quote:In fact, even with the annual budget battle that the system has to endure every year, Amtrak ridership has hit record levels in the past three years. It takes approximately six-and-a-half hours, not in excess of nine, to travel from Boston to Washington, D.C. on the Acela, and it wouldn’t take much in the way of capital investment to cut those times significantly. The private freight railroads are required by law to make their rights of way available to Amtrak, so there is no need for Amtrak to “lease” them. What is needed is a collaborative effort between Amtrak and the freight railroads to expand and add capacity to the existing system so that Amtrak trains don’t have to wait around for freight trains to get out of their way—the single most important reason why Amtrak’s on time performance on some of its long distance routes isn’t what it should be.
So why has it not happened?
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
I think, Mr. Jones, that readers should review the initiating Opinion piece in The Harvard Crimson prior to reviewing Gov. Dukakis' comments in a Letter regarding such:
Even though I must acknowledge that the web address may lead one to believe the contrary, neither submission constitutes an article.
Now allow me to continue with addressing the key point identified by Mr. Jones in the Governor's response:
The private freight railroads are required by law to make their rights of way available to Amtrak, so there is no need for Amtrak to “lease” them. What is needed is a collaborative effort between Amtrak and the freight railroads to expand and add capacity to the existing system so that Amtrak trains don’t have to wait around for freight trains to get out of their way—the single most important reason why Amtrak’s on time performance on some of its long distance routes isn’t what it should be.
First, Amtrak gets its access to the Class One's ROW, it simply does not get any preference once there - and that is the way it should be, save an emergency such as illness or injury to a passenger on-board. No railroad - even the Union Pacific during the worst of its several post SP merger service meltdowns has outright embargoed Amtrak trains.
Secondly, the Class Ones are investor owned, and as such the managers hired by the elected Board of Directors should be mindful that their job is to maximize the investor's return - not to concentrate their efforts on an ancilliary activity such as the Amtrak operating contract.
It would be absurd to expect that investors would commit funds so that roads such as the UP could move Amtrak trains more efficiently over their lines. Further, I think it would be equally absurd to commit public funds away from "corridors' towards such an end.
There have been suggestions that, in order to accomodate the needs of our globalized economy, and to ensure that whatever Chinese made must-have toy is on the shelves at Wally World this Thanx, a public funding initiative should move forth to ensure adequate rail capacity. Any such initiative could well include a provision for increased passenger operations - including LD's. I would think any such provision would be ill-advised. The LD's should simply be discontinued, not so much because no one wants to ride them but rather anyone who does has transport alternatives at hand, and their continued operation interferes with what railroads are all about today - moving freight.
But politics being politics, such a provision could well be inserted and become law of the land.
Posted by gp35 (Member # 3971) on :
It's not like UP has 50 Amtrak trains a day. At most, 2 trains per 24 hours. And on its Sunset Route, 1 train a day 5 days a week.
Posted by delvyrails (Member # 4205) on :
Exactly, gp35. With 40 or 50 freight trains a day, killing off the daily pair of Amtrak trains will make little practical difference to the freight railroads.
Some rairoaders even believe that the presence of a pair of passenger trains daily creates incentive to run an operationally tighter railroad.
Of course, those fans who think that every route should carry at least two or three pairs of passenger trains a day should reexamine their postion.
Posted by pelican (Member # 754) on :
Amtrak trains, like expedited intermodal trains, cause much more than their share of disruption. This is especially true of overtaking slower trains and in single track territory.
There are usually many more intermodals than Amtraks(or other passenger trains in commuter territory)on a route. There are some exceptions of course in heavy density commuter areas.
Posted by jgart56 (Member # 3968) on :
"The LD's should simply be discontinued, not so much because no one wants to ride them but rather anyone who does has transport alternatives at hand"
Well said Mr. Norman...for one who can hop Metra into Chicago and then take the Blue Line to O'Hare or the Orange Line to Midway. I wonder if you would have more empathy towards those who do NOT HAVE what you do living here. If one lives in Podunk Montana (and there are many such towns across that state)and you have no airport (or must drive 4-5 hours to get there)and Greyhound no longer stops in your city, what transport alternatives do you have? I believe the answer here is easy: ZERO!
Unless of course, you are promoting walking or hitchhiking?? Having lived in a tiny town in Oregon,with no bus service and no remotely close airport, and with winter often closing montain roads, the only "alternative" was Amtrak. I understand now how blessed I am to be living here in Aurora(IL).
Perhaps I could throw in an ethical question here: While UP is a business and needs to make money, I wonder if the Board of Directors ever thinks beyod that? IE it's people who make the decision to ship with them and pay them big bucks to do it, is there anything they can give back to the communities in which these people live, to help them out? Amtrak service?
Granted Amtrak often has equipment problems and shoots itself in the foot, but when things are going well, how hard can it be to run a 9 car passenger train around the 100 car freights? Soo Line/CP and BNSF seem to be able to do it.
OK, I've unfortunately revealed my liberal bent, so feel free to have at me!
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
If the position Mr. Gart has taken were to be expanded, then rail passenger would need to be restored to many sections of the country, as folk living in Evanston WY or Garrison, MT, could think they have been discriminated against. Such a course of thought could result in the restoration of much needless passenger service that would only add to the taxpayer burden and cause even more interference with freight operations.
I don't think anyone wants that to occur - really????
Posted by jgart56 (Member # 3968) on :
That is of course taking my point to absurdity:
I was referring to current service, and again you seem to be saying that all Amtrak service interferes with all freight service and therefore should be avoided at all costs, ie get rid of it...should we also do this on the NE Corridor? As long as freight runs on the corridor and it does(although in small amounts), we should probably get rid of those pesky passenger trains also? Right?
We can take it to the level of absurdity on both sides. Now can a middle be found? I think so, with both Amtrak and the Freight Companies perhaps sitting down and renegotitating the use of their right of way!
Posted by wigwagfan (Member # 664) on :
quote:Originally posted by jgart56: Having lived in a tiny town in Oregon,with no bus service and no remotely close airport, and with winter often closing montain roads, the only "alternative" was Amtrak.
Mr. Gart,
Where exactly did you live in Oregon?
Presently or historically, there are no communities served by Amtrak which did not have alternative transportation by bus - all of the Pioneer route stops were also served by Greyhound (plus a few cities where Amtrak didn't bother to stop, like Cascade Locks and Arlington); and all of the Coast Starlight stops are also served by bus (Portland-Eugene by Greyhound), Chemult and Klamath Falls are served by a local carrier.
Portland, Eugene, Klamath Falls, and Pendleton all offer scheduled air service, along with non-Amtrak served Medford, Bend and Coos Bay. Salem and Albany are both within a one-hour's drive to either Portland or Eugene airports. Chemult is not even an incorporated community, and its estimated population is so small that it does not warrant air service. The Dalles and Hood River are within 90 miles from Portland International Airport. Ontario is about an hour's drive away from Boise, Idaho. And the Hinkle/Hermiston/Boardman/Umatilla area is a short drive from the Tri-Cities (Washington).
That leaves La Grande and Baker City with no reasonable airline access. I believe an air taxi company tried to start up services in La Grande but the market did not exist, and the franchise folded. Greyhound still serves both communities.
There are numerous small cities in Oregon (and across the country, for that matter), that never had service to Amtrak, even with a two-hour drive. If we are to fully support Amtrak, then what do we owe to the residents of those communities who are paying for a service they never have, or will, receive? What about the residents of Burns, John Day, Fossil, Christmas Valley, Lakeview, Brookings, Coos Bay, Newport, Lincoln City, Tillamook, Seaside, Astoria, McMinnville, Newberg, Roseburg, Medford, Grants Pass, Prineville...and the list goes on?
Many people claim to support "equal funding for Amtrak". The problem is that on a per-passenger basis, Amtrak receives more than any other form of transport; and serves far fewer communities. The only real solution to create "equality" is for a federal takeover of the airlines and bus lines - and then base transportation options by need, not by mode.
Posted by earmond (Member # 186) on :
Good Morning G.B., WigWag
Ah, choices! Aren't they wonderful?
I don't want any of my transportation taxpayer dollars to go to the expansion of O'Hare airport. Nor do I want any of my transportation taxpayer dollars to any study of a future 3rd airport for the Chicago area. 2 is more than enough. What line of what form do I need to sign to ensure of this?
I live in San Diego, where they have for approximately 20 yrs, been studying a place for a new airport to replace one of the most convenient airports in the U.S., Lindburgh Field. I don't care! S.D. does not need another airport, and if we become just another puddle jumping hop from Los Angeles, so be it. Can someone here define with relative accuracy the percentage of airline travel is done in the name of "business". Add a(nother) fee for all Business travel into and out of any city and let that fund the airport!
In fact, I resent my local government from having used any portion of my property taxes or sales taxes to build the Padres a new stadium, or research and build one for the Chargers. I don't care! What's in it for me?
How about, let's convert all major highways into toll roads. And then outsource the management and maintenance of such roads. Let the locals pay for it; I won't be driving on it. If the road can't pay for itself, close it down if it isn't being used enough.
Dang it; I don't care to be having my gas tax dollars paying the Big Dig in Boston, or even another lane to Interstate 10 in LA. I won't be driving on it! Why should any percentage of my tax dollars be used for roadways I won't be driving on?
Answer: Because they are a public service! I.E. they serve the public, social good. If building a private highway/road were profitable on it's own, companies would be lining up to build them and manage them. Same with Airports. Hell, same with railroads. Can anyone name a completely new high traffic route which has been laid in the 1/2 century? Or are they just improving (a questionable term) what's already there?
Same with sports teams I hate to admit. (the franchises themselves, not the multimilionaire types who own or play for them. That's another issue.)
It seems that this issue is being distorted and overmanaged by beancounters and project management types who can only see the bottom line. Fine for you. I still say that for putting in this much effort, there has got to be bigger projects to grill to get a bigger return of the taxpayer dollar. It has just got to be pure hate and enmity to target such a small budget item.
Dare I say that a closer watch on the graft and other corruption associated with the new 3rd Chicago airport project will garner more return than the removal of the National Passenger Railroad?
There are bigger fish out there; all you need do is cast a wider net.
Posted by City of Miami (Member # 2922) on :
Did you ever consider, GBN, that your oft-stated conflict of interest might recuse you from belaboring your one-note response to a subject most of us hold dear, e.g., the subject of the forum itself?
Posted by rY. (Member # 3528) on :
quote:Originally posted by wigwagfan: The only real solution to create "equality" is for a federal takeover of the airlines and bus lines - and then base transportation options by need, not by mode.
I'd argue that the equality is there, but the funds just go into different pockets of the same outfit.
The airlines have locally and federally subsidized airport facilities, air traffic systems, as well as a still healthily subsidized (although not as much as it used to be) aerospace r&d and assembly industry.
The bus companies get to operate nearly infrastructure-cost free thanks to generous federal, state, and local spending on roads, bridges, and fuel.
In the case of Amtrak, their west-of-the-NEC infrastructure is provided by the freight railroads, but the feds fund the operations gap instead.
(And I don't even know where to start on the watercraft industry, so we'll just leave them out of this one if that's alright...)
As far as I'm concerned, each mode of transportation serves its own needs (with many overlaps). Considering that funds do *not* scale in a linear fashion (a little airline still requires a good bulk of the facilities as a big airline, flight-for-flight; Amtrak doesn't make much of a dent in its budget deficit by killing select routes), I fail to see the inequality with which you are taking such an issue.