Long Distance vs. Corridors - YOU DECIDE!

I was just pointing out that your trip wasn't taxed at nearly the rate it would need to be to cover the costs. Not sure how you missed that.

When you ask that others pay, saying "Look what I pay," you are in fact asking for sympathy about what you pay.

But you don't pay your weight.

Of course, there are millions who, because they can't see past their self-interest, prefer to pretend that climate change isn't caused by the fuel we burn. I think you're smarter than that.

eolesen wrote: ↑Sat Aug 03, 2024 11:52 pm Railroad tickets should be taxed on the same basis, between 7.5% and 15% instead of relying on appropriations.

That should be ground for a new independent agency, a National Passenger Rail Authority (NPRA), which would
have such revenue and also have authority to issue bonds, much like state rail authorities.

eolesen wrote: ↑Sat Aug 03, 2024 11:52 pm Railroad tickets should be taxed on the same basis, between 7.5% and 15% instead of relying on appropriations.

So Mr. Olesen, we return to the "temporary wartime" 15% transportation tax. That tax was first pared to 10% during the '50's and completely abolished during '62.

Of interest, the roads that still "held out hope" for their passenger business passed the savings on to their passengers. The roads, such as Central and Pennsy, who had "thrown in the towel" raised their fares in the amount of that tax.

We get hung up on funding here a lot. Should the funding continue to pay for long distance or should we get more funding and run a corridor train in parallel, or one of these new FRA-sponsored study trains? The same with profitability. It's never going to happen so let's drop that side of the coin.

Take the current budget out of this and just pretend that there is a set budget, whether $2b, $20b, or $200b. How do you run this operation? My vote is to maximize passenger miles with an almost blind disregard to the current map. Where do we get the most passenger miles in order to perform the most useful service?

The answer, as many pro-rail countries have found, is in high-density areas with frequent schedules. Because that gets you the maximum passenger miles. Services of less than 4-5 hours, and probably at least three services per day each way.

Now here's the great big deal: if you have a new concept that does this, and we triple the passenger miles, do we triple the advocates (voters) for Amtrak? We probably grossly increase the advocates headcount. That's important becuase right now the advocate base is very low, and likely they are concentrated on 4-5 corridors - Richmond-Maine, Seattle-Portland, San Diego-Los Angeles, San Jose-Sacramento, and maybe Detroit-Chicago-Saint Louis.

A prolific author once wrote that there is a difference between pushing and running. Pushing is trying to get a concept accepted and approved. Running is taking an accepted concept and going as fast and as far as you can. People are starting to accept corridor trains as viable. It's time to run with it and sprout ten more, not keep pushing the old model that will never see significant growth.

When I said “expand the NEC” a few days ago, I was referring to everything about it: catenary, Amtrak ownership (wherever possible of course) frequencies and so on. If we are to believe the NEC really is the big money maker, expanding its reach can’t be a bad thing, can it?

Corridor trains don’t have to come at the expense of the LDR’s and vice versa. As I said previously, it may be worth testing the ideas of running a second daily LDR on an existing route: see how much increase there is in ridership if you run a second daily lake shore limited, Silver Star, or crescent, switching the hours so that they end up as more convenient for people on other portions of the route.

Tadman is right that the corridor system is successful (and we should continue pursuing that) and that the old system can’t lend itself to much growth, but the fact is that the old model hasn’t been modified, in the sense that Amtrak hasn’t done much to increase LDR service on existing routes or run trains to compliment many LDR’s.

I say it’s at the very least worth some effort to experiment with additional service on some routes, perhaps testing a less popular route and a more popular one with a second daily frequency even if it’s just for a year or two ; test out how many people would take a second daily LSL and a second daily cardinal (of course pending the route’s upgrade from thrice weekly to once daily).

https://www.bigskyrail.org/releases

And this seems to be the idea of Big Sky Rail, if you view their most recent press release:

“The ambitious goal of the Authority is to have a 21st Century passenger rail service designed over the coming years to enable the passenger service to operate by 2032 if Congress so chooses,” stated Dave Strohmaier, BSPRA Chair. He noted that key goals for the passenger service include on-time performance, twice-daily service in each direction, and the development of connecting transportation services to outlying communities and destinations within the route.“

ryanwc wrote: ↑Sun Aug 04, 2024 12:22 am Of course, there are millions who, because they can't see past their self-interest, prefer to pretend that climate change isn't caused by the fuel we burn. I think you're smarter than that.

Maybe yes, maybe no.

This isn't ClimateChangeAdvocacy.net, but it's going to come of little surprise to you that I view most climate science is largely based on crap theory which is encouraged by institutional bias...

Many of the millions you claim are putting self-interests first have been listening to wild and catastrophic climate predictions for over 50 years. When one set of predictions fails, the "scientists" just make up a new one...

For fun, read all 8 parts at https://capitalresearch.org/article/al- ... rs-part-1/

The 8 acres of trees I own provides me and my family with carbon offsets equal to ~180,000 miles of driving each year. I'll make the most of that while I can.

Regardless, rail travel should be taxed. Perhaps you can come up with a convincing argument against that.

Why should railroads be treated by the Federal government any different than all other modes f transportation, ignoring taxes. Let's just look at it from an appropriations point of view. FTA and FRA expect state or local support to "build" bridges, tunnels, viaducts, traffic lights, bus lanes, buses, rail cars, vans, runways, bus, rail, air terminals, yes -everything. Rarely does the Federal government foot the entire bill of any transportation construction.
We have a Federal system where every government involved puts in their fair share.
The same can not be stated for transit "operations". You pay a seat tax to ride a plane. You pay fuel, excise, and registration taxes to drive a car. You pay port fees to ride a ship. But the only tax you pay to ride a train is your fares, assuming you do not evade the fares by jumping the turnstiles. At the Federal level, there are trust funds where these various forms of taxes accumulate and are available to be used yearly. It is infrequent when Congress appropriates more than what is in the trust funds to build things. Not suggestion that never happens, but infrequently done. Usually when Congress decides it is necessary to boost the economy after some market disturbance.
Rail does not have a Federal trust fund. Congress appropriates money for rail from other trust funds, or from the general budget for everything else. Without a trust fund, Congress has to do this yearly. Every year, that money changes. It is not steady. Without a steady source of funding many rail projects never get done, and if finished, done on time. Rail needs a steady source of funding.

eolesen wrote: ↑Mon Aug 05, 2024 12:38 am

ryanwc wrote: ↑Sun Aug 04, 2024 12:22 am Of course, there are millions who, because they can't see past their self-interest, prefer to pretend that climate change isn't caused by the fuel we burn. I think you're smarter than that.

Maybe yes, maybe no.

This isn't ClimateChangeAdvocacy.net,

Also, I expressed myself pretty rudely. So I'll take back my previous argument because of that, and leave it there. However I answered your latest post, it would likely convince neither of us. I do get your point.

I know enough climate science to be confident the general theory is a set of predictions that have been borne out.

But I am sympathetic to the idea that the Forbes writers attempt to put an exact price on it is not nearly so valid. And that there is ample journalistic bias to
a) in some quarters, deny climate science without justification and
b) in other quarters, accept extreme statements of climate change and its costs at face value when they're often based on flimsy assumptions or studies with irreproducible results.

I have used short distance corridors quite a bit over the years (commuter rail, Amtrak NEC, Amtrak northeast routes from Virginia & North Carolina on up to Albany, Boston, Portland, Brunswick, Montreal, etc.). But I have also used Amtrak long distance services, traveling in sleeper accommodations. When I took the train across the country to visit my brother in San Diego, that was only possible due to the long distance network. Same when I traveled from Williamsburg, VA to Dallas, TX for my cousin's wedding (via Regional, Capitol Limited, & Texas Eagle). Back then you still had proper dining car service and Sightseer lounges on the Capitol and Eagle. Maybe Amtrak is trying and succeeding in making the long distance trains not worth riding, but if they made half an effort I think they provide a useful service.

When I hear things like the Crescent is going down to one sleeper due to a shortage of equipment, it makes me think that Amtrak leadership is still actively trying to kill the long distance network though. You're telling me that with 50 Viewliner I sleepers, 25 Viewliner II sleepers, and 10 Viewliner II bag-dorm combos, Amtrak can't maintain the same sleeper capacity that it did when all it had were the 50 Viewliner Is?

Matt Johnson wrote: ↑Mon Aug 05, 2024 8:10 pm When I hear things like the Crescent is going down to one sleeper due to a shortage of equipment, it makes me think that Amtrak leadership is still actively trying to kill the long distance network though. You're telling me that with 50 Viewliner I sleepers, 25 Viewliner II sleepers, and 10 Viewliner II bag-dorm combos, Amtrak can't maintain the same sleeper capacity that it did when all it had were the 50 Viewliner Is?

I agree this is a real head-scratcher and an inept attempt to drop the LD trains. If for some reason they are truly short of sleepers, there are other solutions than dropping each route to one sleeper. For example, Illinois Central ran the CNO as a day train, necessitating no sleepers. Why not do that now? Or why not make the Crescent an all-coach train with a long overnight layover in Atlanta? It's well known that the train significantly turns over in ATL, so take advantage of that.

Now that the Mobile City Council has finally approved funding Amtrak service to New Orleans for 3 years, it will be interesting to see if this new corridor train will be as successful as the Borealis service.

How long has it taken to get the Mobile City Council onboard? This corridor model where every Hooterville and Pixley along the route has to contribute money or give approval will make it very difficult to create more corridor trains. Hopefully the 2x daily trains to New Orleans will be popular and in 3 years there won't be a fuss about contributing more money.

Tadman wrote: ↑Tue Aug 06, 2024 9:03 am Why not make the Crescent an all-coach train with a long overnight layover in Atlanta? It's well known that the train significantly turns over in ATL, so take advantage of that.

NYP-ATL is 859 miles, similar to the Palmetto.

Vincent wrote: ↑Tue Aug 06, 2024 8:39 pm This corridor model where every Hooterville and Pixley along the route has to contribute money or give approval will make it very difficult to create more corridor trains.

They've known this for years, ever since the Lakeshore Limited was a state supported train in the 1970's. All ten states ponied up for a year, then Ohio decided it was a waste and torpedoed the whole affair. Same thing happened with the Hoosier when they asked like ten cities or counties to pony up.

Mobile has made it clear they don't want to pay for this over three years, so I don't have expectations of a long term service. Mississippi seems to want it so this train may truncate to Pascagoula, which wouldn't be a bad thing. Lots of resorts, hotels, beaches, and perhaps 3-4 military bases on that route.