Rethinking Amtrak and rail in the U.S.

[RocketJet]

I made no accusations. I asked you to justify your opinions with NUMBERS and facts. My mind is wide open, but it appears yours is closed. Define substandard rail system. You keep saying Amtrak is not an option for this, and small town that. Your assumption that only speed and time matters or buffs and vacationers rally around Amtrak is disproved but they continuing rise in ridership without the benefit of new or even additional equipment.

Where are your figures?

Help me understand your argument, which I think is this:

You are a proponent of high speed rail corridors and commuter corridors....but not an interconnected system that links them?

I'm all for change, but the reality of situation is whose's paying for it? this argument transcends trains. We can apply this to the ENTIRE United States infrastructure. Highways, bridges, roads. It's all substandard, but people squabble over costs. If you don't like the current system, you'll hate the bill for yours!

I gave you numbers, read:

http://subsidyscope.org/transportation/ ... trak/table

My system is largely connected, it just leaves out the places where there is no real market

Give me your numbers to prove me wrong:) Sure HSR is expensive, but it provides a service more people use; money well spent

[ThirdRail7]

I made no accusations. I asked you to justify your opinions with NUMBERS and facts. My mind is wide open, but it appears yours is closed. Define substandard rail system. You keep saying Amtrak is not an option for this, and small town that. Your assumption that only speed and time matters or buffs and vacationers rally around Amtrak is disproved but they continuing rise in ridership without the benefit of new or even additional equipment.

Where are your figures?

Help me understand your argument, which I think is this:

You are a proponent of high speed rail corridors and commuter corridors....but not an interconnected system that links them?

I'm all for change, but the reality of situation is whose's paying for it? this argument transcends trains. We can apply this to the ENTIRE United States infrastructure. Highways, bridges, roads. It's all substandard, but people squabble over costs. If you don't like the current system, you'll hate the bill for yours!

I gave you numbers, read:

http://subsidyscope.org/transportation/ ... trak/table

My system is largely connected, it just leaves out the places where there is no real market

Give me your numbers to prove me wrong:) Sure HSR is expensive, but it provides a service more people use; money well spent

No, you gave me financial numbers. That may be the end all be all in your mind and there are countless people that feel the exact same way as you. However that's not how it works in my mind and many, MANY other people probably feel the same way as I do. I have always felt certain things shouldn't necessarily turn a profit. Transportation is one of them. Do you think LIRR makes a profit? How about Metra, Bart, PATH, NJT, SEPTA? Not only do I feel trains should be subsidized, I feel the same way about ferries, buses, bridges and tunnels. It is about moving people in a seamless manner. It is about options, and sometimes you can't put a price on it (you can, but that's why the transportation network is a nationwide mess.)

What I want from you, my friend is a set of numbers to justify how point to point service will prove to be money well spent when you cut out wide swaths of riders and numbers to back up the "no market" in Florida comment. Over 1 million Amtrak passengers used Florida stations last year, and you say there's no market? How many people did we fail to count in between? If you cut swaths of the system, how do you feed the rest of it? Albany has 3/4 of a million riders in 2011. Yet, you cut them out of the equation. How many of those riders feed the system? how many ride the Acela? How many Downeaster riders feed the NEC? When you cut tehm out, how many riders are now out of the network?

I have another question for you: Amtrak numbers keep climbing despite the fact that the system is "substandard" as you put it. If you took the money that you plan to invest in your system and put it into the Amtrak system, how do you think it would work out? How do you think it would play out if a dedicated source of funding existed? How substandard do you think the system would be if Amtrak had the full blessing and cooperation of the host carriers, which resulted in shorter running times and increased service?

[RocketJet]

No, you gave me financial numbers. That may be the end all be all in your mind and there are countless people that feel the exact same way as you. However that's not how it works in my mind and many, MANY other people probably feel the same way as I do. I have always felt certain things shouldn't necessarily turn a profit. Transportation is one of them. Do you think LIRR makes a profit? How about Metra, Bart, PATH, NJT, SEPTA? Not only do I feel trains should be subsidized, I feel the same way about ferries, buses, bridges and tunnels. It is about moving people in a seamless manner. It is about options, and sometimes you can't put a price on it (you can, but that's why the transportation network is a nationwide mess.)

What I want from you, my friend is a set of numbers to justify how point to point service will prove to be money well spent when you cut out wide swaths of riders and numbers to back up the "no market" in Florida comment. Over 1 million Amtrak passengers used Florida stations last year, and you say there's no market? How many people did we fail to count in between? If you cut swaths of the system, how do you feed the rest of it? Albany has 3/4 of a million riders in 2011. Yet, you cut them out of the equation. How many of those riders feed the system? how many ride the Acela? How many Downeaster riders feed the NEC? When you cut tehm out, how many riders are now out of the network?

I have another question for you: Amtrak numbers keep climbing despite the fact that the system is "substandard" as you put it. If you took the money that you plan to invest in your system and put it into the Amtrak system, how do you think it would work out? How do you think it would play out if a dedicated source of funding existed? How substandard do you think the system would be if Amtrak had the full blessing and cooperation of the host carriers, which resulted in shorter running times and increased service?

Well let me put it to you differently, why would we want to put more money into a system that is principally flawed and financially unsustainable? The numbers you ask for talking about how long it will take before the project pays for itself doesn't exist, if such a system existed to find that information, we would not have to worry about any infrastructure program. Amtrak is, as I see it, fundamentally flawed in that the government requires them to maintain the LD services on privately owned rail with 40 year old trains(sometimes). Throwing money at this is not going to help it, as that philosophy doesn't work with any government program. We need to find new answers and build a new system, not throwing money at the problem hoping to fix it. Metra, Bart, PATH, NJT, and SEPTA make all most all of what they cost back and are INCREDIBLY popular as they serve a need. They, unlike long distance rail, get people to work which is what my plan is trying to do. As for the slower trains feeding the NEC, they don't. The Downeaster serves an entirely different section of Boston and is not something people take to go all the way to New York or D.C. everyday. Most people do not hop from major line to major line. I took the Acela the day before yesterday. HArdly anyone got on or off except at DC, Philadelphia, New York, and Boston.

Even if I were to cut the Downeaster which my plan doesn't, it would hardly affect the NEC at all considering how hard it is to get from North to South station in Boston. I think the Downeaster DOES contribute to a market that is rising because the speeds are increasing and it does not take multiple days to get to your destination. It does not cost nearly as much to fund and ridership is much greater considering the small population of Maine. I never said there was no market in Florida, I said I can't re-propose something that they already proposed and killed due to a lack of desire and political support. Ask anybody if they want a high speed train from New York to Chicago and I guarantee you, you will get plenty of YES.

Options are good, thats why I think this is important. People have cars, boats, ferries, planes, busses, and then trains. The long distance train networks contribute to MUCH less than 1% of the movement of people traveling through the United States. We are spending way to much time and money on something not nearly enough people want or need to use. This is why I say take out what doesn't work and put in what is needed and serves as an answer to 21 Century travel needs, not 19th.

You criticize me for working around economics, well there is little I can say to that besides it is the real world as it is. I'm sorry, I just don't believe in investing into things that both provide mediocre service and do so without a reasonable market. That is called bad business my friend.

[ThirdRail7]

Well let me put it to you differently, why would we want to put more money into a system that is principally flawed and financially unsustainable? The numbers you ask for talking about how long it will take before the project pays for itself doesn't exist, if such a system existed to find that information, we would not have to worry about any infrastructure program. Amtrak is, as I see it, fundamentally flawed in that the government requires them to maintain the LD services on privately owned rail with 40 year old trains(sometimes). Throwing money at this is not going to help it, as that philosophy doesn't work with any government program. We need to find new answers and build a new system, not throwing money at the problem hoping to fix it. Metra, Bart, PATH, NJT, and SEPTA make all most all of what they cost back and are INCREDIBLY popular as they serve a need. They, unlike long distance rail, get people to work which is what my plan is trying to do.

There are many things that are unsustainable. I say the interstate system isn't really sustainable. You keep throwing money into it and it doesn't go away. You just feed it and feed it and feed it. Should we make all roads toll roads?

Of course not. Could things be better at Amtrak? Naturally, but I say its worth throwing money into for the same reason you throw money at Metra, Bart, PATH etc. It is a form of mass transit. If it were funded as such, you'd still lose money year after year, but you'd move more people. If Amtrak (and other rail lines) were stuck with funding mandates (and also had reliable funding sources) you would have many more riders. In the NE, you used to have 15 and 16 car trains with STANDEES. This is because they were subsidized. Fares were more affordable, which flocked people to the trains. So, throwing money at the system accomplished what the purpose of Amtrak should be: Moving people around the country.

You can't see this, because in your opinion, trains should be used to get people to and from work.

As for the slower trains feeding the NEC, they don't. The Downeaster serves an entirely different section of Boston and is not something people take to go all the way to New York or D.C. everyday. Most people do not hop from major line to major line. I took the Acela the day before yesterday. HArdly anyone got on or off except at DC, Philadelphia, New York, and Boston.

Even if I were to cut the Downeaster which my plan doesn't, it would hardly affect the NEC at all considering how hard it is to get from North to South station in Boston. I think the Downeaster DOES contribute to a market that is rising because the speeds are increasing and it does not take multiple days to get to your destination. It does not cost nearly as much to fund and ridership is much greater considering the small population of Maine. I never said there was no market in Florida, I said I can't re-propose something that they already proposed and killed due to a lack of desire and political support. Ask anybody if they want a high speed train from New York to Chicago and I guarantee you, you will get plenty of YES.

I'm going to see myself out of this thread since there's no reason to continue with you. I only ventured in because you said something so "off," I just couldn't help it.

When you say the slower trains don't feed the NEC....when you say Downeaster passengers don't connect to Acelas or the national network.....when you say hardly people anyone gets off except at Philadelphia, New York or Boston, it tells me you really have no knowledge of who rides Amtrak or how they use the system.

What you said is so incredibly wrong, that even the most casual user of the this board can probably tell you you're waaaaaay off base.

Unfortunately, I can't just unleash loads of numbers to show just how wrong you are which is EXTREMELY frustrating (and a bane of my existence on this board.)

What I can do is suggest instead of using talking points that someone fed you, do your own research. Why don't you make an official inquiry and find out EXACTLY how people use the Amtrak SYSTEM...and let there be no doubt...it is a SYSTEM. People transfer all over the place. People transfer from 682 to 449 to 49 to 7, from 8 to 30 to 97, from 4 to 50 to 19, from 64 to 639, from 2252 to 681, from 28 to 48 to 177 to NJT's Raritan Valley Line,etc.

Options are good, thats why I think this is important. People have cars, boats, ferries, planes, busses, and then trains. The long distance train networks contribute to MUCH less than 1% of the movement of people traveling through the United States. We are spending way to much time and money on something not nearly enough people want or need to use. This is why I say take out what doesn't work and put in what is needed and serves as an answer to 21 Century travel needs, not 19th.

You criticize me for working around economics, well there is little I can say to that besides it is the real world as it is. I'm sorry, I just don't believe in investing into things that both provide mediocre service and do so without a reasonable market. That is called bad business my friend.

As I previously mentioned (which you ignored) if you spent the money on the existing system and fostered a better relationship with the host carriers, further subsidized the fares, more than 1% would use the trains, since the cost to Joe and Jane traveler would be lower. It is my opinion that Amtrak has become oppressively expensive in certain areas. This limits growth, particularly when you mix high fares and limited service. Who's going to pay XXX to take a train that runs once every other day?

Your plan seems to be to create high speed corridors so people can get to work and between major cities, while still ignoring the fact that most passengers probably wouldn't cover the entire route. When your system is complete, it'll be bad business, because very few people will be able to afford the fares without massive subsidies and we still don't know if the investment would yield more than 1% ridership.

It's been nice having this exchange if only for one reason: you proved the point that I made in How to improve weak public support for Amtrak

If it makes you feel better, my dad feels the EXACT same way as you.

[RocketJet]

I'm going to see myself out of this thread since there's no reason to continue with you. I only ventured in because you said something so "off," I just couldn't help it.

When you say the slower trains don't feed the NEC....when you say Downeaster passengers don't connect to Acelas or the national network.....when you say hardly people anyone gets off except at Philadelphia, New York or Boston, it tells me you really have no knowledge of who rides Amtrak or how they use the system.

What you said is so incredibly wrong, that even the most casual user of the this board can probably tell you you're waaaaaay off base.

Unfortunately, I can't just unleash loads of numbers to show just how wrong you are which is EXTREMELY frustrating (and a bane of my existence on this board.)

What I can do is suggest instead of using talking points that someone fed you, do your own research. Why don't you make an official inquiry and find out EXACTLY how people use the Amtrak SYSTEM...and let there be no doubt...it is a SYSTEM. People transfer all over the place. People transfer from 682 to 449 to 49 to 7, from 8 to 30 to 97, from 4 to 50 to 19, from 64 to 639, from 2252 to 681, from 28 to 48 to 177 to NJT's Raritan Valley Line,etc.

As I previously mentioned (which you ignored) if you spent the money on the existing system and fostered a better relationship with the host carriers, further subsidized the fares, more than 1% would use the trains, since the cost to Joe and Jane traveler would be lower. It is my opinion that Amtrak has become oppressively expensive in certain areas. This limits growth, particularly when you mix high fares and limited service. Who's going to pay XXX to take a train that runs once every other day?

Your plan seems to be to create high speed corridors so people can get to work and between major cities, while still ignoring the fact that most passengers probably wouldn't cover the entire route. When your system is complete, it'll be bad business, because very few people will be able to afford the fares without massive subsidies and we still don't know if the investment would yield more than 1% ridership.

It's been nice having this exchange if only for one reason: you proved the point that I made in How to improve weak public support for Amtrak

If it makes you feel better, my dad feels the EXACT same way as you.

I think you should listen to your father then:) That's alright, the plan was supposed to be provocative, that's why I posted it:) I wanted to see what people thought about it, where it would work, where it wouldn't. Ultimately I feel this is almost like dems and repubs arguing about politics where they see the world so differently they could go on forever. You see Amtrak as a network that serves a justifiable market; I do not. I look at it as service to fit specific corridors rather than a network. Thanks for your participation though

[lirr42]

...You see Amtrak as a network that serves a justifiable market; I do not. I look at it as service to fit specific corridors rather than a network...

That is not an effective way to run a railroad. <--YES a railroad, not an airline, not a highway system. In a perfect world everyone would have a "one seat ride" to everywhere in the world. But that's not practical. If you want to fragment Amtrak's network into a bunch of different independent corridors, then you loose the ability to travel from points A to B on one unified system.

I acknowledge the fact that in order to compete with he ever growing airline industry Amtrak's going to need to make some changes, but not that radical.

One thing that you need to keep in mind, as well as with all other public benefit capital construction projects, is that you need to way the benefits in addition to the detriments (bad things). I want to build a 10-lane turnpike right through my town. Great! It will give another needed roadway into the city, and it would relieve the traffic that plagues the nearby highways, but wait, I will have to knock down 100+ houses to make this work. What am I going to do with those people?

Imagine if you lived in Kingman, AZ. Your town is served every day by the Southwest Chief--one of the services you have proposed to eliminate. Now Kingman does have an airport, but it only operates air ambulance and air charter services. So for the average of 28 people that board at that station every day to now drive to Los Angeles or Flagstaff, or wherever, would be inconveniencing those people significantly.

Only a small portion of people make the entire trip on most long distance trains. There is a significant and very nescescary market to those people only going part of the way. I'm not sure where you are right now, but it's probably in a big city with many, many different transportation options to get you to where you want to go. The folks in Kingman, AZ and the other towns like it don't have those same options. They can either take the daily Southwest Chief, pay an exorbitant amount of money to charter a plane, or drive the 100+ miles to where they need to go.

Railroads are not businesses. They are considerably different from your local grocery store or bank. Sometimes it is not best to go with the most "cost-effective" things. You want to destroy Amtrak as it is now and build a lacking corridor system. Great! It will help the people in the few cities (with other transport options) and be more cost effective., but wait, I will be dealing quite a blow to all the small towns out there in America (which greatly outnumber the big ones in both number and need) by removing a major part in their already miniscule transportation networks.

Unfortunately, your plan forgets all the "little people" in little towns across America. Just because I don't live in New York, Chicago, or Los Angeles, doesn't mean I should not get any rail service at all.

Long distance service is an integral part of Amtrak's current network, and is here to stay. Any whirlwind plan that comes around proposing to eliminate this type of travel should not even be entertained for a couple of seconds. Sorry, NEXT!

[Ken W2KB]

I think the issue is passenger transportation should be available to those outside of metropolitan areas. No reason it has to be rail - bus or van feeder to airport, rail, smaller aircraft to air hubs, etc. all accomplish the desired result. What provides transportation service based on economics is what should be provided.

[David Benton]

Heck , Ken has just stated something similiar to what I've been thinking all morning .
what got me thinking , was a sentence in trains magazines piece on the future of amtrak . It basically said , it would be cheaper for Amtrak to fly passengers to their destination , rather than run the sunset ltd , EXCEPT, they would have to parachute them in to some stations .
Regular readers of this forum will know that i advocate more thruway bus services as the best way to expand amtrak services . i will now add Thruway planes to that . (i am NOT advocating replacing trains with planes , but complimenting them ) .
Say for e.g , using the sunset again , why not a thruway plane connection to all points east of New Orleans , other than those served by the crescent etc ??? .

[25Hz]

Public benefit services are not supposed to be profitable.

Now, i do think amtrak is a good idea, however to ever be of a larger benefit to more people, the electrification i proposed a page or 2 back would be needed, along with more trains or more cars per train as well as faster trains on all routes and cheaper fares. This means subsidy increases. It also means it becomes more for the money, especially going into the future as people are attracted by the better service.

Separated rights of way would be expensive, however it's the most realistic way of directly increasing train speeds.

I think it's time to get serious about amtrak and pour in the money that it really needs. For that we need congress & governors & we all know what's going on in that arena.

[KEN PATRICK]

the numbers in the transportation bill are $300bil operating and $500 bil maintenance. when will this foolishness end? we have interstate roadways and a first-class air system. we have a large non japan/europe -like country that cannot be effectively transported by equipment/track/operating parameters -constrained high-speed rail. unlike japan/europe we all have autos and love to drive. we abandoned universal passenger rail long ago. amtrak is simply anachronistic . without federal and state proppants, and with cost-based pricing, amtrak would be in the dust-bin of history. time for a reality check. ken patrick

[RocketJet]

the numbers in the transportation bill are $300bil operating and $500 bil maintenance. when will this foolishness end? we have interstate roadways and a first-class air system. we have a large non japan/europe -like country that cannot be effectively transported by equipment/track/operating parameters -constrained high-speed rail. unlike japan/europe we all have autos and love to drive. we abandoned universal passenger rail long ago. amtrak is simply anachronistic . without federal and state proppants, and with cost-based pricing, amtrak would be in the dust-bin of history. time for a reality check. ken patrick

I think most people agree with you, myself included. The idea of a national network of slow-speed service served by obsolete machinery has been long dead and has been kept on life support by the federal government at the expense of the people. For 99% of America, trains are absolutely NOT necessary. Amtrak was the response to how most Americans were uncomfortable with completely losing the romantic attachment to rail that many of us had.

I look at Amtrak as something that MUST go through drastic changes if we want things to get any better. The network it serves connects a market that has diminished so much that I cannot understand why everyone still feels it is such an important thing. Although I do not completely agree with you about a first-class air system and highways system. Our roads are crumbling, in some states more than others. AIr traffic is overcrowded and will have to go through a major overhaul very soon to continue to meet FAA regulation as the about of planes in the air will increase as dispute the economy, everyone expects it to continue.

I feel like my train needs match the 99% in this country. I will never ride a slow 40 year old multi-day service unless I had no other choice and I do not see that ever happening as I do own a car. The Amtrak routes I would ever consider are the Acela and Cascades. I have heard that Empire BUIlder is pretty so I may ride it someday but probably only once, which is not an example of what we want in this country.

High Speed Rail targets riders who will frequent the service, that is why point to point makes so much morse sense in this century, people who live far and away will do as they always have, drive (and if a long distance, they will drive to fly).

This is where Amtrak is obsolete, rail needs to follow the successful examples of Europe where they provide high speed and convenient service from city center to city center, then people take a cab/rent a car/take a bus/or take a subway. This is a smart and sustainable market.

[lirr42]

Buying more planes, selling more cars, and completely disposing of Amtrak is NOT the answer. Mr. Patrick, read some of the posts and threads on this forum, a "public benefit" corporation, like Amtrak, doesn't nescesceraily have to be profitable. As long as it benifits the public.

The 25 million people who ride Amtrak every year are obviously doing it for some reason. I, personally, will be riding the Lake Shore Limited and the California Zephyr this summer primarily because I'd like to see the beautiful scenery this country has to offer. I don't want to see the Rockies from a jet plane traveling at 600+mph 36,000 miles ahead. After all, getting there is half the fun.

[morris&essex4ever]

the numbers in the transportation bill are $300bil operating and $500 bil maintenance. when will this foolishness end? we have interstate roadways and a first-class air system. we have a large non japan/europe -like country that cannot be effectively transported by equipment/track/operating parameters -constrained high-speed rail. unlike japan/europe we all have autos and love to drive. we abandoned universal passenger rail long ago. amtrak is simply anachronistic . without federal and state proppants, and with cost-based pricing, amtrak would be in the dust-bin of history. time for a reality check. ken patrick

First class air system? I would say compared to foreign carriers, US airliners are sub par. The interstate system requires way more money to maintain. Should we make them all toll roads? And not everyone has a car or likes to drive. The reality is Amtrak provides a service to benefit the US, and it does a pretty good job considering the amount of founding it gets every year.

[25Hz]

Oh, i think if the interstates were all toll roads people would find amtrak extremely cheap. The interstate system hasn't been profitable, lets just get rid of it with airports, petroleum pipelines and amtrak. People can rent wagons & mules & get places without subsidy.

If amtrak received the same level of funding as the interstate system & airports you'd have hourly transcontinental service on maglev trains in 15 years.

What's wrong with massively funding amtrak & public transportation? it means more living wages, less dependance on fossil fuels less cars on roads, and an all together more sustainable and more reliable transportation system nationally. You'd also have resurgent CBD's, less poverty and less crime, cleaner air, less hopelessness and a better place to live for everyone.

[David Benton]

This highway trust fund deficit is interesting .I understand no American politican would dare even mentioning increasing the gas tax pre november 2012 .(it was done pre election here and they survived ) .
But post election , i would think a rise in gas tax is on the cards .they have the reason (to cover the deficit in the highway trust fund ) , there is no real reason not to , they have 4 years for voters to forgive . If a small % can be added on to cover non road alternative transport , then Rail stands to win on 2 fronts . one it will increase the cost of using an auto , and 2 hopefully it would get some $$$ out of it as an alternative to building more roads .