New Interview; Mr. Anderson/NPR

[JoeG]

Tad, I have many times (figuratively) bit my tongue and sat on my fingers to stop myself from commenting on the attributes of Mr Trump and his defenders. Please do your part by also so refraining.

[rcthompson04]

I never understood how a Fort Worth - Oklahoma City train could gain enough political support to become reality while Dallas - Houston remains a major corridor lacking passenger rail connections. I've spent some time in the DFW area over the years due to having a lot of family out there, and it's exploding and in desperate need of better transportation infrastructure. Same goes for Houston - I was there on business in March and had the displeasure of driving on that city's insane highway system. I'll be interested to see if the private Texas Central high speed venture manages to reach the construction phase, but certainly that region seems like a place where Amtrak might have some corridor expansion potential. To the north, Oklahoma City - Wichita - Kansas City looks to make sense on a map, but I don't know what kind of ridership potential exists there.

As an aside, when I attended my cousin's wedding in Dallas in 2015, I burned some Amtrak rewards points and traveled by Amtrak (Capitol Limited & Texas Eagle on the way out, Texas Eagle and Cardinal on the way back). So, there's an example of using the long distance network for a real transportation need as much as for the experience. (Let's be honest, I'd have taken the California Zephyr through the Rockies if I wanted a pure "experiential" land cruise. Sometimes it's nice when Amtrak actually takes you where you want to go!)

Simple answer... Southwest Airlines made itself by flying the Dallas to Houston route.

[lordsigma12345]

Tad, I have many times (figuratively) bit my tongue and sat on my fingers to stop myself from commenting on the attributes of Mr Trump and his defenders. Please do your part by also so refraining.

Politics is too toxic these days to spill into these conversations. I happen to yearn for the days of compromise and politicians of different parties getting along. Liberals, conservatives, democrats, republicans, Trump supporters, Trump not supporters, all people of different backgrounds bring valuable input to any debate and discussion about how to get things done because we all have different perspectives and experiences and they are all valuble, and usually the best lasting solutions are compromises where everyone brings their argument to the table and you try to do something that everyone can live with, not "screw you" party line stuff where you stick it to the other side (and then have it repealed when the other side gets in power.) That just leads to an endless back and forth. Unfortunately in this hyper polarized atmosphere where many people look at the other side as the enemy makes it harder to get anything done. I don't really blame one side or the other - everyone is at fault. The mass media (all of which is biased one way or the other) deserves a lot of the blame. The 24 hour news cycle and the internet have largely led to hyper polarization. Thankfully there still seems to be room on the hill for compromise and discussion on less controversial areas like Amtrak.

[eolesen]

I never understood how a Fort Worth - Oklahoma City train could gain enough political support to become reality while Dallas - Houston remains a major corridor lacking passenger rail connections.

These days, Fort Worth and OKC have a lot more in common culturally and economically than Houston and Dallas do...

[nkloudon]

>> Sometimes it's nice when Amtrak actually takes you where you want to go!

I have been travelling from New Jersey to my brother's home in New Hampshire each Christmas on the VERMONTER since 1999.

[Tadman]

Tad, I have many times (figuratively) bit my tongue and sat on my fingers to stop myself from commenting on the attributes of Mr Trump and his defenders. Please do your part by also so refraining.

I can abide by that, and the intention was not to debate the merits of Mr. Trump.

The point is that NPR's characterization of Mr. Anderson was a personal attack that they've grown used to making. It barely addressed the merits of his policy by analyzing facts, or looked at whether the items Mr. Anderson posits as fact are indeed facts.

The one thing I've learned of late is that you have to read three news outlets and triangulate the facts anymore as they're all bent.

[Tadman]

What do people make of the idea in the Downeaster thread that Amtrak recently advanced the idea of a Richmond-Maine train?
...

but fear that people fight much harder not to lose what they have than to get something new. That constrains the political benefit of proposing new corridor trains in return for axing an LD. ...

More important, it's not clear to me that disconnected corridors build that rapidly into winners. Look at the Rail Runner in NM. Sleek, fast, reliable, and not that successful. A new San Antonio-Houston corridor strikes me as something like an attempt at social engineering. ...


Real network effects are achieved at the point Amtrak becomes a "bookmark". Even in Chicago this is a challenge. Is there any conceivable way the metropolises of Texas would think that way anytime in the next 20 years? But how do you make a stand-alone service work, if most of the people who might head in that direction never even think to consider it?

Some good points here.

I dislike the idea of a Richmond-Maine train as the typical NEC rider is not end-to-end, so why make the train that way? All they do is make a late train in Boston very late in DC and uber late for the handoff to CSX to Richmond. Then it become unreliable in the consumer mind.

People probably will fight to keep what they have as people in general fear the new or unknown, even if it is better. Look at every time a new OS comes out for Apple or Windows. I hate dealing with that stuff.

Regarding real networks, there are a few good points here as well.

Yes, any corridor/regional development should focus on a mini-network. Metcalf's law states the value of a network is the square of it's nodes. Thus Music City Star or Railrunner would be better off if it were better integrated into a light rail, regional bus, airport, etc... 80% of Railrunner trains don't go to ABQ airport. I know a few recent visitors that are Amtrak employees but they flew straight into Santa Fe because figuring out ABQ-cab-railrunner was too complex. I think this is why Frontrunner does better - they have a robust light rail and airport connection.

Also, my suggestions in the initial post were only enough to "touch" each states that would lose a long distance train. There really should be a more comprehensive network rather than one line touching each state. IE Texas should have DFW, SAN, AUS, HOU, not just HOU-NOLA. There should also be inter-ticketing between a national/regional carrier and commuter/transit agencies. In Germany, one can reserve commuter, regional, and intercity on the same app, even if it requires a station transfer like GCT-NYP. It helps immensely for guys like me that don't know all the websites for the commuter carriers. For that matter, I feel like any plane or intercity train ticket to a city with a commuter or transit rail system should just include a $5 two-day pass in the airport fees. IE if a NYC-CHI round trip on Amtrak or United costs $200, then LGA and ORD tack on $50/each, CTA would also tack on $5 or $10 automatically and the bearer of the ticket could ride CTA unlimited for X days.

While that may sound like social engineering, there is a real cost to the ubers /freeways that are overtaxed, and there is capacity on the subway.

[ryanch]

I share your concern about long routes being uber late.

I should mention that while I was interested in people's reaction to the substance of the idea, I was more interested in reactions to the implications of Amtrak and presumably Anderson, being interested in it. It seems to come directly from an Anderson conversation.

Among other things, I doubt Anderson is suggesting anything that he believes would create significant operational problems, even potentially tarnishing the NEC brand.

I went back to what seems to be the original source, and it reads Richmond-Maine "routes," which might alleviate some concern. I'm sure there are fairly limited numbers of people traveling Richmond-Portland. Using the plural "routes" to me suggests some trains running, say, Portland-DC, or even Portland-New Haven, while others run Richmond-Boston, or Richmond to some other intermediate end-point.

My guess is the NEC runs pretty well for pax trains, but that the dispatching on the freights at either end don't. So it might be easier to get a train from DC to Portland, meeting your slot at the handoff, and in running a train Portland to DC, if the freight gives it to you late, you can annul and throw everyone into a regional, or run it late if you've got room, but you don't have to worry about missing another handoff beyond DC.

But others know operations much better than I here. Is what I've written there somewhat accurate?

I would think that the success of the Virginia trains should teach a whole new mentality about the NEC -- that ramifying many branches in many directions can be successful.

[Arborwayfan]

Tad, I wouldn't worry about your city-transit-ticket idea as being social engineering. It's just a way to sell a convenient bundle of services to travelers in a way that makes efficient use of available resources. And when it means getting different public agencies to make their fare systems match, it's reducing government red tape. When I want to set tax and transportation policies to convince people to live in somewhat denser neighborhoods to prevent sprawl and reduce energy use, that might be social engineering. I won't accuse you of that.

General, not addressed specifically to Tadman:
I didn't read or listen to the interview, so I can't comment on it overall, definitely not on how the interviewer or later commentators treated Mr. Anderrson. I can say, though, that In twenty years of travelling from downstate Illinois or West Central Indiana to greater Salt Lake City, I have very rarely if ever seen Amtrak coach fares that were higher than plane fares. Just this summer I took the train SLC-Effingham for $174 dollars and flew back for around $300; I bought the tickets the same day, about a week before the train trip and ten days before the plane trip. Even with the meals we chose to eat, the train came out a little cheaper. The train tix were from the second-cheapest bucket (I don't remember the names now) and the roundtrip airfare was well more than twice the one-way train fare, even if it wasn't quite twice the one-way airfare. Maybe it's usually cheaper to fly from Chicago to San Francisco or Chicago to LA than to take the train in coach. I never look, but I can see how that would happen on a busy route with lots of competing airlines. And over long distances the food costs add up on the train even if the passengers don't care about time. And I suppose my particular route could be unusual, or my particular experience could be a misleading sample. But I suspect that it is often cheaper to take the train in coach when at least one of the endpoints is far away from the busiest airports and/or one of the endpoints is at an isolated airport dominated by one carrier (Delta in SLC). I can't believe it's cheaper for someone in Galesburg to fly to Hastings, for example.

I'm not saying that to comment on Mr. Anderson's truthfulness, or on the WBUR commentary's tone. I just think that comparing end-to-end fares misses's the train's ability to serve a bunch of small cities or towns at very little extra cost in time or money, a big advantage of train (or bus) over flying. Trains, could serve "flyover country" pretty well. Actually, the idea of using daytime trains over shorter distances to cover current LD routes would serve some of those places better -- midnight stops like McCook and Ft. Morgan and so on -- although it might make some journeys ridiculous (Ottumwa to Hastings if one had to stay overnight in Omaha. I don't have the numbers so I don't really have a proposal I can defend; I just think that thinking of LD trains as machines for getting people between big cities 2500 miles apart screws up our opinions, whether it makes us want to eliminate them because they are not competitive or needed for end-to-end travel, or save them because we imagine that the big cities need direct connections.

Also, some comments here and in the LD-to-corridor thread seem to give a different picture of LD passengers than I have. I don't see just retired people with money just riding to see the view. Even in the sleepers (which are definitely way more expensive than flying) I see people of all ages, some of whom talk about loving the train but some of who just seem to want to get someplace. And in coach I see and talk to all kinds of people: scout troops, church groups, teenagers who sound like they never traveled before, parents with kids who've packed all their own food, etc. This summer I chatted with a couple of middle aged women taking their elderly mother, not to spry, from Chi to Memphis on the CONO in coach--not a choice anyone with a lot of money would make. I can't tell by looking whether people are rich or poor for sure, but over the years I've gotten the impression that a lot of CZ and CONO coach passengers are taking the train because it's either the best way in and out of their little town or because it's pretty cheap. There's more than one reason more passengers don't buy dining car meals and cafe car meals -- a lot of them bring food because it's cheaper. SO I think we should be careful of thinking of the LD trains as sleeping cars with maybe some coaches attached. The coaches have passengers with less money, sometimes going shorter distances. I dunno if that means keep the LDs or turn them into corridors or just provide better bus service or what. I just think that saying "LD trains are bad because the people bedroom A are rolling in cash and we should just turn the route over to a high-end tourist cruise operator to milk those people for their scenic ride" is an oversimplified, unfair view of what the LD trains do.

This is a civil forum. I like that.

[Rockingham Racer]

>> Sometimes it's nice when Amtrak actually takes you where you want to go!

I have been travelling from New Jersey to my brother's home in New Hampshire each Christmas on the VERMONTER since 1999.

He must live in or near Claremont.

[ryanch]

Yes, any corridor/regional development should focus on a mini-network. Metcalf's law states the value of a network is the square of it's nodes.

That's a good rule of thumb that I hadn't heard. But I want to stress a different aspect than the geographic network -- the advertising/awareness aspect that I called "bookmarking". Consider for a moment that Facebook is a "social network" but that the term "social networking" describes a way of marketing using social networks. There should be a corollary to Metcalf's law -- that in a sense all marketing or branding is social networking, and the value of social networking becomes the cube of its nodes when it reaches saturation awareness. There is an explosion at saturation point.

In Amtrak's case, social networking and the geographic network are inherently woven together.

This is the point I was making about how Chicago is different from the NEC. Am I wrong to suggest that along much of the NEC, most people are aware of the Acela and of the train as a good way to get to significant destinations? (Genuine question, since I don't really know). My sense is that if you're going from New Haven to DC, someone is apt to ask "oh, are you taking the train?"

Despite a significant rail network around Chicago, that's not true here at all. Aside from friends from Springfield where I grew up, and a few people who head there for politics, I can't think of ever hearing of anyone who went anywhere on Amtrak among my friends, relatives and colleagues. There is absolutely no destination from Chicago where, if you said you were headed there, a normal person would ask "oh, are you taking the train?" And if you asked someone that, it would be so out of the blue as to make you seem unusual, with the possible exception of asking someone who worked in state government if they were taking the train to Springfield.

Where does the saturation point start, where the network runs often enough, to a sufficient number of destinations, that Amtrak is "bookmarked" for a significant number of people in Chicago. So that when they travel somewhere, they think "I should check Amtrak," and when they think about where to go, at least some of them think "where will Amtrak take me?"

I don't know the answer, but I think it's worth asking. I believe that Chicago is close.

While that may sound like social engineering, there is a real cost to the ubers /freeways that are overtaxed, and there is capacity on the subway.

Sorry. It seemed like a good sound bite when I wrote it. It was overstated.

[lordsigma12345]

There's another demographic that hasn't been mentioned that use long distance trains - won't/can't flyers (speaking as one of them.)

[PC1100]

As railfans, how can any of you guys seriously defend this guy? My problem isn't with anyone's opinion regarding changes to the Amtrak system, it's that Anderson blatantly distorts facts in an effort to undermine our long distance rail network. He mentions 7 people boarding the Southwest Chief (where that's the only train on the line) while blatantly leaving out the number of passengers riding over that portion of the line who DID NOT board at the stations on that segment. Then his argument about the dining cars. First he lumps the café cars in as "dining cars." Then he calls the dining car an "elitist institution" "only for the people who can afford the sleeping car accommodations" and calls it "their own dining car." NO, that's what he did with the eastern LD diners!

Look at his distortion here. He talks about "good answers for rural communities" and then talks about 90% of Amtrak passengers traveling under 300 miles. He then highlights the 170,000 people a year who ride LD trains end to end and their "historic view of the beauty of going 45 miles an hour on a train for a couple of days" COMPLETELY leaving out the number of people in rural communities who may be traveling under 300 miles on these trains between rural communities and those traveling between rural communities and big cities.

I listened to the interview because I keep an open mind, but this is disgusting. I'm not going to get into politics about this except for one connection I see...I think the political climate over the past 15 or so years has been the way it is because of politicians doing exactly what Anderson is doing here - distortion and attack. Instead of just citing numbers regarding dining car losses, he had to call the dining car (an AMERICAN INSTITUTION) an "elitist institution." These answers were blatant distortion of facts, and my opinion that is what gets people so frustrated in the political arena. This is almost worse because what is on the line here (no pun intended) is a rail network that many people rely on and that others have spent years doing their best to operate and improve.

I've ridden almost all of the LD trains (with the exception of the California Zephyr and the Coast Starlight) over the past 7 years in part because I have wanted to see the country, I do not like to fly, and because given the history behind all of this I always assumed that some of these trains would not always be around. I guess I made the right call. I've seen people from all walks of life, and a lot of them I met in the dining car. I've had many great and memorable conversations with people from all kinds of backgrounds and with different political opinions. There's no doubt in my mind that one of our biggest problems today is our "bubble world" society, with everyone moving so fast (flying) with heads buried in electronic devices and headphones in their ears, tuning everything around them out and listening to and watching 24 hours news instead of talking to each other. The problem didn't start yesterday, it started with the interstate and the jet, then lump in 24 hour news and electronic device bubble world, and there you go. Meanwhile Anderson has the nerve to call the dining car an "elitist institution." Real class....

[mcgrath618]

Despite a significant rail network around Chicago, that's not true here at all. Aside from friends from Springfield where I grew up, and a few people who head there for politics, I can't think of ever hearing of anyone who went anywhere on Amtrak among my friends, relatives and colleagues. There is absolutely no destination from Chicago where, if you said you were headed there, a normal person would ask "oh, are you taking the train?" And if you asked someone that, it would be so out of the blue as to make you seem unusual, with the possible exception of asking someone who worked in state government if they were taking the train to Springfield.

I would counter that with the Wolverine. Plenty of my friends who go to school in Chicago who live in MI will take the Wolverine home.

[mtuandrew]

Despite a significant rail network around Chicago, that's not true here at all. Aside from friends from Springfield where I grew up, and a few people who head there for politics, I can't think of ever hearing of anyone who went anywhere on Amtrak among my friends, relatives and colleagues. There is absolutely no destination from Chicago where, if you said you were headed there, a normal person would ask "oh, are you taking the train?" And if you asked someone that, it would be so out of the blue as to make you seem unusual, with the possible exception of asking someone who worked in state government if they were taking the train to Springfield.

I would counter that with the Wolverine. Plenty of my friends who go to school in Chicago who live in MI will take the Wolverine home.

CHI-MKE is another corridor where Amtrak might not be the first transportation mode on your tongue, but it wouldn’t be a complete unknown to people along the lakeshore.