posted
"Who Killed the Train?", is an article appearing in the March, 2008, issue of TRUE WEST magazine (www.twmag.com).
The magazine has several pages devoted to the railroad with a 4-step recommendation for riding the rails and how to support and save the passenger railroad.
Among other things, the article points out that the passenger train represents 17% less expended energy over an airflight or a 21% less energy wastage over the automobile, if you take a long-distance train less than 500 miles.
In the March issue, there are sections on excursion trains and a photo section on historic train depots. Here is a link to the historic depot article:
Needless to say I have a few issues with the material. A far more appropriate title would be "Who killed the Long Distance Passenger Train'? The material conveniently overlooks that Corridor trains, most of which operate over publicly owned rights of way, are doing quite well and are enjoying ridership increases. But instead, the author clearly leaves the impression on me that he believes the investor owned Class I rail system is there, or at least should be there, for the convenience of long distance passenger train interests.
Obviously, the author enjoys riding passenger trains (so do I, for that matter), but he overlooks to what extent the taxpayers must support a system of LD trains that simply provide meaningless transportation to the regions served - and don't even serve the regions where the people are migrating to. He simply overlooks that the most cogent reason for the system to exist is because the "ways of Washington' dictate elected Members of Congress must have a bit or two of pork to bring to the folks back home in order to attain the necessary 218+51+1 (or alternately 290+67+0) of which Mr. Pullman reminds us, to ensure the Federal funding for what REALLY counts - the Northeast Corridor - moves forth. Needless to say, the indirect subsidy afforded by the Class I industry is overlooked.
Usual disclaimer; I hold positions in BNI and NSC
amtraksupporter Member # 5619
posted
Gilbert b. Norman stated"
quote: [T]the author . . . overlooks . . . a system of L[ong] D[istance] trains that simply provide meaningless transportation to the regions served
For any train now operated by Amtrak, long distance or not long distance, if you asked and would listen, at any NARP Board meeting, someone would give you a detailed fact based explanation why that particular train performs some vital transportation function in the region essential to the national economy and for national defense.
Where is any train now providing "meaningless" transportation?
Gilbert B Norman Member # 1541
posted
Mr. Supporter, I find it quite difficult to consider the movement of 150 souls aboard the Sunset six days a week through the Southwest region as meaningful transportation.
Of interest, on A-Day, the Sunset passenger count was also some 150 per train. Get out an atlas and see where the population of the Sunset's region has gone during those forty or so years; one can only conclude that the train's relevance to providing transportation has substantially DECREASED over time.
Is the Sunset meaningful transportation to the 150 on board?, of course it is. But when any interest group is seeking slop at the Federal trough, one had best be prepared to establish greater public benefit than to 150 souls - all of whom have other transportation readily available (sure, you won't meet the 'colorful characters' that gravitate to Amtrak Lounge cars on other means, but lest we forget publicly funded transportation is about moving cargo and persons Point A to B and not about anything else).
PullmanCo Member # 1138
posted
Passenger? National Defense? REALITY CHECK!!
Let's say we surged 100 Amfleet units with a 60 pax per car capacity to Fort Hood, TX. We also surge 20 85' baggage cars to same, to provide for "To Accompany Troops" impedimentia.
10 trains, 10 coaches/2 bags.
6000 man 1 lift capability.
A US heavy division is now on the order of 18,000 folks full up. That means 3 RT, with a C/E only backhaul from the destination to the origin.
That means for any divisional movement, 120 cars and 20 locomotives out of line service for 3 times twice the 1way travel time. If RT (out and back), and the cars are held over, this means 3 times 4x travel time plus the duration of the event.
For personal travel, the JTR authorizes the maximum of an obsolete accommodation: Slumbercoach. Sleeper is considered premium travel, and approval authority for that is at the full General/Admiral level (4 stars) and the Service Secretaries.
In fact, here is the opening sentence of section 3125 of the JTR: "Transportation by common carrier air is generally the most cost efficient and expeditious way to travel."
Freight is a wholly different story.
4021North Member # 4081
posted
quote:Originally posted by PullmanCo: "Transportation by common carrier air is generally the most cost efficient and expeditious way to travel."Freight is a wholly different story.
I can see the logic in that statement, as applied to military situations where expeditious speed is especially relevant and cost-savings less so. Air travel could be regarded as more cost-efficient in that facilities are already in place and ready for military transport, whereas the passenger rail system is deficient by contrast. However, in the arena of fuel consumption and equipment costs the trains would have serious advantages, not to mention redundancy. So I don't think passenger trains are irrelevant to a national defense situation.
Moreover, the speed advantage of planes counts for less when talking about civilian transport. If that was all that mattered, we could tell people not to drive anymore because flying is faster and safer. So don't tell me there is no reason for Amtrak long distance trains to exist, simply because other forms of transportation are desirable in certain ways. Amtrak is the safest of them all, is cheaper to operate than flying, takes up less space than highways or airports, and in general is a very economical way to move passengers. If we expand Amtrak, more people will ride it. That the Sunset Limited has low ridership now means little other than there aren't enough trains to make it a serious travel option.
PullmanCo Member # 1138
posted
Mr 4021 North...
My response was written to counter amtraksupporter's earlier post in the thread.
The continuing question is if the US has the political will to recapitalize the National system?
SilverStar092 Member # 2652
posted
The Sunset's tri-weekly operation hurts ridership as many potential travelers find its schedule ill fitted to their schedules in at least one direction. Since its Florida leg was illegally axed by Amtrak, there are no connections on its eastern end and connections to the Coast Starlight were dropped when the timekeeping of both trains fell off the chart. It's up to Amtrak to find a creative solution for working with the UP to improve timekeeping and it is Amtrak's job to somehow make it connect with more than just the Texas Eagle. I take exception with the comment that LD trains provide meaningless transportation as they are very important to many communities and city pairs that are either isolated or that have poor air service. I do agree that the percentage of people transported by LD train are a small percentage of the traveling public, however, the solution is to add more LD trains rather than eliminate them. Given a choice of convenient times with convenient connections, people would take the train. Amtrak would see increased ticket sales/cost effectiveness from its station agents than it presently derives and the viability of rail travel would increase. If we don't maintain and eventually expand our LD passenger rail system, we will reduce Americans' ability to travel across the country for pleasure as soaring gas prices will make it harder to take the family car on long trips and air fares are already out of sight in many places. With airlines constantly juggling their flight schedules and switching to smaller commuter planes, many people are losing their desire to fly.
Doc Brown Member # 4724
posted
I think Silverstar has this right on. Low ridership does not necessarily equate to lack of interest. Inconvenience plays a big role in this. I know people who would take LD trains for personal travel more often, but for the reasons cited, they simply don't view LD trains as a viable option.
Yes, I know, Amtrak's budget prevents meaningful expansion. But they could step up thier PR a bit too. I've seen a few good ads, but mostly people never think of the train. Amtrak lacks public visibilty. Out of sight, out of mind. In today's world, buisnesses go out of buisness if they fail to keep themselves in the eye of the public. The only time people think of it is when they see news on TV about a derailment. Thats not the kind of PR Amtrak needs. And if the public fails to even consider Amtrak as a viable transportation alternative, why should any politician stick his neck out to support it?
Gilbert B Norman Member # 1541
posted
quote:Originally posted by SilverStar092: I take exception with the comment that LD trains provide meaningless transportation as they are very important to many communities and city pairs that are either isolated or that have poor air service...... Given a choice of convenient times with convenient connections, people would take the train....If we don't maintain and eventually expand our LD passenger rail system, we will reduce Americans' ability to travel across the country for pleasure...
We again must address where is the capacity to come from to handle these additional trains you and other advocates perceive are needed.
It is amazing the gamut of "solutions" that have been presented for this problem. I've seen that Amtrak should aggressively enforce their ostensible "rights' under existing Access provisions. If the railroad industry becomes less profitable and hence less able to attract private capital, so what..."WE WANT OUR TRAINS".
We've also seen that public funding capacity increases ought to be made primarily to support passenger trains. On that one, lest we forget, Class I infrastructure is investor owned, and somehow I think the industry's answer to such would be "thanks but no thanks". The two E-W transcons adding substantial capacity, namely UP Sunset Route and BNSF "route of the San Francisco Chief' would sooner approach the private capital markets for such rather than the public trough. If somehow, someway, such an initiative were to move forth, you would be looking at the most expensive rolling pork barrel (or Pink Elephant if overseas) any politician ever dared place on this planet.
Finally, I've noted the "absurd of the absurds"...NATIONALIZE 'EM!!!! This of course would represent a "taking', which can be done under US Law, but the standard for doing so is very high. I don't think the standard of "we want our trains" would hardly rise to the level of "public good' required for a taking, but then Constitutional Law is not my specialty in this life.
Thoughts, Messrs Silverstar, 4021, et al within the advocacy community?
Whoops, better not forget the disclaimer; author holds positions in BNI and NSC.
4021North Member # 4081
posted
quote:Originally posted by Doc Brown: The only time people think of it is when they see news on TV about a derailment. Thats not the kind of PR Amtrak needs.
You can say that again. The media itself could do a lot to improve this situation, instead of going after events that look spectacular but in reality are not significant.
About improving capacity using public funds, I just don't see why expanding Amtrak has to compromise freight operations. Simply stated, if new track is put in place to handle more passenger trains, and paid for by Amtrak, then there should be no adverse effect on freight traffic.
Gilbert B Norman Member # 1541
posted
In a perfect world Mr. 4021, you have a point - why should publicly funded track capacity in exchange for more passenger trains hurt?
But this is not a perfect world, and the industry would expect with a lot of past precedent that "the government' would start dictating how their railroad would be run.
Remember the industry wanted out, and had they not in a moment of desperation signed that "Faustian pact with Devil" known as Amtrak, they would have been out likely with 1980 dereg. Now that the industry is likely the most viable transportation mode out there (FDX and UPS will feel the pinch of higher fuel costs far quicker than will the RR industry) they will carefully resist any more incursion on their operations; allowing more passenger trains will do just that.
I "was there' for eleven years 1970-81; I know first hand how much animosity Amtrak had caused amongst railroad management. Even though I've been removed from the industry for some thirty years, I cannot imagine any turn of events that has made the industry think "warm fuzzy" about Amtrak or any other government agency seeking to encroach upon their investor owned rights of way.
In short, "they don't want it" - and so far as I'm concerned, no advocacy group is going to impose such upon them.
Finally, as I have noted "here and there" in the past, somehow had the industry ever forseen that they would be stuck operating anybody's LD passenger trains thirty eight years and counting after A-Day, they, save possibly Penn Central - already a ward of the State, would have simply said "thanks, but no thanks".
irishchieftain Member # 1473
posted
I'd like to see how any of that could be construed as "progress".
Nobody forced any railroads to sign on to Amtrak. Therefore, any "animosity" is born purely out of greed.
SilverStar092 Member # 2652
posted
While I am a supporter of the private railroads and am a proponent of the free market, I do believe the freight railroads have an obligation to operate passenger trains within reason. Most of the railroads, at least those serving the west, received right of way through land grants and other such government programs designed to connect the country. As such there is an obligation to be willing to give something back. This does not obligate the freight railroads to operate passenger trains on all of their lines or to operate a multitude of passenger trains on routes they do serve. But I hardly call a couple trains per day each way on select routes a major infringement upon the freight railroads' ability to operate.
The private railroads made decisions in the 1960s and 1970s to reduce much of their double track capacity which has, in turn, created bottlenecks for their own freight as well as passenger trains. Many of these same companies now are adding long sidings or doubletrack to their busiest routes. Public-private partnerships to add a few strategic passing sidings could help Amtrak and would ultimately benefit the movement of freight during the majority of each day when no passenger trains are involved in meets at those locations.
The key to any Amtrak expansion is political support and the fact is, passenger trains have not been a political priority for years. Like Doc Brown, I see this as a fault of Amtrak which has failed to get its message across. In addition to PR, Amtrak needs to come up with a bold but realistic expansion plan. Adding trains to places like Janesville and Jeffersonville was a nice touch but not exactly bold and attention grabbing. Amtrak needs to have a reasoanble phased plan. Phase 1 could add up to 5 "new" routes (actually service restorations) such as the North Coast Hiawatha, National Limited, Desert Wind, Pioneer, and Chicago-Florida via Atlanta. Additionally, make the Cardinal and Sunset Limited daily with service restored to Florida. This might take 3 or 4 years to fully implement due to equipment construction schedules. Phase 2 could add an additional frequency on a near mirror schedule for to up to 5 existing routes. Part of the Coast Starlight route and the Crescent route between Washington and Atlanta come to mind. Phase 3 might add service on other missing links such as the Florida East Coast, the line over Tehachipi, KC-Oklahoma City, etc.
To accomplish this plan, Amtrak would have to push hard for a major equipment building program. This would not be easy but it will never happen if Amtrak continues its 37 year history of not even trying. Even a modest expansion of 1 or 2 new new routes and perhaps 1 or 2 frequency increases would get the ball rolling. A methodical approach wouldn't break the bank and could serve as an economic stimulus in many ways: a new or expanded car building company, more on board and station jobs, more leisure travel, and more mobility for underserved communities.
As I stated earlier, this won't be easy but many things worth doing are hard to do. That should never be a deterrant.
Gilbert B Norman Member # 1541
posted
Mr. SilverStar, even though we will continue to disagree on the public need for LD passenger trains, I do wish to note it appears your immediate posting represents your own thoughts, as distinct from an advocacy group's "party line", set forth in a mature and respectful manner.
Again allow me to note that, even though continuation of LD trains is contrary to my interests as a railroad security investor, I DO ride 'em (most recent: Auto Train RT Mar 07). However, they have to be convenient to my travel requirements, and unfortunately, one such route I regularly travel, namely Chicago to Stamford CT, is no longer so.
Henry Kisor Member # 4776
posted
Out of curiosity, Mr. Norman, why is the Chicago-New York City-Stamford route no longer convenient to your travel needs? Wouldn't the commuter trains on the New Haven get you to Stamford? Yes, you'd have to taxi from Penn Station to Grand Central, if I remember correctly.
yukon11 Member # 2997
posted
I quite agree with Mr. Silverstar's statement "a key to Amtrak's expansion is political support". Of course, the economic problems are major....but I think you have to analyze why there is a rejection of economic support. Is it because expansion of the passenger railroad is not wanted, or is it because of adverse economic times or a recession?.
I know it is a major factor, here in Calif, with regard to a high-speed train from LA to SF. It is hard to push politicians or the governor for support with a 14 billion dollar state defecit.
I agree that new routes, such as the North Coast Hiawatha, would be great. But, before that, I think the public needs a passenger train paragon to create enthusiasm. The idea being that public enthusiam would generate political support. Political support would enable funding. I don't think funding issues, alone, give a true perception of the public's interest in a rejuvenation of the passenger train.
Make one of Amtrak's trains into a showcase that would gravitate the public. For example. a Coast Starlight with "state of the art" on-board services. Make it a flagship for public enthusiasm. Amtrak, right now, has little to promote such public support.
Richard
Gilbert B Norman Member # 1541
posted
quote:Originally posted by Henry Kisor: Out of curiosity, Mr. Norman, why is the Chicago-New York City-Stamford route no longer convenient to your travel needs?
Fair enough, Mr. Kisor.
You are correct that there is Metro North service, three per hour - one of which is non-stop, GCT-Stmfd. However, if one is laden with baggage, it presents difficulties getting to the taxicab stand @ Penn for the ride over to GCT.
But more to the point, #48 is scheduled to arrive @ 735P; even if on time, this would mean the earliest one could be at GCT for an MNR train would be 830P and in Stmfd at 930P. At that time, it is too late to entertain with family; the only thing to do is to take a taxicab to the $300 or so a night hotel - and then go back to Stmfd next morning to get a rental auto.
To ride #30 Capitol Ltd, the first legal connection at WAS is the 4PM Regional or Acela. This means an 815P or so arrival in Stmfd - Hertz has turned out the lights by that time.
30-PGH-42-PHL-94 could work, but that presumes one is prepared to accept being rousted from a Sleeper @ 430A.
WW itineraries are OK; but still there is a problem of what to do with the rental auto picked up at a NY airport and dumped at Stamford. Auto rental drop charges are pretty steep.
So referring back to the topic title of "Who Killed the Train", I guess in this instance it was Amtrak themselves. However, I fully understand why #48's schedule was changed to accommodate late connections - misconnects cost "heap big wampum". But in my case, the most expedient solution is to make future trips either by air or auto. At least if made by air, I need not listen to the "why can't you just fly like everyone else does?"
SilverStar092 Member # 2652
posted
I appreciate Mr. Norman's kind words. Indeed you are correct, I am an independent thinker rather than part of an advocacy group. Frankly I find most of them well intentioned but incoherant. I was turned off by the reply I received from a past NARP president at a forum years ago as he shot down my notion that Amtrak should build more sleepers so they could increase capacity and perhaps drive down prices. My thinking was that a politically funded company like Amtrak would be best served by carrying as many customers as possible as this translates into good PR. Last year NARP made a nice move by suggesting the addition of more routes but it was basically a train for every community. Some of the routes they suggested were on lightly used lines that likely could not support 60 mph service. A more incremental approach like I suggested in my earlier post seems more rational to me with the goal of eventually having trains that serve almost every possible route. Mr. Norman's difficulty in reaching Stamford illustrates the point I made in my proposal. An earlier train on the Lake Shore route could depart Chicago at about noon and arrive in New York at about 9:00am. This would allow overnight service between Buffalo an New York and would provide early morning arrival into Albany as well. This would be perfect for folks like Mr. Norman. Connections would be available in Chciago from New Orleans and short haul routes and in New York this train could restore connections to Florida. I rest my case.
4021North Member # 4081
posted
I agree with everything the author says in support of passenger trains. There are things he obviously doesn't know, and he repeats the annoying and persistent misconception that train trips more than about 500 miles are somehow less economical than shorter trips. But none of this compromises his position or his suggested plan of action.
As regards the relationship between passenger and freight railroad operations, it will have to be one in the spirit of cooperation. As has been said here before, Amtrak and the freight railroads must coexist. Examples of productive cooperation between freight railroads and Amtrak were noted. No one "killed" the long-distance train, no one is going to, and Amtrak has just as much right to use what railroads exist, as you or I do to drive over an Interstate right-of-way or fly in commercial airspace. Those rights of access are there for the public good. Amtrak's are set forth in the Rail Passenger Service Act of 1970. When private interests are taken for the public good, the affected parties are compensated for it.
If you want to complain that the freight railroads are unfairly compensated and that they should receive more from Amtrak, that is understandable. I respect the freight railroads in their important mission of transporting freight; perhaps passenger trains should even be subordinated to freight trains insofar as freight transport is more important than passenger. But I will not respect the opinion that long-distance or any other trains should be subordinated to other modes of transportation because few people ride them at the moment, because people don't want to change, or for any other reason. If the freight railroads want to oppose Amtrak because they think it will be better for them in the short term, they are only supporting the continued over-reliance on inefficient transportation that serves no one.
I guess people just don't want to accept change even when they know they will have to. To paraphrase Machiavelli, when people try to change the existing order, many who are in positions of power and who benefit from the old order will violently oppose those changes. I'm not saying the freight railroads alone should sacrifice themselves for Amtrak. I am saying the existing economic order is going to have to make sacrifices, government and private railroads included. They are going to have to make changes along with the rest of us, and if that means allowing reasonable access to an expanded Amtrak then so be it. Expanding Amtrak will stop making sense when people stop driving and flying. Until then it is very much in the interest of citizens to band together and promote a more reasonable transportation policy.
____________________________________________________ "In America people would never let this happen...." Terry Pindell, Last Train to Toronto
PullmanCo Member # 1138
posted
Mr Silverstar,
The problem is RPSA '70 relieved the railroads of the obligations you stated ... in law. Further, ARAA 97 relieved the railroads of the duty to provide service "at the former level of access" ... in other words, passenger ahead of freight.
Now, simply put, it's "Money talks." If you bring enough money to the table, the railroads will make sure you get there on time.
NOTE: UP actually turned down UPS $$$ ... they didn't think they could meet the delivery time standards. This was about 6 years back, as the system velocity issues of the merger were still in play.
Amtrak's rub is it doesn't have the money to really play at the table.
amtraxmaniac Member # 2251
posted
OK-time for my pipedream 2 cents:
Public morale is low. The American People don't give a SQUAT about progress anymore. They don't want to hear about a passenger rail network, or putting a man on the moon, and nobody shouted horray short of a few NASA personelle when we landed the Rover on Mars. WE STOPPED CARING ABOUT PROGRESS AND INFRASTRUCTURE. My question is who or WHAT killed the American Spirit for BUILDING something new??? While we squabble about politics, other countries skip ahead of us in technology, infrastructure, innovation, etc.
Every developed nation in the world has a passenger rail network and I'm thinking most of them (if not all) ar NATIONALIZED...OOOOOHHHHH, there's that EVIL SOCIALIST word again....NATIONALIZED...... Lets face it, too often PRIVATE Interests get in the way of PUBLIC good and THAT is why advocacy groups and unions play a vital role in America.
If the United States expects to reclaim its place as the world's innovation leader, sacrifices (public and private) will have to be made...even if that means bending (not breaking) good ole' fashion capitalist values.
TwinStarRocket Member # 2142
posted
Amtraxmaniac, how can you say we don't have progress in America. We now have every news item analyzed and evaluated for us so we don't have to think for ourselves. Infrastructure issues can be forgotten while we enjoy public humiliation on American Idol. We are immediately updated with the latest news on Britney Spears and Lindsay Lohan. Do other countries get these updates in a timely manner?
Building things went out with Lincoln Logs and Erector Sets. WE now have cell phones! And please don't confuse me with concepts like "the public good". It sounds like one of those things they talk about on the boring channels that don't show "Law and Order" reruns ever.
amtraxmaniac Member # 2251
posted
Maybe I'm a bit slow, but do I sense sarcasm? Excuse me if I haven't had my coffee yet this morning.
Excuse me if I'm not thrilled by the fact that Brittney Spears rehab trips got more news than the landing of the Mars Rover.
Point one: Americans care more about peoples pain than there successes (unless its a sporting event)...point illustrated in above example.
Point two: Americans care only about there OWN pocketbooks. National pride (for anything) means NOTHING if they have to penny up for it. (ie: intercity rail)
Point three: Americans are too often short sighted. They will continue to take to their cars until there is no longer capacity on our roadways and/or you can't even step outside and breathe tha air its so polluted...and they will continue to fly until airports can no longer be expanded and airports become so congested that you spend MORE time in airports than you will on the airplane (if it already isn't like that.
TwinStarRocket Member # 2142
posted
Amtraxmaniac, I thought your "pipedream 2 cents" was right on the mark, and my response so outrageously silly that it would not be taken seriously. My apologies if you thought I was sincere. I have never seen American Idol and I switch channels whenever Britney is in the news.
rresor Member # 128
posted
Sigh! Where to begin? First, Amtrak has never gotten enough money to compete effectively for business outside of a few corridors, and they haven't.
Despite the trumpeting of "record ridership", Amtrak's patronage over the last decade and a half has grown more slowly than airline patronage, and as a result, Amtrak's share of the "air/rail" market has fallen. Mr. Norman makes the point that Amtrak carries no more passengers now on the "Sunset" than SP did in 1970, despite the enormous growth of the Southwest. I posted on another board about the one-third *drop* in ridership on Amtrak's Florida services over the last 15 years.
Amtrak has since 1995 withdrawn a number of long distance services, mostly in the West.
The war is over, guys. Let's just drop the LD services for good and stop even trying. *All* the growth in Amtrak ridership in the last decade (such as it has been) has been in short haul corridors.
yukon11 Member # 2997
posted
Like Mr. North, I question the article's claim that the LD train is the most efficient form of transportation, provided that you travel less than 500 miles. How did they arrive at that?
I did a Google search, typing in "energy efficiency comparison of the train, plane, and automobile" and got pages of articles. Unfortunately, all three modes of transportation have their supporters and detractors. I found that many articles don't give a very good comparison of fuel/energy expenditure per unit of weight, whether that weight is in the form of the carrier, cargo, or human weight.
I found a long article, out of "Popular Mechanics", concerned with the subject. Popular Mechanics is, obviously, supporting high-speed trains. The 1st paragraph, near the top, does give a comparison of the train, auto, & jet airplane as far as BTU's/mile is concerned, For the high-speed train, they get 1180 BTU/mi. In another article which I read, the figure for present-day Amtrak is around 2100 BTU/mi. The PM article does mention the great amount of fuel wastage, by the automobile, while stuck in bumper-to-bumper traffic.
posted
The war is NOT over. The demise of LD trains is not a result of lack of necessity, but a result of political and public hypocrasy. Amtrak has not HELPED in there own cause by rolling over and playing dead. What do I mean? Lack of advertising and information. I mean, how many people outside the corridor states even KNOW what Amtrak is? AMTRAK has an attitude problem aimed at itself. At least that would be ONE arguement for privitazation IF ANY....it would FORCE Amtrak (or other entities) to make itself VISIBLE TO THE AMERICAN PUBLIC. The problem isn't that LD trains are not practicle, the problem is theres a lack of awareness of there usefullness. There needs to be more agressive campaigning by AMTRAK itself to win the hearts and minds of the American people...and in a culture of 'lets just jump in the SMOG-MOBILE' or 'the tin can with wings' its not easy.
PullmanCo Member # 1138
posted
It takes money to advertise service.
It takes money to buy equipment.
It takes money to buy "time on the line."
What is the common thing Amtrak does not have?
Money.
If you think Amtrak needs more money for its operating subsidy, for advertising, for equipment procurement, then there is something you can do:
Write your Senators and Representative. 218 House votes , coupled with 51 Senate votes, coupled with a Presidential signature get Amtrak money.
1 daily run is not service. It's at best a placeholder.
Just understand: When you terminate service, that's it. The infrastructure will go for other uses, and it will never return. In Los Angeles alone, look at UP's coach yards (I believe they long ago became a TOFC ramp) and SP's Mission Road Coach Yard (again, in re-use). Look at Salt Lake City, where the former stations are landlocked away from the railroad and in re-use. Here in Kansas City, the coach yards were overbuilt for DST Systems a bit over 5 years ago.
posted