right now you've got a railroad network that crisscrosses the United States. Why give it up for the price of a few intelligent weapons?
I do apologize if I offended your political sensibilities. As it stands, Congress likes Amtrak. If they didn't it would have died long ago.
I agree that in a way, it really doesn't matter who is elected President. It's like Tolstoy said in War and Peace, if Napoleon didn't exist, we would have created him.
The extraordinary thing about our times is that we the people did not create George Bush. He, for all practical purposes lost the election.
Along these lines, the people, as represented by Congress, really do want a national railroad. If the President was actually exercising some leadership, he would recognize this and support the will of the people.
All this will change in November.
Ok let me answer each one of your concerns:
a) about me going to hell - Aren't I allowed to have a productive discussion about the merit of our rail system without personal insults? The reason I bring up this question and state my view is that, eventhough I know its unpopular, I think it is something that needs to be discussed and whether I'm right or wrong its not like I personally control amtrak; the bottom line is no one is being affected by this discussion - so lets keep it civel.
b) About Amtrak being a vital interest in National Secuirty. As I've argued many months ago, Amtrak in itself is a security issue. Trains are high risk targets and have little or no security as of now. On the subject of being means of effectively transporting people in times of disaster - Amtrak has very limited passanger capacity as is. Also even if Amtrak's LD routes were cut, and more emphasis was put on local routes, one would still be able to evacuate from a city under attack (you could still leave boston and get your self to northern virginia on the Metroliner).
c) About me not enjoying a trip on Amtrak - Yes I have enjoyed a trip, however 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.
And to respond to Chucky:
I think everyone is jaded in their desire to have a train that serves their needs. If Amtrak served no ones needs than no one would want Amtrak. Now, you question what a sound investment is - to me it is one that has any shot at one day becoming profitable. To me, Amtrak in its current form has no way of becoming profitable and cutting LD routes and focusing on more heavily traveled areas makes much more sense. Now, I'm sure that someone is going to point out that not every government agency needs to make a profit (and believe me, i sure hope that medicare and medicaid arent set up to make a profit). But if i remember correctly Amtrak was set up in the hope that one day it would become profitable and could be sold off - maybe i'm wrong and if so please correct me. However, the current form of Amtrak has no hope of being profitable.
You also claim that the people want a national railroad. Well, first overall at this current time we do have a national railroad. And if the people wanted it so much, why dont I see huge lines at trainstations and overflowing trains (The only time if seen such a sight was on the NE's Metroliner). Obviously this is a useful service that the people really do want and thus it should be expanded and more funds should be allocated to it.
I do apoligize to the "good" rail supporting conservatives in here, and the reason I targeted conservatives was because, normally conservatives are amtrak opponants, but there are exceptions, hutchinson(R) Texas for example. I even saw a minivan with several of those stupib bush cheney bumper stickers on it at a train show this past weekend
I see where you are coming from, but if your interest is in applying funds to where they are most needed, you won't really gain much by killing the long distance services. Corridor services are capital intensive. The NEC alone sucks up 74% of Amtrak's subsidies. The 16 long distance trains combined require only 18%.
To say that nobody is lining up to ride long distance trains is quite untrue. I stood in a very long line at Denver Union Station in order to board the California Zephyr a few years ago. These trains often sell out, and as David Gunn has increased capacity by returning wrecked cars to service, and opening up space in transition sleepers, ridership has also increased and the trains still sell out. This sugggests that demand for long-distance services exceeds Amtrak's current capacity. Over the last year or so long-distance ridership has increased, even as ridership in the NEC declined a bit.
The point of this example is to highlight how amtrak can serve a very useful purpose and be competitive against other modes of transportation. Thus it seems logical to me this is a model that amtrak should base itself upon.
1. Amtrak might not be competitive to air for LA-Chicago. But how about Fullerton, CA to Naperville, IL? How about Flagstaff, AZ to Kansas City, MO? It is the non-endpoints that Amtrak serves on LD trains that really help make it useful.
2. While some of the discussions that came out early in Amtrak's existence (and even later in the Warrington years) discussed Amtrak as if it were to be a profit-making business. I see no reason that Amtrak should be profitable; that does not mean it should have a license to waste money.
I see Amtrak more in line with, say, a police or fire department or other service: it does not need to be a "profitable" venture in the business sense of the word.
3. Unlike other posters I do occasionally ride Greyhound, but more as a gap-filler where Amtrak does not have service.
MP
No. 2: Pres. G.W. Bush is no better or worse than any other administration concerning the status of Amtrak -- plus the country has had to spend precious tax dollars on national security the past four years to make up for its loss during the Clinton debacle.
No. 3: We need our long distance trains. It's an American tradition and the best people mover there is.
No. 4: The government may not be the best and most economical umbrella over administration of train travel.
No. 5: Instead of cutbacks and trimming amenities, the passenger rail system needs to go full out to please customers and promote its obvious virtues.
I could go on, but I'm tired after a long flight on Southwest Airlines from Oregon to Florida.
Had to fly due to a medical emergency there, no other reason would substitute train travel.
I think this is a crazy argument. It is not about conservative or liberal, it is really about wanting to take all of the available rail funds and spend them on the two coasts while eliminating everything in between. Remember, the people in between are also paying tax dollars too. This is the root of the problem. When you ask for pork you must give pork.
Maybe Amtrak and the nation would be better served by making this less of a "pork" issue and making a true national transportation/energy plan. This plan would have to include rail as well as air and roads.
My two cents worth.
Brian
Brian
quote:
Originally posted by polarbearucla:
However, with jetblue, southwest, song, etc.... having very low priced fairs across the country it seems that trains are going to have a hard time competing. If I were to take a train from Chicago to LA it would take days, a plane would tak hours.
I don't think trains have ever had an easy time competing with airlines. In fact, I don't know if Amtrak has ever tried to directly compete with airlines on the endpoints, like Chicago to LA, as MP pointed out. Rather, Amtrak competes elsewhere on the LD routes. Trains magazine has had articles before to this effect, for example it appears that the single Amtrak train in Montana (the Empire Builder) is very popular among residents moving about within the state. You're right, Amtrak cannot compete Chicago to LA, and this is true when the competitors are JetBlue, Southwest, Song, as well as United, American, US Air... you name it. It's not like the appearance of low-cost airlines have suddenly thrown Amtrak into disarray.
quote:
Originally posted by polarbearucla:
Now, you question what a sound investment is - to me it is one that has any shot at one day becoming profitable. To me, Amtrak in its current form has no way of becoming profitable and cutting LD routes and focusing on more heavily traveled areas makes much more sense. Now, I'm sure that someone is going to point out that not every government agency needs to make a profit (and believe me, i sure hope that medicare and medicaid arent set up to make a profit). But if i remember correctly Amtrak was set up in the hope that one day it would become profitable and could be sold off - maybe i'm wrong and if so please correct me. However, the current form of Amtrak has no hope of being profitable.
Okay, I'm not going to sit here and say that not every government agency has to make a profit, because that's certainly not true. I don't expect every government agency to make a profit. So why, exactly, do you expect Amtrak to make a profit? Yes, Amtrak was indeed set up with the hope that passenger trains could become profitable - but that was more than thirty years ago, and I thought that by now we had pretty much eliminated that illusion. I know this has been said many times before, but no passenger rail corporation in the world makes a profit that covers operating costs as well as capital investment. Additionally, why expect Amtrak to make a profit when none of the other modes of transportation in the United States make a profit? We spend almost $35 billion to maintain highways every year. Somehow I don't think the DOT is making money on that. We spend $15 billion on airline bailout packages and maintaining the air traffic control system - we're not making money on that. I even heard an estimate somewhere - I don't remember where - that all of the airlines' financial losses over the past few years could have the potential to wipe out all of the airlines' profits ever since their inception. You're just like those many Congress people that don't study or care about the issue and are under the illusion that Amtrak should make money while no one else in the transportation industry does.
Anyway, the last thing I would like to point out is that, like Mr. Norman alluded to earlier, the national system is quite protected for the time being. You realize that the Northeastern states have paid very little towards their cherished Corridor - most of the NEC funding has come from Amtrak, meaning the federal government, meaning taxpayers across the nation. And I don't believe that the Midwest and western representatives will be willing to pour money into Amtrak to pay for a Northeastern and Californian rail system. So, realistically, as long as the NEC is popular, the national system is quite protected, because you can be sure that the Northeastern states don't want to start paying for the corridor themselves, like California has done.
[This message has been edited by TheBriz09 (edited 07-22-2004).]
Both parties are rabid and upset these days. Most particularly the right. Take a minute and listen to Rush or Laura Ingram. They spend more time name calling and making fun of the left than dealing with substantive issues.
Getting back to Amtrak, I actually agree with you on something you said, Polarbearucla and I quote, "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."
Good point. As a person who has never had the means to afford a sleeper, I see Amtrak exactly in that light (except I do rather enjoy the ride, if the truth be told.)
Unlike yourself and others on this board, I'm actually pretty happy with Amtrak. I wish they had a bit more money so they could properly maintain the cars, but on the whole I think they do a good job.
Also, I am really not in very much of a hurry to get anywhere. My employer understands this so if it takes 24 hours to get to Chicago instead of two, who cares? I certainly don't.
As has been carefully pointed out here, a train is not a plane. It fills up, it empties out, it fills up again. For a $300 rail pass I can visit three different cities, one after the other, in a span of 15 days or so. Try doing that on a plane, even a low cost airline.
Right now the airlines are having sales. The low cost airlines are doing their best to drive the old guard out of business. When they finally do, don't necessarily count on prices being as low as they are now.
[This message has been edited by Chucky (edited 07-22-2004).]
I suspect if I were your public sector employer, I wouldn't mind you taking the train for long distance business trips. Chicago, New York, Seattle--who cares?
[This message has been edited by zephyr (edited 07-22-2004).]
[This message has been edited by zephyr (edited 07-22-2004).]
The only reason I bring up the subject of my employer is that when I request vacation time, I usually request a lot of it.
And sure, it takes a while to get where I'm going, but you know something: A train trip is one of the very few times in my life when I really have a chance to reflect and think about the meaning of life.
[This message has been edited by Chucky (edited 07-22-2004).]
Thanks for clearing that up. I took your original post to mean you did a lot of long distance business travel by train. And it seemed to me your boss was overly eager to have you hit the rails.
That reminded my of my prior life working for a Federal agency. A common trick of some supervisors (not me) to get a problem employee (aka deadwood you couldn't fire) out of your hair was to send them on a lot of "business trips." You know, attending those critical week-long meetings on how to fill out a new form. Using Amtrak would have been a creative enhancement to this gambit.
Quote Mr Chucky: "A train trip is one of the very few times in my life when I really have a chance to reflect and think about the meaning of life."
Wow, is that a "Zen" thing? Does the thinking go better with Bud or Merlot? (I'm looking for an alternative to Pale Ale since they don't seem to stock it anymore). Is there a book in the works, like "Zen and the Art of Amschlepping"?
I agree not all goverment creations are supposed to make money, but fire stations, police stations, and public hospital all serve vital jobs in society. ( saving someones life is much more importent then giving someone a relaxing train trip)
While airlines do receive financial aid from the gov, they possess the ability to turn a profit, while amtrak will NEVER EVER TURN A PROFIT. Amtrak lacks the ridership to be able to make money. You might say that many people do use amtrak, well if thats the case and it still cannot make money then it is obvious the amtrak is a waste of money that could be spent policing the world.
Bush/ Cheny '04
The freight side of railroads do just fine and bargain airlines such as Southwest and JetBlue do fine (both with very good profits and still providing very good customer service)
quote:
Originally posted by polarbearucla:
The freight side of railroads do just fine and bargain airlines such as Southwest and JetBlue do fine (both with very good profits and still providing very good customer service)
quote:
Originally posted by littletrain:
While airlines do receive financial aid from the gov, they possess the ability to turn a profit, while amtrak will NEVER EVER TURN A PROFIT. Amtrak lacks the ridership to be able to make money.
Airlines, like the Amtrak NEC, CAN make enough money to cover their direct operating costs. HOWEVER, neither airlines nor Amtrak earn back the cost of capital and maintenance. Amtrak does not make enough money to catch up on NEC deferred maintenance, and airlines DO NOT make enough money to build and maintain the underlying infrastructure of the air system (airports and air traffic control). Of course JetBlue and Southwest do just fine, with considerable investment from the federal government in the infrastructure. So, responding to littletrain, I would argue that airlines do NOT possess the ability to turn a profit.
About the freight side of things, as polarbear brought up... I've heard arguments saying both that railroads do and do not earn the cost of capital. It is a debatable issue, but note that when the railroads started building back in the 1800s, the federal government provided a significant subsidy for each track-mile constructed. Personally, I am of the belief that freight railroads are NOT doing just fine; they are quickly running out of capacity as freight loads increase - demonstrated by recent UP actions. Anyway, it is a debatable issue - but comparing freight railroads to Amtrak is not really appropriate anyway as shippers will pay a lot more money per car shipped than a carload of coach passengers will pay.
You can stop ranting about the fact that Amtrak will never turn a profit: Amtrak admitted that long ago so it's a non-issue. Tell us something we don't know.
Go ahead and privatize California and the NEC if you like. The British tried something like that and they went bankrupt. They also started having spectacular train wrecks and now are in the process of re-nationalizing their railroads.
So then, tell us why you would like to see the end of our national railroad? For your information, most of those public services you mentioned are paid for out of local property taxes. Most of the stuff your federal taxes go for (you do pay taxes don't you?) go to things you probably will never collect or enjoy (like social security or corporate welfare).
The amount of money that the feds give to Amtrak pretty much amounts to pissing in the ocean. One week's money spent in Iraq would solve all of Amtrak's fiscal problems.
The only reason the Republicans even discuss Amtrak is to distract people like you from thinking about substantive issues, like the war in Iraq and the fact that most people in this country don't have medical insurance.
It's hard to put a price on certain things: Like Amtrak, our National Parks or the peace of mind that comes knowing when we turn 62 years old we can collect on the money we have invested in social security.
When these things have been eliminated, one by one, I think that even you, littletrain, will miss them.
[This message has been edited by Chucky (edited 07-23-2004).]
1) Re Dems vs. Republicans: the only large cutbacks to Amtrak's route network were carried out in 1980 (Jimmy Carter) and 1995 (Bill Clinton). 'nuff said?
2) More than half the capital funding for Amtrak's NEC comes from the Federal Transit Administration and the states, through grants to transit agencies. So I really don't think anyone can claim "the rest of the country" pays for the NEC. Just BTW, it's also where 60% of Amtrak's riders are.
3) Fewer than 20% of Amtrak riders board or alight at the intermediate stations mentioned in an earlier post. That means:
* 60% of Amtrak's riders start or end trips on the NEC
* 20% more ride between points where there is modal competation
* Only the last 20% ride between points where Amtrak may be the only show in town
That's, roundly, 4 million out of 20 million people.
There's also the small matter that, if LD trains are discontinued, Amtrak immediately saves much of the approx. $100 million annually it now pays to the freight railroads for use of their tracks.
But I've pointed all this out before...
1) Yes, I KNOW that the large cutbacks occured under the reign of Democrats. I've said before that Democrats tend to be more friendly to Amtrak - those two are exceptions. Strong exceptions, to be sure, but exceptions nonetheless.
2) Okay, so where does Federal Transit Adminstration funding come from? The taxpayers. And which states are you referring to? As I recall, much of the capital improvement funding for the NEC came when Congress (and therefore the taxpayers) appropriated more than $2 billion early in the 1990s for that specific purpose. I could be mistaken, but I don't recall states kicking in nearly as much as Congress did. And who's paying for the NEC now? Amtrak, under Mr. Gunn, is slowly paying for a few capital improvements on the NEC year-by-year - with money appropriated by Congress and distributed by the US DOT. I know that 60% of Amtrak's riders are in the NEC, and I'm NOT saying that we shouldn't pay for it - what I am saying is that Midwestern and western Congress-people aren't going to continue sending money to Amtrak if all they're going to use it for is a Northeastern rail system.
3) Okay, so 20% of Amtrak's total riders get on or off at places where there are no other options. I could just sit here and say, then, that for those 4 million people, Amtrak means a GREAT deal to them. That is true. But note that the whole discussion here is about a national system - so let's ignore those NEC riders (60%) and concentrate on those passengers who purely use the long-distance routes (in other words, the national system). The other 40%. So, based on rresor's posted percentages, that means that fully half (50%) of all long-distance riders are people who have no other option than Amtrak. My whole point in my earlier post was that Amtrak does not compete with airlines on long-distance endpoints. Where Amtrak competes is at the intermediate stations. And so this data seems to prove my very point, that Amtrak does not rely on endpoint riders as HALF of all LD riders use intermediate stations.
Finally, I would just like to point out that, looking at the grand total of United States' transportation spending, $100 million per year is peanuts compared to what the highways and airways get. What exactly is your alternative suggestion for that $100 million? Shifting it to highway and airway development? You know, $100 million is so small compared to total highway and airway spending that adding it to one of their pots won't really make much of a difference at all. Pretty much the same story even with the Amtrak NEC - investing another $100 million will help, but in the grand scheme of things it won't really make much of a difference. It will maybe pay for part of an interlocking reconstruction - that's about it.
[This message has been edited by TheBriz09 (edited 07-23-2004).]
quote:
Originally posted by TheBriz09:
...What exactly is your alternative suggestion for that $100 million? Shifting it to highway and airway development?
That reminds me of something. Generally speaking, it costs at least $25 million per mile to build a four lane freeway, and that doesn't include design and land acquisition costs, just construction. I think that of Amtrak's $1.8 billion request, only $300 million is for the long distance trains. If those trains, which serve hundreds of cities, were eliminated and the money transferred to highways it would only build 12 miles of freeway, at most. I don't think that would be a very good trade-off.
So Any way you cut it, the long distance trains are giving us a pretty good deal for the money.
[This message has been edited by Mr. Toy (edited 07-23-2004).]
Wheres the fun in a short Train Ride?
------------------
JONATHON D. ORTIZ
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.
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
------------------
JONATHON D. ORTIZ
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).]
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
Bush/Cheny '04
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
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.
Bush/Cheny '04
quote:
Originally posted by littletrain:
and even when they due run ontime the trains take to long when compared to flying and even greyhound.
Actually the time and price compared to Greyhound SYR to LAX are so close as to be the negligible.
Greyhound - SYR to LAX - 2 days 14 hours upto 3 days - Price at 2 days 14 hours is $129 no discounts.
Amtrak - Syr to LAX(Trains 48 & 3) - 2 days 12 hours - Price $133 no discounts.
[This message has been edited by pelarson (edited 07-26-2004).]
[This message has been edited by pelarson (edited 07-26-2004).]
Greyhound: 1 day 14 hrs
Amtrak: 2 days 2 hrs
quote:
Originally posted by littletrain:
MR Ortiz you are clearly not to smart
you& polarbear realy are the same person arent you
------------------
JONATHON D. ORTIZ
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
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).]
------------------
JONATHON D. ORTIZ
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
do you undetand the perpus of what these poeple are sayin?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Take a look at some of the essays linked to on this site http://www.trainweb.org/moksrail/
One, the Myth of Passenger Train Profitability, is especially useful.
This writing by NARP shows what the travel market is REALLY like.
http://www.narprail.org/plan.htm
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.
------------------
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?
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.
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.
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
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.
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.