# New Beaumont station



## MrEd (Jun 23, 2010)

The new Beaumont station - paid for with federal stimulus money

http://www.beaumontenterprise.com/news/loc...ss_station.html


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Jun 23, 2010)

$1.2 million can't even buy a single restroom? Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?

According to some Danny Harmon video I was watching these sorts of stations just end up as makeshift open-air restrooms anyway.

Then again it's Beaumont. Just another zit on the face of Texas. Better to spend that money where it might actually do some good in a state that might actually appreciate it. ;-)


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Jun 23, 2010)

Actually its kind of classy, like an old depot. The CVSR (with help from Stark county) re-did the Lincoln station in downtown Canton a few years back and did a bang-up job.

Bathrooms aren't their either. When you consider low boarding numbers and that it would likely double to the project cost *just* to dig and lay pipe to connect it to the main.


----------



## henryj (Jun 23, 2010)

daxomni said:


> $1.2 million can't even buy a single restroom? Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?
> According to some Danny Harmon video I was watching these sorts of stations just end up as makeshift open-air restrooms anyway.
> 
> Then again it's Beaumont. Just another zit on the face of Texas. Better to spend that money where it might actually do some good in a state that might actually appreciate it. ;-)


zit or not, I am sure the passengers that board the train in Beaumont will appreciate it. It's up to the city to keep the homeless from making it a place to hang out. If and when the train goes daily hopefully the passenger count for Beaumont will increase.


----------



## darien-l (Jun 23, 2010)

Pretty funny (and telling) comment on that article:



> I used to pick my son up from that site when he was on leave from the Army and I would sometime have to go pick him up in the middle of the night. It was like the scene in "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" where random, silent, strangers gathered in a remote area watching for an arriving vehicle with lights, except we had the added fear of being shot, knifed, car-jacked, etc.,and Richard Dreyfus only had to fear aliens.


----------



## Guest (Jun 23, 2010)

A perfect example of why people get fed up with government!  A lousy location, a waste of money (this is not small potatoes fro basically a shed!)when it could be built downtown or @ least in a more accesable and safe location!  Perhaps Amtrak could even eliminate Beaumont as a stop if the pax load is so low and stop in Orange! (Texas, not California or Florida!)


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Jun 23, 2010)

1.2 mil to build a non-existant building isn't all that much, especially when that building is by an active train line AND has a lot of old concrete slab to renovate before they can even begin breaking "new" ground.


----------



## Guest (Jun 23, 2010)

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> 1.2 mil to build a non-existant building isn't all that much, especially when that building is by an active train line AND has a lot of old concrete slab to renovate before they can even begin breaking "new" ground.


Not up North ALC but IMO it's over a Million DOLLARS for a fancy shed in an unsafe, poorly patronized waste land! Why not build it downtown as I previously asked? Someones brother -in-law must be getting the contract or owns this piece of wasteland!


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Jun 23, 2010)

It would be nice if we still had actual reporters these days. Folks who would bother to find out how many people actually qualify as paid O&D for the once-in-a-while service that might be discontinued if Amtrak can't get more rolling stock funded to go long with their expensive new bus bench. You know, see if the numbers actually added up rather than just regurgitate a one-sided press release. I'm in favor of leaving Beaumont as-is. Maybe buy some benches to mount on the slab. Shouldn't cost more than $5,000 and you're done. Still more than Beaumont is actually worth, but a nice gesture from our bankrupt federal treasury.


----------



## afigg (Jun 23, 2010)

Guest said:


> Not up North ALC but IMO it's over a Million DOLLARS for a fancy shed in an unsafe, poorly patronized waste land! Why not build it downtown as I previously asked? Someones brother -in-law must be getting the contract or owns this piece of wasteland!


Looking up the ARRA project list on the Amtrak website, the project is described as "Beaumont TX Station to receive a new ADA compliant Shelter Station Building and 550', 8" ATR concrete platform.". Concrete is not that cheap these days. The 550' long platform is probably where much of the $1.2 million is going. If Amtrak goes to daily service over the NOL to SAS route with daytime service to Houston, San Antonio, or NOL, the station should see an increase in ridership. A grand total of 1,769 people used the Beaumont station platform in FY09 which is not a high bar to beat. That is only 5 to 6 people per train!


----------



## AlanB (Jun 23, 2010)

henryj said:


> daxomni said:
> 
> 
> > $1.2 million can't even buy a single restroom? Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?
> ...


My guess Henry is that the homeless you mentioned are probably part of the reason that they didn't put bathrooms in. That would make if far more likely that they would hang out at the station.


----------



## AlanB (Jun 23, 2010)

Guest said:


> ALC_Rail_Writer said:
> 
> 
> > 1.2 mil to build a non-existant building isn't all that much, especially when that building is by an active train line AND has a lot of old concrete slab to renovate before they can even begin breaking "new" ground.
> ...


IIRC, they tried to move the station closer to downtown prior to actually spending the money. I seem to recall that the host RR wouldn't permit them to build a new station in a different location.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Jun 23, 2010)

Good point about the concrete costs, but do they really need all of that? They already have plenty of concrete at the station as-is. Not ADA approved of course, but I'm not sure that's even mandated in this situation.

If nothing else the Beaumont station should be combined into a multi-purpose installation for that kind of dough. Doesn't Beaumont have a bus station as well? Combine both into the same complex so that it's not at risk of vandalism most days of the week.

Even when they had a station prior it was a complete mess from the looks of things...













What's to stop their new million dollar bench house from being trashed as well?

Meanwhile San Antonio could really use a parking lot. How many parking spaces would a million dollars buy?

Only maybe sixty cents per prospective customer if this was spent on SAS metro vs. $10 per prospective customer in Beaumont.

Given the pix, I'd say Beaumont needs some signage, some vandalism-resistant benches, and some minor cement work to connect the walkway with the slab.

Anything else is nothing but pork unless it's combined with other services that give the installation daily service of some sort.

If that's not possible because the city isn't willing to twist the arm of KCS then the funds should go elsewhere.

What helps Beaumont more, a new station begging to be trashed or a daily train? Put the money where it belongs.


----------



## Lamar (Jun 23, 2010)

Guest said:


> A perfect example of why people get fed up with government!  A lousy location, a waste of money (this is not small potatoes fro basically a shed!)when it could be built downtown or @ least in a more accesable and safe location!  Perhaps Amtrak could even eliminate Beaumont as a stop if the pax load is so low and stop in Orange! (Texas, not California or Florida!)


I agree. The route goes through the middle of Orange, and it's a way cooler town that would probably take much better care of train passengers!


----------



## George Harris (Jun 23, 2010)

The Beaumont tin box shown above was built by Missouri Pacific and Union Pacific pre-Amtrak when they both still had trains through there. In 1981 the signage on teh building was still MP and SP.

Prior to that, there was a downtown station, but like most places it was overbuilt for the late 1960's patronage, and I would suspect being taxed with enthusiasm by both the city and county based on a property valuation that was at best highly imaginative. Property taxes alone have caused a lot of stations to be demolished.

Add to that, this station was on a piece of track owned by KCS. The KCS ownership is still true for the trackage through downtown Beaumont. It was KCS, not UP that objected to the downtown site.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Jun 23, 2010)

This Beaumont bench house will comprise the majority of _all_ station funding in the state of Texas and it's being placed in this random wasteland because nobody can figure out a way to take on KCS. Seriously? No wonder people see our government as nothing but a waste of tax money. Amtrak should have made a more reasonable location a stipulation for funding and moved the funding to other stations or towns that currently have no slab if the city, county, and state couldn't figure out a way to get KCS to budge.


----------



## mfastx (Jun 23, 2010)

Wow this is a great project. Only 1.2 million? That's less then many houses. Great to see the slab replaced, now if only they would build something this good in Houston (yes ours is that bad).


----------



## Eric S (Jun 24, 2010)

mfastx said:


> Wow this is a great project. Only 1.2 million? That's less then many houses. Great to see the slab replaced, now if only they would build something this good in Houston (yes ours is that bad).


Are there still plans for the Houston Amtrak station to be replaced by the Intermodal Transit Center, serving (I seem to recall) Amtrak, local buses, light rail, and proposed commuter rail?


----------



## AlanB (Jun 24, 2010)

daxomni said:


> Good point about the concrete costs, but do they really need all of that? They already have plenty of concrete at the station as-is. Not ADA approved of course, but I'm not sure that's even mandated in this situation.


Yes, it is mandated. If you start any improvements to a station, then you must make it ADA compliant. There is no choice in the matter. And that means an all new platform at the correct height.


----------



## afigg (Jun 24, 2010)

daxomni said:


> Good point about the concrete costs, but do they really need all of that? They already have plenty of concrete at the station as-is. Not ADA approved of course, but I'm not sure that's even mandated in this situation....
> 
> What helps Beaumont more, a new station begging to be trashed or a daily train? Put the money where it belongs.


If the concrete at the current Beaumont station platform is crumbling, then there are safety issues that may require it to be replaced. All stations have to meet ADA requirements. Can't get around that unless Congress changes the laws. Looking at the Amtrak stimulus list, there are a number of Amtrak stations getting stimulus rebuilds with new platforms for around $1.25 million each, so that is the standard price for a barebone station with a 550' long platform. If the goal is to have people ride the trains, having at least a basic shelter which at least for the next few years will look decent, will get more riders than a crumbling empty slab of concrete. Amtrak got a pot of money with the stimulus which is fixing a lot of things, but hardly fixing everything. Heck, there is $1 million to upgrade the rest rooms at NYP for ADA compliance and will presumably be part of a general rehab. Now that is going to be interesting to see how long it takes for the upgraded rest rooms at NYP to get run down.


----------



## metrorail (Jun 24, 2010)

Eric S said:


> Are there still plans for the Houston Amtrak station to be replaced by the Intermodal Transit Center, serving (I seem to recall) Amtrak, local buses, light rail, and proposed commuter rail?


METRO answered this question on their Q&A page regarding the Intermodal Terminal (which will now be called *Burnett Plaza*.)



> Q: During earlier discussions, METRO also mentioned private bus companies and AMTRAK might also use this facility. Is that no longer the case?
> 
> A: This proposed facility is being designed so that it could accommodate other modes of transportation that could be phased into service, such as commuter rail, private bus carriers, and national passenger rail (AMTRAK). However, these facilities are not included in Phase I, and would not be constructed until funding and environmental clearances are in place.


More information about Burnett Plaza can be found at http://www.metrosolutions.org/go/doc/1068/258949/


----------



## MrEd (Jun 24, 2010)

I think all new shed stations will cost about the same.

new one for martin county announced

...

STUART — The county has received bids from 14 architectural firms on the $1.2 million downtown transit depot that officials hope is a hub for Greyhound bus and Amtrak railway services in the next few years.

...

“Our vision of the Transit Depot is that of a simple shed structure, derived from the stations of old, but using materials that take advantage of the technology available in 2010,” said Scott Hughes, principal partner for SH_Arc. “The governing roof shape is based on the profile of the Original Stuart Train Station but modified to maximize its shade-making surface given the orientation of the building on the proposed site.”

Federal guidelines require the project to be completed within a year and prior stimulus paperwork had estimated the work requiring 30 to 50 temporary construction workers

...

http://www.tcpalm.com/news/2010/jun/23/county-set-to-review-proposals-for-downtown/?partner=yahoo_feeds


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Jun 24, 2010)

The Beaumont station is suddenly looking pretty nice compared this Amshack thing.






On the plus side a multi-purpose building is more efficient and less prone to vandalism and disrepair.

So, I guess it's a wash.

Anybody want to join up for a group photo when the Beaumont station is completed?

Maybe we can all bring large signs that say "Screw You KCS!" and "Sorry Orange!"


----------



## craftsma (Jun 24, 2010)

1.2 million, eh?

That's about $800k in graft and corruption, the rest in something that should cost < $200k if built by any honest contractor. I can find you nice, brand new houses in the same style - except with A/C, bathrooms, and insulation - for less than $200k any day.


----------



## Ispolkom (Jun 24, 2010)

I notice that Stanley, ND is getting a new 550', 8" platform for $500,000, so the Beaumont station must be estimated to cost $700,000.

The Minot, ND station has or is spending about $850k to restore its 1905 station, with new ceramic tile floors and ADA-compliant toilets. And a new roof. And new siding. Actually, I'm not sure what will remain of the old station.


----------



## MrEd (Jun 24, 2010)

There will be total of eight stations for the florida project. They should all be getting the funds this year.

when will the new florida service start ?

...

All eight cities on the line need to have train stations designated for the federal government to consider the stimulus request, said Kim Delaney, growth management coordinator for the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council, which has taken the lead in advocating for this project.

The state has estimated that it will cost about $268 million to bring Amtrak service to Florida East Coast tracks. The state now uses CSX tracks that go through the middle of the state.

Six cities — Titusville, Daytona Beach, Fort Pierce, Vero Beach, Cocoa and Stuart — have designated locations for train stations. Melbourne will be approving a location in July, Delaney said.

...


----------



## mfastx (Jun 24, 2010)

Eric S said:


> mfastx said:
> 
> 
> > Wow this is a great project. Only 1.2 million? That's less then many houses. Great to see the slab replaced, now if only they would build something this good in Houston (yes ours is that bad).
> ...


Well yes there are plans, but givin the current situation, the Amtrak station will not be replaced until 10-15 years down the road.


----------



## afigg (Jun 25, 2010)

MrEd said:


> There will be total of eight stations for the florida project. They should all be getting the funds this year.
> 
> when will the new florida service start ?
> 
> ...


This is getting somewhat off-topic from the replacement for the new Beaumont, TX station concrete slab, but Florida service down the FEC is probably several years away at the earliest. A google check of news articles shows that they are planning to apply for stimulus funds, but the local town or city governments have to agree to put up 20% of the cost, the state government has to agree to submit the applications, the city or local gov and then the feds have to award the funding. There are also EIS documents, engineering design work, and public meetings that all have to be done before contracts can be awarded to build a station. All that takes time.

What the $1.25 million stimulus project cost for the Beaumont and the other small stations getting replaced does is to establish what is the minimum cost for a new station with a 550' long concrete platform and minimum station facility with an open enclosure and no restrooms or A/C or heating. If Orange, TX or another city along the NOL to SAS route wants to build a new station, figure the costs will be higher to cover land acquisition, adding a parking lot, maybe some local road work to add an access road. Bare minimum cost for a new ADA qualified station with a long platform is probably in the $1.5 to $2 million ballpark. There are only 3 stops in TX on the NOL to SAS route. If Amtrak provides daily daytime service on that route, one would hope that a couple of the bigger towns along the route would be interested in adding a station. Which would help with ridership along that route.

In FL along the FEC, the local communities are going to insist on an enclosed station facility with A/C, restrooms, and probably at least a partially roofed platform for protection from rain, so the stations will likely cost considerably more than $1.5 to $2 million.


----------



## DKpartyguy (Jun 25, 2010)

When I travel to TX to visit family,Beaumont is my destination. Granted, the proposed new station is a vast improvement over the concrete slab.

It is the location in Beaumont that is the problem.

Since I take the SSL from NOLA, the train, usually late, arrives at the station well after dark.I have never gotten off the train in Beaumont because of where the station is.

I go into Houston, then drive back to Beaumont the next morning.

It would be nice to have a station in downtown Beaumont, but obviously Amtrak is oblivious to this fact, and since they are putting up the new station at its' current site, that means we will probably not get a better location for decades to come.

The station in Houston is indicative of Amtrak's ambivalence to the Texas routes. Houston is the largest city in Texas, and should have better train service, and a better station in a better location.

Amtrak bemoans low-ridership, but they need to realize that they need to make riding Amtrak more attractive to potential riders.

Houston should have a central transit hub, like New York, Chicago, etc.

Just my 2 cents....

David


----------



## stntylr (Jun 25, 2010)

DKpartyguy said:


> It would be nice to have a station in downtown Beaumont, but obviously Amtrak is oblivious to this fact, and since they are putting up the new station at its' current site, that means we will probably not get a better location for decades to come.
> 
> The station in Houston is indicative of Amtrak's ambivalence to the Texas routes. Houston is the largest city in Texas, and should have better train service, and a better station in a better location.


As Alan said the location of the Beaumont station was not determined by Amtrak. The city of Beaumont had a better location picked out but they couldn't reach an agreement with the host railroad.

The station in Houston is not owned by Amtrak and while it's also in a bad section of town it is probably the right size given the low ridership.

Also if you look at the map you will see there are no large or even midsized cities along the route between Houston and San Antonio. The city of Schulenburg (pop 8,000) has been trying to be added as a stop. It would make sense considering the large distance between stops.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Jun 25, 2010)

DKpartyguy said:


> Granted, the proposed new station is a vast improvement over the concrete slab.


…Only until it gets ransacked like the last one.



DKpartyguy said:


> Since I take the SSL from NOLA, the train, usually late, arrives at the station well after dark.I have never gotten off the train in Beaumont because of where the station is. I go into Houston, then drive back to Beaumont the next morning.


This really needs to be relayed to Amtrak directly. Are you willing to make a quick call?



DKpartyguy said:


> It would be nice to have a station in downtown Beaumont, but obviously Amtrak is oblivious to this fact, and since they are putting up the new station at its' current site, that means we will probably not get a better location for decades to come.


This is a city and state issue as much as Amtrak. Where’s the disgust with Texas and Beaumont who refuse to put their foot down with KCS?



DKpartyguy said:


> Houston should have a central transit hub, like New York, Chicago, etc.


I admit that would be ideal, but let’s think about this discrepancy for a moment. New York City and Chicago are in relatively blue states, Texas is deep red. States like Texas don’t care if their public transportation infrastructure actually works or even makes any sense at all. Think about it, there are some rare exceptions but in general blue states have much better public transportation than red states. At least that’s been my experience. If I didn't know better I'd say red states are almost proud of how poorly their public transportation is setup. Almost like its sole purpose is to bring in the pork and help shuffle around debt.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Jun 25, 2010)

DKpartyguy said:


> When I travel to TX to visit family,Beaumont is my destination. Granted, the proposed new station is a vast improvement over the concrete slab. It is the location in Beaumont that is the problem.Since I take the SSL from NOLA, the train, usually late, arrives at the station well after dark.I have never gotten off the train in Beaumont because of where the station is.I go into Houston, then drive back to Beaumont the next morning.It would be nice to have a station in downtown Beaumont, but obviously Amtrak is oblivious to this fact, and since they are putting up the new station at its' current site, that means we will probably not get a better location for decades to come. The station in Houston is indicative of Amtrak's ambivalence to the Texas routes. Houston is the largest city in Texas, and should have better train service, and a better station in a better location.Amtrak bemoans low-ridership, but they need to realize that they need to make riding Amtrak more attractive to potential riders.Houston should have a central transit hub, like New York, Chicago, etc.Just my 2 cents....David


Amtrak can't just willy nilly put up a station where they want to put it. As someone involved with the fun that goes on around the construction and implementation of any rail project, I find the naiveté of the average forum member in regards to this something of a hoot.

For Amtrak to build a station at any point where nothing currently exists, they have to:

Find the land.

Find the money to buy the land (This may require public meetings and Congressional committee meetings)

Have a public meeting to discuss this.

Have a period where members of the public can voice objections.

Create a design for it.

Have a public meeting to discuss the impact of the design on the surrounding community

Have a period where the public can submit objections to the public record.

Perform an Environmental Impact Study.

Have a public meeting where people can discuss this.

Have a period where the public can submit objections or other comments about this.

Buy the land.

Finalize the design.

Have a public meeting.

Have a period where the public can submit comments to the record.

Submit a request for companies to consider submitting a proposal.

Submit a request for proposal (RFP)

Receive the proposals.

Put the project up for bidding.

Have a public meeting for people to discuss this.

Have a period where the public can submit comments to the record.

Award the contract.

This takes years, and shovel one hasn't even gotten in the ground.

And anywhere along the line, NIMBYs, BANANAs, and people with their own ideas can slow down, derail, or completely destroy the entire project.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Jun 26, 2010)

Green Maned Lion said:


> Amtrak can't just willy nilly put up a station where they want to put it.


No, but they can refuse to play along with a charade and talk to other towns instead.



Green Maned Lion said:


> And anywhere along the line, NIMBYs, BANANAs, and people with their own ideas can slow down, derail, or completely destroy the entire project.


Do you have any evidence that any of those groups are preventing Beaumont from using the former station downtown? From what I've read the only party that seems incapable of negotiating in good faith is KCS. In a more progressive state that might bring them increased scrutiny of safety and security violations to help put the pressure on, but in Texas it gets them a pat on the back and a kiss on the boot.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Jun 26, 2010)

daxomni said:


> No, but they can refuse to play along with a charade and talk to other towns instead.


Since the town was willing but KCS (who runs through more towns then just Beaumont, one would assume) wasn't, what, precisely, would be the point of talking to another town?



daxomni said:


> Do you have any evidence that any of those groups are preventing Beaumont from using the former station downtown? From what I've read the only party that seems incapable of negotiating in good faith is KCS. In a more progressive state that might bring them increased scrutiny of safety and security violations to help put the pressure on, but in Texas it gets them a pat on the back and a kiss on the boot.


I was point out generalities, not specifics.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Jun 26, 2010)

Green Maned Lion said:


> Since the town was willing but KCS (who runs through more towns then just Beaumont, one would assume) wasn't, what, precisely, would be the point of talking to another town?


In other words, spend the money where it might do more good, either off the KCS line or outside of Texas. Wouldn't it be better to send federal funds where they'll actually be maintained and appreciated? In Beaumont Amtrak is risking another trashed station that could become yet another vandalized disgrace that already suspicious Texans will point to as a reason to further cut back their funding. It's just not worth it in my view, the downside outweighs the upside. Unless, of course, Amtrak is able to skim something off the top. In which case I'm disappointed but at least it would make sense as to why they're moving forward with an expensive upgrade in a bad part of an ugly, impotent town.


----------



## AlanB (Jun 26, 2010)

daxomni said:


> Unless, of course, Amtrak is able to skim something off the top. In which case I'm disappointed but at least it would make sense as to why they're moving forward with an expensive upgrade in a bad part of an ugly, impotent town.


The work is moving forward because Congress gave Amtrak the money and Amtrak has to make its stations ADA compliant. Nothing sinister or ulterior about it.

Yes, it would have been nice if all the parties could have gotten together to move the station to a better location, or if more pressure could have been brought to bear on KCS. But it is what it is and Amtrak is fullfilling their mandate to make all of its stations ADA compliant.


----------



## Guest (Jun 26, 2010)

more info.

http://www.theexaminer.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubSectionID=61&ArticleID=3992

Kyle Hayes, Beaumont city manager, said that the city is currently planning on building a substation to maintain a police presence in the area, but there are other options that the city is looking into that may make up for some shortfalls of the Amtrak station.

"We were waiting for Amtrak to tell us the size of their facility and what amenities they were going to have," said Hayes. "We got that on Monday, and we're told that Amtrak will not have restrooms in the station or as a part of the station so we're discussing other options - a possibility of a restaurant locating on the property, which would be open at least during normal business hours, where someone waiting for an Amtrak train could go and eat, or drink, or use the restroom.

"Another option would be locating some sort of city operation on the property, where we may have a presence between 8 (a.m.) and 5 (p.m.) Monday through Friday. There may be another city operation that could be out there along with the police substation because police substations only need a small amount of space. Police officers can get in out of the inclement weather, go in and work on their laptops, complete reports, so on and so forth, but it's more to have a presence in a certain area."

The facility will be built at the same Cedar Street location, which currently contains the concrete slab that has been used by Amtrak riders. According to Warner, years ago there was a train station that existed at that location.

"It originally was a manned station, and then it was unmanned," said Warner. "While it was unmanned it was vandalized, allowed to deteriorate and eventually had to be torn down."

Hayes said that once the city has a presence in the area on a regular basis, there will be less of an issue with illegal activity around the train station.

Magliari said that Amtrak will go out for bids within the coming months and plans to begin construction before fall.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Jun 26, 2010)

This is at least getting attention in City Hall but the trains here (Sunset Ltd./twice a day/thrice weekly-Mo/Tu/Wed/Fri/Su)arrive outside an 8AM-5PM window, more like 7PM and 7 AM, so what good would having a resturant open only 8-5 or a city office of some type open Mon-Fri only? :wacko:

If and when a daily train of some type starts running SAS-NOL perhaps the time frame will change (day trains!)and a resturant would have a chance to survive here in this wasteland!I totally agree that it would be insane to build a shelter/bathroom/shootin gallery for the street people for $1.2 M!!! 

and see it trashed in short order! The rednecks and no nothings in Texas dont need anymore anti-government ammunition! :help:


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Jun 28, 2010)

AlanB said:


> The work is moving forward because Congress gave Amtrak the money and Amtrak has to make its stations ADA compliant. Nothing sinister or ulterior about it. Yes, it would have been nice if all the parties could have gotten together to move the station to a better location, or if more pressure could have been brought to bear on KCS. But it is what it is and Amtrak is fullfilling their mandate to make all of its stations AD


First of all, would you mind responding to the rest of my post please? It seems you cherry-picked one tiny part and then simply ignored the rest. Also, as you're now apparently choosing to speak in absolute terms I'd like to remind you that Amtrak could still consider how this will play out in the press and refuse the money. They could simply leave Beaumont as-is until they get their act together. If there is no money left at that point, then maybe the city council will learn to be more demanding or at least more cleaver next time.

If I understand your position correctly you are convinced that it's impossible anyone at Amtrak could be benefiting financially from these sorts of projects. I'm not sure I agree with that or even understand how you could possibly know this, but even if that were true they're still wasting our tax dollars in state (and nation) that generally looks at public transit expenses with extreme suspicion. Let me reiterate, I'm one of the few pro-rail Texans. If even I think it's a waste of money you can be sure the _average_ Texan is just one AM talk show away from losing it over these sorts of expenditures.

If ADA compliance is the issue it can almost certainly be funded for less than 1.2 million, even if that was their sole reason for this upgrade. I don't think SAS is fully ADA compliant so if that was their concern shouldn't they start where it would do the most good? I understand that there are folks who will apologize for virtually everything Amtrak does but we have to start getting real about where this is going to land them in the long term, and at the moment I see lots of hot water in their future.

It's a poorly reasoned strategy to spend tax dollars now that could easily backfire in the future. Just imagine if Amtrak decides to end the Sunset Limited and drop everything east of SAS. Better to be careful with government expenses you can still defend later than just shoving taxpayer money into the nearest ghetto station in the hope it won't fall to the same worthless fate as the one before it.


----------



## stntylr (Jun 28, 2010)

daxomni said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > The work is moving forward because Congress gave Amtrak the money and Amtrak has to make its stations ADA compliant. Nothing sinister or ulterior about it. Yes, it would have been nice if all the parties could have gotten together to move the station to a better location, or if more pressure could have been brought to bear on KCS. But it is what it is and Amtrak is fullfilling their mandate to make all of its stations AD
> ...



I don't think they can do that. As Alan said they are required to make the station ADA compliant, it's federal law. Amtrak doesn't have a choice and they can't hold out until a better solution was found.

Also because this is being paid for by federal stimulus money there is a drop dead date for issuing the contracts and starting construction. That's the reason they stopped negotiating with KSC and went ahead with the plans for the current location.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Jun 28, 2010)

stntylr said:


> I don't think they can do that. As Alan said they are required to make the station ADA compliant, it's federal law. Amtrak doesn't have a choice and they can't hold out until a better solution was found.


If no change is made to the station, beyond demolishing it apparently, then ADA is not a requirement. This was also according to a previous post by Alan. I'm not in agreement that it requires a fat 1.2 million to upgrade a low-volume remote station on a potentially dead line to ADA compliance. That sounds inflated to me and ripe for ridicule. If platform height is such a big deal then why does even SAS still have the old height and how are they avoiding whatever federal penalties that supposedly driving Amtrak to action? There are lots of concerns still unanswered, at least from the Texan perspective. Amtrak doesn't need any obvious lightening rods for political discontent but they're about to build a nice big one in bright red state.


----------



## stntylr (Jun 28, 2010)

daxomni said:


> stntylr said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think they can do that. As Alan said they are required to make the station ADA compliant, it's federal law. Amtrak doesn't have a choice and they can't hold out until a better solution was found.
> ...


All new stations have to be built to ADA standards. The timeline is different for existing ones.


----------



## Eric S (Jun 28, 2010)

daxomni said:


> I'm not in agreement that it requires a fat 1.2 million to upgrade a low-volume remote station on a potentially dead line to ADA compliance.


Potentially dead line? What indications are there that Amtrak intends to discontinue service to/through Beaumont? (None that I am aware of. Perhaps alter service, but not discontinue it.)

Low-volume remote station? Low-volume, yes, but due at least in part to the horrible condition of the existing "station." But remote? Remote suggests it's in a sparsely populated, rural area, not serving a metropolitan area of approximately 375,000. Unless you mean a remote part of town? Although it may not be in downtown Beaumont and may be in a less-than-desirable part of town, the station does not appear to be on the outskirts of town.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Jun 28, 2010)

Eric S said:


> Potentially dead line? What indications are there that Amtrak intends to discontinue service to/through Beaumont? (None that I am aware of. Perhaps alter service, but not discontinue it.)


Maybe I misunderstood but it seemed as though there was a possibility that if the Texas Eagle goes daily to LA it could mean the end of service east of SAS. I understand that Amtrak has talked about making SAS <> NOL daily as a stub or something, but considering how poorly the Sunset Limited's financials have been and how easily Amtrak can simply lop-off and ignore half the route after Katrina I consider the this line to be one of the most at risk of long-term discontinuation.



Eric S said:


> Unless you mean a remote part of town? Although it may not be in downtown Beaumont and may be in a less-than-desirable part of town, the station does not appear to be on the outskirts of town.


Yeah, I meant remote part of town. Looking at google maps and bing it looked pretty isolated. Maybe that would have been a better term.


----------



## Eric S (Jun 28, 2010)

daxomni said:


> Eric S said:
> 
> 
> > Potentially dead line? What indications are there that Amtrak intends to discontinue service to/through Beaumont? (None that I am aware of. Perhaps alter service, but not discontinue it.)
> ...


There has been a great deal of debate/discussion here about what MIGHT happen if the Texas Eagle becomes a daily CHI-LAX train. IF that happens, the consensus seems to be that Amtrak would run a daily "stub train" (as many have referred to it) NOL-SAS to connect to/from the Texas Eagle.


----------



## afigg (Jun 28, 2010)

daxomni said:


> I'm not in agreement that it requires a fat 1.2 million to upgrade a low-volume remote station on a potentially dead line to ADA compliance. That sounds inflated to me and ripe for ridicule. If platform height is such a big deal then why does even SAS still have the old height and how are they avoiding whatever federal penalties that supposedly driving Amtrak to action? There are lots of concerns still unanswered, at least from the Texan perspective. Amtrak doesn't need any obvious lightening rods for political discontent but they're about to build a nice big one in bright red state.


$1.2 million is not a lot of money for a public infrastructure project and is a very small piece of the $1.3 billion Amtrak got in the stimulus program. Maybe the location of the station is not ideal, but Amtrak has to take advantage of the funding to fix some of the worse problems in their system while they can. Would you rather they leave Beaumont with a crumbling concrete platform for an excuse of a train station?

For a little more background on this project, there is an article on the new Beaumont station in a rail industry publication at http://www.rtands.com/newsflash/beaumont-texas-getting-new-amtrak-station.html. Flat out statement from the Amtrak media relation manager that Amtrak is working towards daily service on that route as soon as possible. In terms of local political support, the city of Beaumont brought the property for the station from UP for $300,000 and is looking at placing a police substation at the site to provide some police presence which might make people feel safer in terms of being dropped off and waiting for a train. Why not see this a positive development, albeit a small one, for improved train service in Texas?


----------



## AlanB (Jun 29, 2010)

daxomni said:


> stntylr said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think they can do that. As Alan said they are required to make the station ADA compliant, it's federal law. Amtrak doesn't have a choice and they can't hold out until a better solution was found.
> ...


I don't pretend to understand all the nuances of this, and frankly don't really want to either, but my understanding goes something like this: First, Amtrak doesn't own the majority of the stations out there. Cities, towns, and freight RR's own the bulk of the stations.

Putting a new roof on a building is not considered a major change, and therefore continues to leave the station in some sort of exempt status from fines for not being ADA compliant. Enlarging the building, adding new amenities, putting up a rain canopy, all these types of things are considered an improvement and immediately force the owner to make everything at that stop ADA compliant. That means platforms at the right hieght, a lift, ADA restrooms if regular restrooms exist, parking for ADA, and so on. Therefore, putting up a new building invokes the ADA requirements.

Additionally it should be noted that ownership of the station area is passing from UP to the city.

Amtrak is spending similar amounts on several other stations, including IIRC at least one more in Texas. A big chunk of the costs is the new platform. Concrete isn't exactly cheap. And then you have to add the complexity of the fact that you can't just replace the entire platform in one shot; this is still a functioning train stop. So you have to do it in sections which adds to the costs. Additionally, since it is right next to an active freight line, you have to have a UP foreman on duty at all times when work is going on, so as to get the workers out of harms way as a train approaches. That alone can cost some pretty big bucks.

But the bottom line here is that Amtrak is spending similar amounts on several other stations, so the costs are not out of line for the work being done, even though I've no doubt that some critics will still deem them excessive.


----------



## Guest (Jun 29, 2010)

Recent article:

No bathrooms at new $1.1 million Amtrak station

After years of using a concrete slab as the Amtrak train station, the city of Beaumont will see a new station constructed in coming months.

Jennifer Trahan

Staff Writer

After years of using a concrete slab as the Amtrak train station, the city of Beaumont will see a new station constructed in coming months.

_This article was already linked to back in post #38 on page #2._

_ _

_Additionally, in the future, please do not quote the entire article as that is against copyright rules. Only quote a small part of the story, and then please link to the actual story for those who wish to view the entire article._

_ _

_Many thanks._


----------



## alanh (Jun 29, 2010)

Bathrooms, particularly at an unstaffed station, are a big ongoing expense. Someone has to clean them daily, and frequent vandalism has to be repaired. And security is a problem; you don't want homeless people taking up residence in them.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Jun 30, 2010)

daxomni said:


> Maybe I misunderstood but it seemed as though there was a possibility that if the Texas Eagle goes daily to LA it could mean the end of service east of SAS. I understand that Amtrak has talked about making SAS <> NOL daily as a stub or something, but considering how poorly the Sunset Limited's financials have been and how easily Amtrak can simply lop-off and ignore half the route after Katrina I consider the this line to be one of the most at risk of long-term discontinuation.
> 
> ng it looked pretty isolated. Maybe that would have been a better term.


That is a perspective of a few people on this board, most notably AlanB, hold. I personally disagree with it, and I suspect most of the rest of the people on here who spend a lot of their time working with rail in the political arena also disagree with this faction. The political fallout of Amtrak doing that again would be so large it would probably land Boardman on the unemployment list.

I think people confuse Liar George and the subsequent Republican administration with the newer, much more pro-rail group heading Amtrak under Joe Boardman- who seems hell-bent on expansion in ALL directions.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Jun 30, 2010)

I see. I guess time will tell. If Beaumont get a police station out there and Amtrak expands or otherwise improves service then maybe things will turn out very differently than I have described. Let's hope they prove me wrong. I still say at least one of us should show up for the ribbon-cutting ceremony and snap a few photos in case we need to do some before-and-after comparisons down the road. Wait, do non-staffed stations even have ribbon cutting ceremonies? You'd think a million dollars would include enough extra for a ribbon and a cake.


----------



## henryj (Jun 30, 2010)

I just don't understand all the negativity. Beaumont is finally getting a new station. That is reason enough for celebration, restrooms or no. When I traveled about Europe I saw many many unmanned stations without restrooms. Only the major stops had real stations. There are restrooms on the train when it arrives. When the Sunset goes daily, hopefully this Fall, it should be timed through Beaumont around 3pm in both directions so there won't be any more problems with middle of the night service. It seems every time something comes up about an improvement on the Sunset route all we hear on this site is negative vibes.


----------



## Guest (Jun 30, 2010)

Henry: I think it's more the cost versus the amenities involved. Also the location sucks,anyone thats been there @ the infamous slab knows what it's like! The best thing is to build the station but in a more convient location and one where it wont be trashed by the bums that do this sort of thing!


----------



## jphjaxfl (Jun 30, 2010)

henryj said:


> I just don't understand all the negativity. Beaumont is finally getting a new station. That is reason enough for celebration, restrooms or no. When I traveled about Europe I saw many many unmanned stations without restrooms. Only the major stops had real stations. There are restrooms on the train when it arrives. When the Sunset goes daily, hopefully this Fall, it should be timed through Beaumont around 3pm in both directions so there won't be any more problems with middle of the night service. It seems every time something comes up about an improvement on the Sunset route all we hear on this site is negative vibes.


I agree with you. The proposed new station looks nice and certainly an improvement over current. That and the proposed daily service are a plus for Beaumont and all of Texas. The publicity of the new station and daily service should help get some potential passengers interested in traveling.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Jun 30, 2010)

henryj said:


> When I traveled about Europe I saw many many unmanned stations without restrooms.


Stations that are actually inside town and connect to other services at regular intervals, including during daytime hours. Not sequestered away in some isolated industrial wasteland in the middle of the night. We all saw the pictures of the old station. Maybe this time will be different but the pessimism is not entirely unwarranted.



henryj said:


> It seems every time something comes up about an improvement on the Sunset route all we hear on this site is negative vibes.


If you look on the Beaumont Enterprise site you'll see very similar vibes to what the detractors are saying on here. If the very folks this station is supposed to appeal to aren't for it then who exactly is benefiting from any of this? People who never stop there I guess.


----------



## Gratt (Jun 30, 2010)

daxomni said:


> Maybe I misunderstood but it seemed as though there was a possibility that if the Texas Eagle goes daily to LA it could mean the end of service east of SAS. I understand that Amtrak has talked about making SAS <> NOL daily as a stub or something, but considering how poorly the Sunset Limited's financials have been and how easily Amtrak can simply lop-off and ignore half the route after Katrina I consider the this line to be one of the most at risk of long-term discontinuation.
> 
> ng it looked pretty isolated. Maybe that would have been a better term.



Granted, I am new to this board, but this makes me wonder, instead of this "stub train" could we simply extend the crescent from NOL to SAS? Granted it would mean viewliners but I personally would love it if it means one direct train from my place of residence in NYC to my family in HOU.


----------



## Guest (Jun 30, 2010)

So if it is being turned over to the city why don't they just call it a park instead of a station. You put up a nice picnic shelter for a couple of grand and be done with it. It would just happen to be next to a slab of concrete that the train stops at. Would that get by all the ADA bs? It just seems like you could separate the shelter from the platform and call them two different things.


----------



## MikefromCrete (Jun 30, 2010)

Guest said:


> So if it is being turned over to the city why don't they just call it a park instead of a station. You put up a nice picnic shelter for a couple of grand and be done with it. It would just happen to be next to a slab of concrete that the train stops at. Would that get by all the ADA bs? It just seems like you could separate the shelter from the platform and call them two different things.


Gee, I don't think that's something you could slip by the feds. The ADA is a pretty powerful law and there are groups that would track any violation.


----------



## Guest (Jun 30, 2010)

Gratt said:


> daxomni said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe I misunderstood but it seemed as though there was a possibility that if the Texas Eagle goes daily to LA it could mean the end of service east of SAS. I understand that Amtrak has talked about making SAS <> NOL daily as a stub or something, but considering how poorly the Sunset Limited's financials have been and how easily Amtrak can simply lop-off and ignore half the route after Katrina I consider the this line to be one of the most at risk of long-term discontinuation.
> ...


This would not be a bad idea IF Amtrak had any extra Viewliner sleepers/equipment! As it is the Crescent arrives about dark, leaves the next morning heading North about 7:00AM which means a 18 hour roundtrip to HOS isnt possible!Perhaps when the new Viewliners (if ever?)finally arrive this would be a great idea but youll probably be in assisted living by then! :lol:


----------



## henryj (Jun 30, 2010)

daxomni said:


> henryj said:
> 
> 
> > When I traveled about Europe I saw many many unmanned stations without restrooms.
> ...


I don't know why you seem to prefer the existing slab, but I assure you that anyone boarding the train in Beaumont would prefer the new proposed station to standing out in the rain in the dark on a busted up concrete slab any day. The stations in Europe are not located in isolated industrial wastelands nor is the Beaumont station. I don't know what you are talking about.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Jun 30, 2010)

henryj said:


> I don't know why you seem to prefer the existing slab, but I assure you that anyone boarding the train in Beaumont would prefer the new proposed station to standing out in the rain in the dark on a busted up concrete slab any day.


I don't prefer the slab, I just don't want taxpayers nationwide to pay a million-plus for poor little old Beaumont. That money should be spent in major cities where it would be noticed. Let Beaumont put up their own station if they really want it bad enough. If it was their own money they might be a bit more aggressive toward KCS in the process.


----------



## Guest (Jun 30, 2010)

When you divide 1.2 million by 20 years and then divide that by the passengers served at Beaumont in 2009: 1,769; the amount spent per passenger is $33.91. That is a lot of money per passenger, every passenger over the course of 20 years.

Now if we assume that there will be an increase of an average of 25% over the course of those 20 years because of the station (maybe 50% in the beginning and later returning to original numbers as the condition degrades) then the cost per passenger is $27.t all13; still a lot per passenger if you ask me.

If they must have 1.2 mil they shouldn't do it all. This is just too much per passenger just to have a glorified amshack.


----------



## henryj (Jun 30, 2010)

It is amazing that so many on here don't want any money to go to the Beaumont station yet they would I am sure be happy to spend it at some other remote location, just not in Texas. The Beaumont/Port Arthur area is about 400,000 people. It is also just 90 miles from Houston. So I am sure once the facilities are in the boardings will improve dramaticly and even more so with daily service. I certainly hope the service doesn't deteriorate later as suggested above as Texas only has three trains in the whole state with a population of 25 million and the largest in area in the contiguous United States. I have traveled quite a bit so I am familiar with the animosity toward the State, mostly jealously I guess, but down here we really don't care what others think. The fact that Texas is a so called red state is a plus and we are proud of that fact. We are not going to bow down to the present administration so if it means fewer or no trains then so be it.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Jun 30, 2010)

henryj said:


> It is amazing that so many on here don't want any money to go to the Beaumont station yet they would *I am sure* be happy to spend it at some other remote location, just not in Texas.


A simple desire for hypocrisy does not make it so.



henryj said:


> So *I am sure* once the facilities are in the boardings will improve dramaticly...


What kinds of numbers would you consider to be "dramatic?"



henryj said:


> I certainly hope the service doesn't deteriorate later as suggested above as Texas only has three trains in the whole state with a population of 25 million and the largest in area in the contiguous United States.


Gee, you think it has anything to do with our continued coddling of three huge airlines? Our near total apathy toward public transportation? Our idiotic governor who can't wait to throw a fit over the next federal lifeline for the unemployed. You know, the same governor who has _repeatedly_ threatened to secede from the union? I can't wait for him to shut up and do it already.



henryj said:


> I have traveled quite a bit so I am familiar with the animosity toward the State, mostly jealously I guess, but down here we really don't care what others think.


"Don't care what others think." Or what they know. Or what they can teach us. The true Texan way of life.



henryj said:


> The fact that Texas is a so called red state is a plus and we are proud of that fact.


Hell, we're STILL proud of electing Curious George! That should tell you all you need to know about Texas. Really.


----------



## Donctor (Jun 30, 2010)

henryj said:


> It is amazing that so many on here don't want any money to go to the Beaumont station yet they would I am sure be happy to spend it at some other remote location, just not in Texas. The Beaumont/Port Arthur area is about 400,000 people. It is also just 90 miles from Houston. So I am sure once the facilities are in the boardings will improve dramaticly and even more so with daily service. I certainly hope the service doesn't deteriorate later as suggested above as Texas only has three trains in the whole state with a population of 25 million and the largest in area in the contiguous United States. I have traveled quite a bit so I am familiar with the animosity toward the State, mostly jealously I guess, but down here we really don't care what others think. The fact that Texas is a so called red state is a plus and we are proud of that fact. We are not going to bow down to the present administration so if it means fewer or no trains then so be it.


I don't give a •••• about your politics. This discussion is about service at a station in Texas, NOT ABOUT ••••ING POLITICS!!!


----------



## AlanB (Jul 1, 2010)

henryj said:


> It is amazing that so many on here don't want any money to go to the Beaumont station yet they would I am sure be happy to spend it at some other remote location, just not in Texas.


So many? I think you may be overreacting a bit. I counted 3 negative opinions in a few dozens posts. And one of those negatives was really more about the location, than the project. One other negative opinion comes from a fellow Texan. The final, was a guest.


----------



## AlanB (Jul 1, 2010)

Green Maned Lion said:


> daxomni said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe I misunderstood but it seemed as though there was a possibility that if the Texas Eagle goes daily to LA it could mean the end of service east of SAS. I understand that Amtrak has talked about making SAS <> NOL daily as a stub or something, but considering how poorly the Sunset Limited's financials have been and how easily Amtrak can simply lop-off and ignore half the route after Katrina I consider the this line to be one of the most at risk of long-term discontinuation.
> ...


That is something that I suggested might happen; although I don't really expect it to happen. However, the simple fact remains that it is one possibility if the ridership that Amtrak predicts doesn't materialize. And it wouldn't be very hard politically to kill it at all. First step, Amtrak says "The fiscal performance of this train is too bad for us to continue it. Texas & Louisiana, if you want to keep this train, you have to help."

If they fail to help, then Amtrak cuts the train and simply points to the states and says, "We asked you for help and you said no." Amtrak already did this to Pennsylvania, and that state is far more friendly to Amtrak. And it wasn’t under George’s watch either. Granted since there is still service along the route, just less of it now, that also made it easier to kill the train.

As for Mr. Boardman, you are correct, he's hell bent on new trains. New State sponsored trains.


----------



## henryj (Jul 1, 2010)

AlanB said:


> And one of those negatives was really more about the location, than the project.


The location thing comes up frequently. However, Beaumont is a small town stop so the station has to be along the tracks somewhere. Railroad tracks traditionally go through back streets and industrial areas. There is not much you can do about that unless you want to install a passenger only track and a separate station downtown. I looked at the site on Google Earth and there is a high school ball field next door and some other friendly sites. I think once the site is developed as planned and the city locates the police sub-station next to it it will be fine. And Beaumont is not the most scenic and desireable stop on the route anyway. It is a port and an oil center. But it is a metro area of around 400,000 so a new station is well deserved.

http://www.rtands.com/newsflash/beaumont-texas-getting-new-amtrak-station.html

Tom Warner, public works director, said, "Helping with the Amtrak station, putting in a police substation, putting in the parking and lighting - all of that would have been on Union Pacific property and we would have had to do a lease agreement with them, which they may or may not have agreed to, which is why we decided to acquire the property and then we'll lease the station property to Amtrak."

Kyle Hayes, Beaumont city manager, said that the city is currently planning on building a substation to maintain a police presence in the area, but there are other options that the city is looking into that may make up for some shortfalls of the Amtrak station.

The facility will be built at the same Cedar Street location, which currently contains the concrete slab that has been used by Amtrak riders. According to Warner, years ago there was a train station that existed at that location.

"It originally was a manned station, and then it was unmanned," said Warner. "While it was unmanned it was vandalized, allowed to deteriorate and eventually had to be torn down."

Hayes said that once the city has a presence in the area on a regular basis, there will be less of an issue with illegal activity around the train station.


----------



## AlanB (Jul 1, 2010)

Henry,

I fully agree that the station has to go some where along the tracks. I wasn't commenting on the location, just pointing out what had been said.

I do agree that it would have been better if they could have managed to get it closer to downtown, but I certainly don't think that this is a waste. I'm quite pleased to see that something actually is being done for Beaumont. And seeing as how Amtrak is spending similar amounts on other stations around the country, I have no problem with Beaumont being one of the lucky places to get something. Especially since Beaumont has long been considered one of the worst stations around, which is unfortunate for a city of its size.


----------



## Guest (Jul 1, 2010)

Small town?? Beaumont, when lumped together with Port Arthur and Orange (a so-called "golden triangle") comes up somewhat in excess of a quarter million people. Small city, perhaps, when compared with Dallas or Houston, but a bustling metropolis compared with places like Las Vegas, NM, Sanderson, TX, or Galesburg, IL. It's population is deserving of a decent station facility! And I say this as a Californian who has never been in BMT for more than a few minutes. And when looking at the cost of this facility, people keep ignoring the fact that it's tied together with a police substation, to be built right next door on the same property!


----------



## alanh (Jul 1, 2010)

Guest said:


> So if it is being turned over to the city why don't they just call it a park instead of a station. You put up a nice picnic shelter for a couple of grand and be done with it. It would just happen to be next to a slab of concrete that the train stops at. Would that get by all the ADA bs? It just seems like you could separate the shelter from the platform and call them two different things.


I guess I don't see how that "gets by all the ADA bs". The platform is the biggest ticket item. The rest of the shelter isn't a big issue to make ADA compliant beyond the basic construction. And it's not "BS" if you're the person in the wheelchair.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Jul 1, 2010)

I dunno about other people with disabilities, but my own have shown me that, in reality, a lot of the ADA is a load of BS. Some of what it does is very important, and realistic access that accepts that disabled Americans require a reasonable degree of mobility, is not only a reasonable goal, but should be implemented a lot faster than it is being.

However, I have long had it with the nonsensical BS that the ADA often puts forth requiring disabled Americans to have full access to places they are not likely to go. Clearly, for instance, a 4 mile beach front promenade that requires considerable movement to get from the closest parking lot to the nearest view of the water requires 4 ADA spots in the lot of 20 spots. If you are going to such a place, why... does the parking being a bit closer matter?

It really saves the person a good 400 feet on their four mile walk, ya know?


----------



## had8ley (Jul 2, 2010)

PLEASE, PLEASE, anything, including an ADA compliant Pot 'O Gold would be 1,000 times better than what we DON'T have now...


----------



## Devil's Advocate (May 31, 2011)

Looks like the new Beaumont station is coming along nicely...











Oh, wait, that's the next door property. My bad.

Here's what Beaumont's million dollar federal tax fraud scheme currently looks like...


----------



## mfastx (May 31, 2011)

Nice to see them so hard at work!


----------



## saxman (May 31, 2011)

mfastx said:


> Nice to see them so hard at work!


A don't think one picture taken at one instant should be an indication of how hard the builders are working. It could be a Sunday evening for all we know.


----------



## George Harris (May 31, 2011)

alanh said:


> Guest said:
> 
> 
> > So if it is being turned over to the city why don't they just call it a park instead of a station. You put up a nice picnic shelter for a couple of grand and be done with it. It would just happen to be next to a slab of concrete that the train stops at. Would that get by all the ADA bs? It just seems like you could separate the shelter from the platform and call them two different things.
> ...


"All that ADA bs" is called Federal Law. There is no choice about compliance. The only question is how you comply. As also said, it is not "BS" to the person in the wheelchair, or with mobility issues that make getting around difficult but are not in a wheelchair. Amazing how often those that disparage this stuff find themselves or someone they care for, if they can find it in their arrogance to care for anybody other than themselves, in need of exactly the things the ADA requires. Be warned.


----------



## henryj (May 31, 2011)

I for one am glad Beaumont is finally getting a nice new station. I can think of much worse uses for our tax money that replacing an ugly slab with a nice station. Why are you blasting some progress on the Sunset route when there is so much more that is needed?


----------



## VentureForth (Jun 1, 2011)

I suppose the blasting is referring to the cost. A building and 100 yard slab of concrete costing the better part of $3Mil when a gorgeous custom house on an acre of land (with a restroom) can be built from scratch for less than half a mill. Bet it could even be built ADA compliant for that.

This new, beautiful Amshack will be subject to vandalism if what previous posts about this part of turn are true.

Meanwhile, a bureaucrat and a prime contractor are sleeping sound in their own palaces.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Jun 1, 2011)

henryj said:


> I can think of much worse uses for our tax money that replacing an ugly slab with a nice station.


The nation's taxpayers are *not* replacing a bare slab with a "nice station." Instead they are being charged over a million dollars to replace the *previous* station with a _covered_ slab. Let Beaumont replace what Beaumont refused to maintain. If Beaumont wants a million dollar slab of concrete then let Beaumont pay for it. Heck, even a 50/50 investment would sit a lot better with me than this no-strings handout nonsense. If a million dollars _must_ be spent on a station in Texas they should look at ways to provide an overnight parking area for the San Antonio station. Or to help get the ball rolling on a station at DFW. In other words, spend it on something that has enough service and volume to be a more worthwhile expense for average folks who might actually travel there some day. Not that I'm actually advocating for spending a million dollars on _any_ Texas train station. I'm just pointing out that there are other locations with more service and more volume that would benefit far more people than replacing the humble but appropriate station Beaumont chose to ignore and let rot away.


----------



## mfastx (Jun 1, 2011)

saxman said:


> A don't think one picture taken at one instant should be an indication of how hard the builders are working. It could be a Sunday evening for all we know.


I know, I was joking no worries.


----------



## henryj (Jun 1, 2011)

Texas Sunset said:


> henryj said:
> 
> 
> > I can think of much worse uses for our tax money that replacing an ugly slab with a nice station.
> ...


The station and land were owned and maintained or not by the SP and eventually the UP. The city had nothing to do with it. The city bought the land from the UP so the new station could be built and since it will now belong to them I assume they will now maintain it. Beaumont did not choose to ignore and let it rot away. If you are going to perpetuate these flame wars you should at least get your facts straight.


----------



## VentureForth (Jun 1, 2011)

I doubt that UP would have rejected an agreement for Beaumont to pay to maintain the existing slab.


----------



## GP35 (Jun 1, 2011)

Texas Sunset said:


> henryj said:
> 
> 
> > I can think of much worse uses for our tax money that replacing an ugly slab with a nice station.
> ...


Why do you volunteer to attack without reading? Clearly the article said UP owned the property, not the City. Clearly the article said the city

will build a police sub-station and other short comings of this station. I call that a joint project. Reeeeeeeeeeead the article.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Jun 2, 2011)

henryj said:


> The station and land were owned and maintained or not by the SP and eventually the UP. The city had nothing to do with it. The city bought the land from the UP so the new station could be built and since it will now belong to them I assume they will now maintain it. Beaumont did not choose to ignore and let it rot away. If you are going to perpetuate these flame wars you should at least get your facts straight.


Many cities and towns across the country do not have any more ownership of their stations than Beaumont originally did. And yet several hundred of them are still maintained to the point that they can at least keep rain off your head while you wait for the train to arrive. I remain convinced that Beaumont _could_ have stepped up to the plate and started taking charge of the upkeep back when they still had a train station. Unless you think Union Pacific was going to run them off with shotguns or something. If Beaumont had spent the necessary political capitol to disarm KCS and wanted some federal funding to help restore the _original_ downtown station that would be perfectly fine with me and worthy of the money. But a million dollars for a covered slab and a couple benches in the middle of _nowhere_ on a three-times-a-week route is a complete waste of money in my view. If you're going to receive a million plus in federal funds you should be able to contribute enough of your own resources and political capital to end up with a _real_ station that's actually in town. Seems like a pretty reasonable expectation to me.



GP35 said:


> Clearly the article said UP owned the property, not the City. Clearly the article said the city will build a police sub-station and other short comings of this station. I call that a joint project.


I've already responded to the ownership defense above. I also don't see how two projects that have _zero_ dependency on each other and aren't pooling their resources can be called a "joint" anything. Beaumont may indeed put a police substation somewhere in the area, but to the best of my understanding they are in no way obligated to do so.


----------



## henryj (Jun 2, 2011)

Texas Sunset said:


> henryj said:
> 
> 
> > The station and land were owned and maintained or not by the SP and eventually the UP. The city had nothing to do with it. The city bought the land from the UP so the new station could be built and since it will now belong to them I assume they will now maintain it. Beaumont did not choose to ignore and let it rot away. If you are going to perpetuate these flame wars you should at least get your facts straight.
> ...



Texas Sunset, you are a hopelessly negatory case. I think you must belong to that Louisiana bunch that is still pissed because they couldn't get 'their' train restored back to Florida. lol. There is really no other reason to continually bash the Sunset route getting a nice new station in Beaumont, Texas.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Jun 2, 2011)

Since it's a Done Deal this is Beating a Dead Horse (I too was opposed to building this Waste of Money Joke in the middle of a Vacant Field, the Over and Under on it being Trashed/Destroyed is under a year!) but one must remember that Texas doesn't exactly have Politicians that are in favor of Rail or Related Projects with the exceptions of One Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (who is Leaving office next year and helped save the Texas Eagle and Amtrak!) and the Leaders in the DFW Area who are doing a Great Job with their Rail Projects and to a certain extinct our Brillant Leaders here in Austin with the recently Opened Red Line and a Plan to expand Light Rail to the Airport and East and South Side of the City! The Rest of the State might as well be Ohio or Wisconson or Florida where the Newly Elected Idiots, er Governors and Politicos are busy Dismantling Rail Projects @ Full Speed! :angry2: :help:


----------



## henryj (Jun 2, 2011)

jimhudson said:


> Since it's a Done Deal this is Beating a Dead Horse (I too was opposed to building this Waste of Money Joke in the middle of a Vacant Field, the Over and Under on it being Trashed/Destroyed is under a year!) but one must remember that Texas doesn't exactly have Politicians that are in favor of Rail or Related Projects with the exceptions of One Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (who is Leaving office next year and helped save the Texas Eagle and Amtrak!) and the Leaders in the DFW Area who are doing a Great Job with their Rail Projects and to a certain extinct our Brillant Leaders here in Austin with the recently Opened Red Line and a Plan to expand Light Rail to the Airport and East and South Side of the City! The Rest of the State might as well be Ohio or Wisconson or Florida where the Newly Elected Idiots, er Governors and Politicos are busy Dismantling Rail Projects @ Full Speed! :angry2: :help:


Well Jim, you have a station in your Austin and it's even manned and you have daily rail service. So I don't know why you think it's such a waste of money unless you just wanted that money for your own area. Down here on the Sunset route we take anything we can get.


----------



## GP35 (Jun 2, 2011)

Texas Sunset said:


> henryj said:
> 
> 
> > The station and land were owned and maintained or not by the SP and eventually the UP. The city had nothing to do with it. The city bought the land from the UP so the new station could be built and since it will now belong to them I assume they will now maintain it. Beaumont did not choose to ignore and let it rot away. If you are going to perpetuate these flame wars you should at least get your facts straight.
> ...


So the station is not in town. Geez.

1. The City of Beaumont can not build on PRIVATE PROPERTY. The City had to buy the property from UP for the current project.

2. I agree that 1.25 million for this station is too much for what will be built. But that is nothing new or unique. The government pays 3k for a wrench, Amtrak pays 20k for a 500 dollar toilet repair. Ripping off the government is not new.


----------



## GP35 (Jun 2, 2011)

jimhudson said:


> Since it's a Done Deal this is Beating a Dead Horse (I too was opposed to building this Waste of Money Joke in the middle of a Vacant Field, the Over and Under on it being Trashed/Destroyed is under a year!) but one must remember that Texas doesn't exactly have Politicians that are in favor of Rail or Related Projects with the exceptions of One Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (who is Leaving office next year and helped save the Texas Eagle and Amtrak!) and the Leaders in the DFW Area who are doing a Great Job with their Rail Projects and to a certain extinct our Brillant Leaders here in Austin with the recently Opened Red Line and a Plan to expand Light Rail to the Airport and East and South Side of the City! The Rest of the State might as well be Ohio or Wisconson or Florida where the Newly Elected Idiots, er Governors and Politicos are busy Dismantling Rail Projects @ Full Speed! :angry2: :help:


So while the station is being trashed, what will the police be doing in the sub-station built on the side of the station?

yes I do expect an answer.

1. Houston had to cancel it's 100 million dollar transit center because of UP. If the 10th largest metro couldn't beat UP, how could the 131st metro beat UP.

2. Did Austin pay for that project or was it funded by all tax payers in the country?


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Jun 2, 2011)

GP35 said:


> So the station is not in town. Geez.
> 
> 1. The City of Beaumont can not build on PRIVATE PROPERTY. The City had to buy the property from UP for the current project.
> 
> 2. I agree that 1.25 million for this station is too much for what will be built. But that is nothing new or unique. The government pays 3k for a wrench, Amtrak pays 20k for a 500 dollar toilet repair. Ripping off the government is not new.


1. If Beaumont had gone to UP offering to managed and maintain the station prior to its collapse and was rebuffed then you'd have a good point. But so far I've yet to read anything like that.

2. Yes, fraud occurs elsewhere. Why that would be any sort of a defense for Beaumont's blatant overspending is beyond my comprehension.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Jun 2, 2011)

GP35 said:


> jimhudson said:
> 
> 
> > Since it's a Done Deal this is Beating a Dead Horse (I too was opposed to building this Waste of Money Joke in the middle of a Vacant Field, the Over and Under on it being Trashed/Destroyed is under a year!) but one must remember that Texas doesn't exactly have Politicians that are in favor of Rail or Related Projects with the exceptions of One Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (who is Leaving office next year and helped save the Texas Eagle and Amtrak!) and the Leaders in the DFW Area who are doing a Great Job with their Rail Projects and to a certain extinct our Brillant Leaders here in Austin with the recently Opened Red Line and a Plan to expand Light Rail to the Airport and East and South Side of the City! The Rest of the State might as well be Ohio or Wisconson or Florida where the Newly Elected Idiots, er Governors and Politicos are busy Dismantling Rail Projects @ Full Speed! :angry2: :help:
> ...


Good Questions! I don't have the Details on the police Sub-Station but would guess that it will be sort of a hang out for cops on Patrol in that part of town! There are alot of warehouses, abandoned houses etc. around there and based on the trashing of the last Amshak would guess that it will be a magnet for homeless, gangbangers etc., hence the trashing/graffiti etc.Also this is in A Hurrican Belt, the last Amshak was Wrecked by a Storm!

My beef is Not with the City of Beaumont who had no Leverage against UP, the Money came from Washington and could have been used on alot more Feasible Projects in Better Locations that Would Serve More People! (the Beaumont Passenger Count, on/off is dismal!)

Austin's Red Line was overseen by CapMetro, a Keystone Cop type Political/Transportation Agency that's Ward of the City! They went $50 Million Dollars Over Budget, took Years Longer than was Planned to get it Running and Finally they had to Fire the Company (Veolia) that had so called "overseen the project" and hire a Real Rail Company to get the Line Operating! (see jay hadleys posts on this topic)! Of course lots of Federal Money was also squandered on this Fiasco, as is usually the case in Government Contracting! They could have gone to the DFW Area and checked out DART and TRE but Didnt, it was Too Close to Home and Too Well Done!  :lol:


----------



## AlanB (Jun 2, 2011)

Texas Sunset said:


> GP35 said:
> 
> 
> > So the station is not in town. Geez.
> ...


I'm at a loss to figure out how one concludes that the price being paid for this station is too high and/or fraud.

In addition to Beaumont, Amtrak used stimulus funds for at least 2 or 3 other similar, small stations in various parts of the country with different contractors, different bids, etc., and other factors being equal they all came in at around the same price.

If one wants to argue around how things could have been located differently, or how things could/should bave been done in the past differently, fine. But based upon the other examples, one thing that is clear is that the Beaumont project is not way out of line in terms of costs for the project.


----------



## VentureForth (Jun 2, 2011)

Based on the other examples, commercial projects cost more than residential, and government projects cost more than commercial.


----------



## GP35 (Jun 2, 2011)

Texas Sunset said:


> GP35 said:
> 
> 
> > So the station is not in town. Geez.
> ...


Amtrak is building the station and platform. The city is doing a separate project.


----------



## GP35 (Jun 2, 2011)

jimhudson said:


> GP35 said:
> 
> 
> > jimhudson said:
> ...


Austin could have save tax payers money by using bus's. Do you agree?


----------



## AlanB (Jun 2, 2011)

GP35 said:


> jimhudson said:
> 
> 
> > Good Questions! I don't have the Details on the police Sub-Station but would guess that it will be sort of a hang out for cops on Patrol in that part of town! There are alot of warehouses, abandoned houses etc. around there and based on the trashing of the last Amshak would guess that it will be a magnet for homeless, gangbangers etc., hence the trashing/graffiti etc.Also this is in A Hurrican Belt, the last Amshak was Wrecked by a Storm!
> ...


Nope. Not a chance!

Rail is cheaper long term than any bus. On average in this country in 2009 according to the National Transit Database it costs 40 cents per passenger mile in operating costs to move someone on commuter rail or heavy rail (subways & L's). Put that same passenger on a light rail train and it costs 60 cents per passenger mile.

Put them on a bus and its 90 cents per pax/mile and that doesn't include an allowance for fixing all the damage that more than 50,000 daily buses cause to our roads & highways.

Rail has a steep, upfront price tag, yes. But it costs so much less to operate that over time it's the better bargain in any area where you need very frequent buses running to handle the load.

With Austin's mishandling of things it may take longer to realize the savings than it should, but it will still be cheaper eventually.


----------



## ScottC4746 (Jun 2, 2011)

Texas Sunset said:


> Then again it's Beaumont. Just another zit on the face of Texas.


II beg your pardon; I really do not like this comment. I have many friends and relatives from Beaumont. What if someone were to call your home town a zit.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Jun 2, 2011)

ScottC4746 said:


> Texas Sunset said:
> 
> 
> > Then again it's Beaumont. Just another zit on the face of Texas.
> ...


 Lots of Nice Folks in every Town (well, maybe not Dallas! :lol: )but most Texans would agree with the Description of Beaumont, it's a Good Place to be FROM!!! :excl: :excl: :excl: The Really Low Number of Pax that Board/Deboard in Beaumont makes the Million Dollar plus Unmanned Amshak a White Elephant in Most Peoples Opinions! The Money could have better been spent in Houston or San Antonio or even Dallas! :lol:

Actually Beaumont could be Eliminated as a Stop for the Sunset, Orange could make a Great Crew Change Place, it's right on the Tex/LA Border and Close to Beaumont also!


----------



## henryj (Jun 2, 2011)

ScottC4746 said:


> Texas Sunset said:
> 
> 
> > Then again it's Beaumont. Just another zit on the face of Texas.
> ...


Scott I wouldn't even respond to him. He obviously isn't from around here inspite of his name. Or maybe his name is his wish. lol.


----------



## henryj (Jun 2, 2011)

jimhudson said:


> ScottC4746 said:
> 
> 
> > Texas Sunset said:
> ...


Jim, I think you just like to pull people's chain. If you want to eliminate a stop, why not Sanderson, pop 861 or Schriever, pop 5880. Beaumont boards around 2000 with no station. When this facility is in place and with all the publicity surounding it I believe boardings will increase substantially. Lafayette, pop 512720 boards over 6000 and Lake Charles pop around 200000 boards about 3000 so the Beaumont(Golden Triangle) should increase boardings to around 4 grand or double. Orange is no where near the population center of the area. The saddest on the route is Phoenix which boards 0, or around 9 grand at Maricopa for an area that sports a pop of over 4 million. In comparison to Tucson which is a million pop and boards more then Houston. When the service goes daily boardings along the route will surely double or more everywhere.

The station is actually not located in such a bad place to serve the area as it is only a few blocks from I10 and not that far from downtown Beaumont if that's any benefit. Most people shop at the mall out on US69 rather than downtown and it's not that far from the station. I doubt if there is much in downtown to see. When you are trying to serve a large metro area, being downtown is really not a benefit. Having good access from an interstate highway IS a benefit. If they put in a paved parking area at the station it will actually be better than Houston's. lol. I believe that the city is using the station project to try and better the area which is a good thing. Next time I am through there I will stop off and look at the site. I am wondering if there are any signs on I10 directing people to the right exit?


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Jun 2, 2011)

AlanB said:


> I'm at a loss to figure out how one concludes that the price being paid for this station is too high and/or fraud.


My main complaint revolves around the poor location, the lack of daily service and of connecting services, the lack of meaningful facilities, and the over-sized and over-priced concrete slab they've designed into this thing. If they improved even just one of those primary deficiencies I'd be far less critical of the project overall. For instance, cut the slab length or height in half. The ADA requirements can still be met without the inclusion of a monstrously sized concrete slab. Add an actual waiting room or even just a bathroom. Finding a way to provide daily service is probably impossible so in that sense Beaumont will always be behind several other Texas stations when it comes to inherent relevance. I don't dispute that every single station the Federal government was involved in probably included some level of questionable accounting, but that doesn't make me feel any better about Beaumont. Can the process be proven as fraudulent in a court of law? Probably not. But that doesn't mean nobody was padding the estimates. If fraud against the taxpayer is so pervasive that nobody even cares unless it's TARP-sized that rather unfortunate, but not exactly much of a defense.



ScottC4746 said:


> Texas Sunset said:
> 
> 
> > Then again it's Beaumont. Just another zit on the face of Texas.
> ...


My hometown is San Antonio. Most Texans and folks from neighboring states I've talked to seem to enjoy touring my city. But if someone wants to call it a zit, well, that's certainly within their rights. We've been rated both the fattest city and sweatiest city in the nation at various times so maybe calling us a zit isn't entirely out of the realm of reasonable critique. In any case, I won't bother to pretend that knowing people who live or lived in San Antonio would in any way be considered a reasonable defense to calling it a zit. Just saying.


----------



## GP35 (Jun 3, 2011)

Texas Sunset said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > I'm at a loss to figure out how one concludes that the price being paid for this station is too high and/or fraud.
> ...


We want to talk about Amtrak, not call people and communities insulting names.


----------



## had8ley (Jun 3, 2011)

I wonder if these nice folks building the Beaumont station would mind going to Mobile and building a new station so we can get Sunset East back or at least take away the excuse for not starting service again. I wonder just how long a grocery store would stay in business if the front door was locked for almost 6 years ??? :help:


----------



## henryj (Jun 3, 2011)

had8ley said:


> I wonder if these nice folks building the Beaumont station would mind going to Mobile and building a new station so we can get Sunset East back or at least take away the excuse for not starting service again. I wonder just how long a grocery store would stay in business if the front door was locked for almost 6 years ??? :help:


Hadley, the more I see of Amtrak recently the more I am convinced all they really want to do is exit the long distance train business. Now they are blaming it for their continuing loses. Then there is the scuttlebut on here they want to drop the sleepers and diners on the Crescent west of Atlanta. Of course the Sunset going daily scheme is really a scheme to drop sleeping and dining service and through cars east of San Antonio and eliminate all switching in San Antonio. Currently they can't run the EB seemingly at all and the CZ is always late. The SWC is running on the edge of being rerouted around Albuquerque, it's only major stop west of KC. They have ordered no new superliner equipment for years in spite of numerous losses in accidents. The latest order is for single level equipment only for serving the northeast and Florida markets. They have discontinued the Pioneer, the Desert Wind, the Lone Star, the Floridian, the National Limited, the Broadway, just to name a few. For us living down here in the South and Southwest, Amtrak is becoming a non entity. I really don't care if they privatize the NEC. Amtrak has already deserted us.


----------



## eagle628 (Jun 3, 2011)

henryj said:


> had8ley said:
> 
> 
> > I wonder if these nice folks building the Beaumont station would mind going to Mobile and building a new station so we can get Sunset East back or at least take away the excuse for not starting service again. I wonder just how long a grocery store would stay in business if the front door was locked for almost 6 years ??? :help:
> ...


Wait, so those sleepers and diners and baggage cars were ordered so they could be lawn ornaments at the Wilmington car shops? And obviously all those Superliners they refurbished are going to NEC operations, rather than the Western LD trains. Not to mention the fancy new weather control system that allows the trains to run through perfect weather 24/7, finally releasing Amtrak from the whims of cruel old Mother Nature. And the schedules! God forbid passengers try to get through San Antonio in any sort of time that doesn't involve the possibility of talking a leisurely walk through the city, rather than actually being transported by a transportation company. And all that money they have lying around that *could *be used to buy a few hundred miles of track so their one train a day can keep the politically preferred route. Besides, it's completely irresponsible to expect a government corporation to have to run trains according to what the government wants, isn't it?


----------



## henryj (Jun 3, 2011)

eagle628 said:


> Wait, so those sleepers and diners and baggage cars were ordered so they could be lawn ornaments at the Wilmington car shops? And obviously all those Superliners they refurbished are going to NEC operations, rather than the Western LD trains. Not to mention the fancy new weather control system that allows the trains to run through perfect weather 24/7, finally releasing Amtrak from the whims of cruel old Mother Nature. And the schedules! God forbid passengers try to get through San Antonio in any sort of time that doesn't involve the possibility of talking a leisurely walk through the city, rather than actually being transported by a transportation company. And all that money they have lying around that *could *be used to buy a few hundred miles of track so their one train a day can keep the politically preferred route. Besides, it's completely irresponsible to expect a government corporation to have to run trains according to what the government wants, isn't it?


your in Vermont.


----------



## Ryan (Jun 3, 2011)

Your what is in Vermont?

That doesn't change the accuracy of his statements.


----------



## eagle628 (Jun 3, 2011)

henryj said:


> eagle628 said:
> 
> 
> > Wait, so those sleepers and diners and baggage cars were ordered so they could be lawn ornaments at the Wilmington car shops? And obviously all those Superliners they refurbished are going to NEC operations, rather than the Western LD trains. Not to mention the fancy new weather control system that allows the trains to run through perfect weather 24/7, finally releasing Amtrak from the whims of cruel old Mother Nature. And the schedules! God forbid passengers try to get through San Antonio in any sort of time that doesn't involve the possibility of talking a leisurely walk through the city, rather than actually being transported by a transportation company. And all that money they have lying around that *could *be used to buy a few hundred miles of track so their one train a day can keep the politically preferred route. Besides, it's completely irresponsible to expect a government corporation to have to run trains according to what the government wants, isn't it?
> ...



Very astute. Might want to start taking some lessons from us ignorant hicks up here about how to support passenger trains.


----------



## GP35 (Jun 4, 2011)

eagle628 said:


> henryj said:
> 
> 
> > eagle628 said:
> ...


Vermont pop. 600k, Houston MSA 6,000k. Houston gets 1 tri-weekly train. That 1 train is not running empty.


----------



## eagle628 (Jun 4, 2011)

GP35 said:


> eagle628 said:
> 
> 
> > henryj said:
> ...


Houston population 6,000,000. Houston station ridership: 18,000.

Burlington VT population 200,000. Burlington station ridership 23,000.


----------



## GP35 (Jun 4, 2011)

eagle628 said:


> GP35 said:
> 
> 
> > eagle628 said:
> ...


The train is full, where do you want the riders? On the Roof. This ain't India.


----------



## transit54 (Jun 4, 2011)

GP35 said:


> Vermont pop. 600k, Houston MSA 6,000k. Houston gets 1 tri-weekly train. That 1 train is not running empty.


Or, seen this way:

Vermont contribution to Amtrak: ~$4 million.

Texas contribution to Amtrak: $0

Or, this way:

Vermont contribution to Amtrak: ~$6.15 per person (assuming $4m in funding, 650,000 people in the state)

Equivalent Texas investment: $152m -> That could buy a decent amount of equipment and run a decent number of trains depending on where they went.

If Texas wants additional trains, I think Texas needs to pay for additional trains. Additional money for long distance trains is not forthcoming federally - at least anytime soon. Areas with federally provided trains should consider themselves lucky. I do see these trains as good investments, but I also think it's vital that states put up money for Amtrak if they want increased service beyond what they already have.

We in Vermont have used our votes and our voices to elect pro-rail politicians and we've invested our tax dollars to fund the trains that we want. Texas is always welcome to do the same. 

Public transit (and Amtrak as an extension of this) isn't provided based on population - it's provided based on funding.


----------



## henryj (Jun 4, 2011)

transit54 said:


> GP35 said:
> 
> 
> > Vermont pop. 600k, Houston MSA 6,000k. Houston gets 1 tri-weekly train. That 1 train is not running empty.
> ...


It's interesting how people in tiny little states think. Lets look at it like this. Texas is the second largest state in population. We pay more than our fair share of taxes. Amtrak is a government agency that lives on taxes. You have in your neighborhood the NEC and multiple long distance and commuter trains which drink far more in tax money than all the little states up there could ever think of contributing. So when do we get our fair share of trains from our government railroad, Amtrak, down here? You want us to pay twice don't you, once for you and then again for us. lol. Lets see how the South and Southwest are doing. We get a three times a week train through here in the fourth largest city in the country. Phoenix, which has 4 million people gets nothing. Atlanta metro area has over 5 million and has one train a day. Dallas, Fort Worth, Austin, San Antonio and the I35 corridor add up to something like 12 million people. They get one train a day. No connection to Colorado, the most visited state by Texans, no connection to Florida, the second most visited state. So we fly, usually Southwest. It's cheap and fast and they have flights all day long. Which comes first, the trains or the demand for trains. I would venture to guess that most Texans don't even know we still have rail service here since it goes practically nowhere and is virtually invisible. I have been reading the postings on Amtrak privatization. I think it's a good idea starting with the NEC. If it's so profitable then there should be a waiting line to run it. And if the rest of Amtrak is such a looser then put it in the DOT with the interstate highways. We have really good highways down here. Amtrak as it is now is doing nothing for Texas. They wanted to shut down the Texas Eagle and leave us with only a three times a week train. Only KBH was able to save that one other wise we would have nothing now. So who needs Amtrak. Get rid of it. Let all those little northeast states pay for their own trains.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Jun 5, 2011)

henryj said:


> We pay more than our fair share of taxes.


Based on what criteria, exactly?


----------



## The Journalist (Jun 5, 2011)

These numbers are a little old, but as far as Federal taxes Texas actually is historically a "donor" state: http://www.scribd.com/doc/8229012/Tax-Donor-or-Contrib-States, meaning Texans are paying more in taxes than they're getting in benefits.

Not nearly as much as New Jersey and New York are, though, and Vermont is essentially a wash, which sort of deadens henryj's point. The "second largest population" also works against the argument that you're paying too much; it works out to half a cent per person, over more than two decades.

I'm certainly surprised at this; I'm trying to find more recent numbers that don't come from an overtly political source. Not easy, since most of the graphs seem to come from either Democratic Underground or the Cato Institute, aka the oil lobby.


----------



## Ryan (Jun 5, 2011)

I recall reading something recently that Texas had slipped over to the other side and was a net recipient, but again only by a very little bit. Historically, TX has been right in the middle getting just about exactly back what it pays the Feds in taxes, so Henry's argument is not really borne out by the facts.

Henry claims:



> You have in your neighborhood the NEC and multiple long distance and commuter trains which drink far more in tax money than all the little states up there could ever think of contributing.


This is demonstrably false. In 2005 (the last year that I can find data), Amtrak received $1.2 Billion from the Feds.
Based on the data here, New York contributed $168.7B to the Feds and only received $144.9B meaning that they contributed $23.8B or enough to pay for *ALL* of Amtrak nearly 20 times over. New Jersey paid $86.1B and received $58.6B for a difference of $27.5B or enough to pay for all of Amtrak 23 times over. Massachusetts paid $63B and received $55.8B, meaning they contributed $7.2B and paid for Amtrak 6 times over.



> Let all those little northeast states pay for their own trains.


They do. And they pay for a hell of a lot of other stuff around the country, including every train that runs in Texas about a dozen times over.


----------



## henryj (Jun 5, 2011)

You can expand the discussion to include just about anything, but we are just talking Amtrak here. Texas is 25 million people or 8% of the country. Are we getting our fair share of Amtrak? Of couse not. Nor is Kentucky, Tennessee, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Ohio, Indiana, and on and on. And St Louis and KC have to pay for their two trains. Oklahoma and Texas have to pay for the little Heartland Flyer. Take Amtrak's 1.2 billion or whatever it is and divide it up by population and then compare it to what is spent in each state and see what you get.


----------



## eagle628 (Jun 5, 2011)

Mmkay, if Amtrak gets 1.2 billion a year, that's about four dollars that every person pays towards Amtrak, assuming a population of about 300 million (actually, the population is a bit more than that I believe). Now if Vermont pays an additional four million towards the Ethan Allen and Vermonter, and we have a population of a bit more than 600,000, that's about $6.50 we pay per person, on top of the national subsidy, to Amtrak. So a total of around ten bucks per person, or about twice as much as what each Texan pays (yes, I know Texas pays a very small share of the Heartland Flyer's subsidy). We pay the money, we get the trains.


----------



## Ryan (Jun 5, 2011)

henryj said:


> You can expand the discussion to include just about anything, but we are just talking Amtrak here.


That's all I'm talking about as well.


> Texas is 25 million people or 8% of the country. Are we getting our fair share of Amtrak? Of couse not. Nor is Kentucky, Tennessee, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Ohio, Indiana, and on and on.


What about New York? Massachusetts? New Jersey? I could go on as well, each of those states are paying the entire bill for Amtrak many, many times over. You can't honestly claim that they're getting what they pay for.


> Take Amtrak's 1.2 billion or whatever it is and divide it up by population and then compare it to what is spent in each state and see what you get.


That isn't how it works. What is Alaska's share of Amtrak going to pay for? Hawaii's? That kind of supposed "logic" is ridiculous.
Let's look at the states that you're complaining about. Kentucky sends $22 Billion to DC and gets $34 Billion in return. Tennessee sends $35B and gets $48B in return. Georgia sends $55B and receives $59B. Alabama sends $25B and gets back $46B. Mississippi sends $12B and gets back $26B. I could keep going, but I'll stop - your list of "states that aren't getting our fair share" are the states that are sucking the tax dollars from the rest of the US away. If it wasn't for states that were a net drain on the budget, maybe states like New York and Massachusetts might get what they were paying for in federal taxes instead of subsidizing the states that you're complaining about.

Quit the "Woe is Texas" whining. You guys are doing just fine down there, and it looks really sad and pathetic when you look at the dollars and cents of things and realize how little some of the "small states" are getting for the money that they send to DC. You want trains? Elect some politicians that will support them.


----------



## henryj (Jun 5, 2011)

According to my calculations, and I used FY2010 numbers and only long distance losses(575.5 million in 2010), the big winners are Virginia, Washington, S. Carolina(No 1), New Mexico and Montana. The biggest loosers are California, Texas, Pennsylvania, Michigan(#1) and New Jersey. I did not calculate corridor trains as many of them are state supported and of course the NEC which makes so much money. Virginia and S Carolina benefit by being strategically located where many LD trains have to pass through them to get anywhere. Michigan is the big looser because it has no LD trains even though it does have some corridor service. Calif looses because most of it's trains are state supported and intrastate and it has the highest population by far. New Jersey of course is not really loosing anything as it has the NEC and NY right across the Hudson. So that leaves Texas and PA as the overall biggest loosers in the LD Amtrak game plan. Of course poor little Vermont comes out on the short end, but it ranks next to last in population right above Wyoming. You can throw in the short distance trains if you want but they only amount to a loss of 231 million and little of that is out west. Where the rest of Amtrak's annual operating loss of 1.2 billion goes I have no idea and certainly no capital expenditures are going to LD trains per the latest equipment order.


----------



## Ryan (Jun 5, 2011)

I'd love to see what these "calculations" contain and how you determined "winners" and "losers", because your statement that the NEC "makes so much money" exposes the fact that your figures are disconnected from reality...


----------



## henryj (Jun 5, 2011)

Ryan said:


> I'd love to see what these "calculations" contain and how you determined "winners" and "losers", because your statement that the NEC "makes so much money" exposes the fact that your figures are disconnected from reality...


I use Amtrak's own performance reports which do indicate that the NEC makes money. Amtrak may be disconnected from reality, but I am not. If you wish I can send you the spread sheet I used. According to Amtrak the NEC's fully allocated contribution was 51.5 million. I split the losses according to the mileage in each state. The biggest loosers in the corridor market are the Keystone and Empire services and the Pacific Surfliners followed by the Wolverines. I don't make these numbers up. The SWC and EB are the biggest loosers in the LD market at 62.3 and 61.8 million, just unbelievable numbers for a single train. And right behind them are the CZ, the CS and the Florida trains. Immagine if the private freight railroads were still running these trains and having to absorb these astronomical losses.

Anyway, if these numbers are even close to correct I see no future for LD trains and very little for corridor trains. What the FEDS need to do is disconnect the NEC from Amtrak and put the rest under the DOT mixed in with the Interstate and US highway systems. The DOT picks up something like 80 percent and the states put in the rest. Then you would get some decent rail service across the nation, run by the states of course, not Amtrak. Highways don't make money so why should trains. Finance it all with fuel taxes. Make the DOT self sufficient living on the fuel tax. Take the decision making away from Congress, period. Allow the DOT to raise or lower the fuel tax as needed just as the Post Office does stamps.


----------



## Ryan (Jun 5, 2011)

I'll settle for your data source, because I can't find the numbers you're claiming anywhere on Amtrak's website.


----------



## henryj (Jun 5, 2011)

Ryan said:


> I'll settle for your data source, because I can't find the numbers you're claiming anywhere on Amtrak's website.


Come on Ryan, you know where to find them. Under News and Media, Reports and Documents, Monthly Performance Reports for September 2010, Page C-1, Financial Performance of Routes Fully Allocated, September 2010 YTD. It's all there.

http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer?c=Page&pagename=am%2FLayout&p=1237608345018&cid=1241245669222


----------



## trainviews (Jun 6, 2011)

henryj said:


> transit54 said:
> 
> 
> > GP35 said:
> ...


Actually no - the Amtrak trains on the NEC is operating at a surplus, the commuters are paid by the states. No federal tax money there, except for infrastructure investment, which is substantial, but can be directly compared to highway building, and the who-gets-most calculation should be made on general infrastructure investment (of which I have no data). The Amtrak operating subsidies all goes into the LD's, of which the Sunset is the worst or secondworst performer IIRC. And anyway the NEC goes nowhere near Vermont...



> So when do we get our fair share of trains from our government railroad, Amtrak, down here? You want us to pay twice don't you, once for you and then again for us. lol.


Actually it is Vermont paying twice. First via federal taxes for the national LD network not reaching the state, and then via state taxes for the two state sponsored trains, that do go there... (and granted - connects Vermont to the NEC.)



> Lets see how the South and Southwest are doing. We get a three times a week train through here in the fourth largest city in the country. Phoenix, which has 4 million people gets nothing.


Which both of them are a scandal. You are right in that.



> Atlanta metro area has over 5 million and has one train a day. Dallas, Fort Worth, Austin, San Antonio and the I35 corridor add up to something like 12 million people.


... and really is the lowest hanging fruit in all of the US for a solid intercity service, like hourly trains. With high enough speed it would definately be operationally profitable. But as it is now short distance routes have to be sponsored by the states (which is a stupid policy to leave the most feasible train services entirely to the states but that is the way it is and another debate). And Texas has done nothing = no train.

The next thing is that local investment in transit and SD's builds up ridership for the LD's. In Texas only DFW is doing good on transit and even that is within the last few decades. A few others are coming along (especially if the Lone Star gets off). This actually makes a better case for better service, much more than screaming at the North East.



> They get one train a day. No connection to Colorado, the most visited state by Texans, no connection to Florida, the second most visited state. So we fly, usually Southwest. It's cheap and fast and they have flights all day long. Which comes first, the trains or the demand for trains. I would venture to guess that most Texans don't even know we still have rail service here since it goes practically nowhere and is virtually invisible. I have been reading the postings on Amtrak privatization. I think it's a good idea starting with the NEC. If it's so profitable then there should be a waiting line to run it.


It's oprationally profitable, but nowhere near earning back the needed investments (a good part of the infrastructure has turned 100). That would be closing it down in a few years, as infrastructure crumbles totally. Another model would be to tender it to the highest bidder, but keeping the infrastructure federally owned. This model is how much of the British rail system is run and might get a more efficient service. The same for the LD routes going to the service provider asking the lowest subsidies. But it wouldn't mean anything like the end of public involvement or tax dollars.



> And if the rest of Amtrak is such a looser then put it in the DOT with the interstate highways. We have really good highways down here. Amtrak as it is now is doing nothing for Texas. They wanted to shut down the Texas Eagle and leave us with only a three times a week train. Only KBH was able to save that one other wise we would have nothing now. So who needs Amtrak. Get rid of it. Let all those little northeast states pay for their own trains.


Generally your point that Texas and much of the south east and south west is underserved is right, but it won't get any better until the region starts electing rail-friendly politicians on both the federal and the local level. You need not just a KBH fighting for her own little train, but politicians fighting in Washington for rail. Thats where the dog is buried (as we say in Danish), and not som grand scheme conspiration from the North East (that does not hold a majority of seats in Congress you know).

And to transit54: Texas actually does put money into Amtrak, as it pays it's share of the Heartland Flyer (together with Oklahoma). Per capita it is of course still minuscule compared to like Vermont.


----------



## trainviews (Jun 6, 2011)

henryj said:


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> > I'd love to see what these "calculations" contain and how you determined "winners" and "losers", because your statement that the NEC "makes so much money" exposes the fact that your figures are disconnected from reality...
> ...


Well acutally as a percentage of operating costs - and per passenger mile - the Sunset and the Cardinal are far the worst performers. Some of that is due to them being tri-weekly, which is no way to run a train, as a lot of costs are fixed.



> Anyway, if these numbers are even close to correct I see no future for LD trains and very little for corridor trains.


Actually once or a few times a day is no way either, but that is what you've got and considering UP's price of making the Sunset daily, it will be like that in al lot of places for a long time to come. Large capacity investments are really only feasible in corridors with potential for frequent services.



> What the FEDS need to do is disconnect the NEC from Amtrak and put the rest under the DOT mixed in with the Interstate and US highway systems. The DOT picks up something like 80 percent and the states put in the rest. Then you would get some decent rail service across the nation, run by the states of course, not Amtrak. Highways don't make money so why should trains. Finance it all with fuel taxes. Make the DOT self sufficient living on the fuel tax. Take the decision making away from Congress, period. Allow the DOT to raise or lower the fuel tax as needed just as the Post Office does stamps.


If any LD system is to be preserved this is a bad idea. Any state on a tea party rant would be able to block off a line (see Wisconsin...). It has to be entirely federal or be scrapped. As for the NEC it has an _operating _surplus (which is relatively small, not gushing money) but desperately needs investments to replace crucial parts of the ageing infrastructure and build out service. The surplus is nowhere near close to paying for that.

But in sense of the corridor services I think you are on the right track. Rail is much better suited for the shorter distances and I would swap the marginal (and inherently heavily lossmaking) LD services for good and efficient corridor service in all the obviouos places any time. It would benefit much more people, relieve much more congestion and have greater benefits to the environment.

But it needs federal encouragement to compete with the very high subsidies, that highways get. So leaving the whole tab to the states like it is now is disasterous.


----------



## Ryan (Jun 6, 2011)

henryj said:


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> > I'll settle for your data source, because I can't find the numbers you're claiming anywhere on Amtrak's website.
> ...


You're looking at the "Preliminary and Unaudited" numbers. I was looking at the "Final Audited" numbers in the Appendix (page App-19), which is why nothing matched up.

You just can't ignore the "Capital Charge" column even if it is "n/a" at this point. You can only claim that the NEC is making money if you ignore the fact that Amtrak has to spend millions and millions of dollars for maintenance on the corridor, which they obviously do. Anything can be said to "make so much money" if you look at revenue but not all the costs. No sane business is going to take on the entire NEC because there isn't any money to be made in it, unless you're just going to let them take over operations and have the government provide the infrastructure. That'd make the situation from the government's perspective even worse - most of the costs and none of the revenue to offset it. Of course, that seems to be the "free market" thing to do - privatize the profits and subsidize all of the big costs on the taxpayers dime.

I also already pointed out (and you ignored) the fact that you can't just take Amtrak spending and divide it out by population to determine "winners" and "losers". The states that you're complaining about (outside of Texas) get *FAR* more than their fair share of federal spending in other areas and even Texas comes very close to breaking even on the money that they send to Washington.


----------



## trainviews (Jun 6, 2011)

Ryan said:


> You can only claim that the NEC is making money if you ignore the fact that Amtrak has to spend millions and millions of dollars for maintenance on the corridor, which they obviously do. Anything can be said to "make so much money" if you look at revenue but not all the costs. No sane business is going to take on the entire NEC because there isn't any money to be made in it, unless you're just going to let them take over operations and have the government provide the infrastructure. That'd make the situation from the government's perspective even worse - most of the costs and none of the revenue to offset it. Of course, that seems to be the "free market" thing to do - privatize the profits and subsidize all of the big costs on the taxpayers dime.


Well instead of selling it actually is possible to auction the opration of the trains off to the highest bidder for a period of years, and then use the price to minimize the amount the taxpayers have to spend on renewing the infrastructure. That is the way it is done in several European countries (and likewise getting a bids to operate lossmaking routes at the lowest possible price).

This can sometimes give a better and/or cheaper service (I have not been impressed with the efficiency of Amtrak from the liltle I have seen), but there is a lot of other parts to the equation, that has to be taken into consideration, to determine if it is a good idea. In the case of the NEC it is a very complicated operation, with Acelas, regionals, LD's and commuter services on the same tracks, and you might get yourself into a nightmare if you get a private operator in too. Just imagine the quarrel about Amtrak selling tax payer subsidised tickets from NYP to WAS on the LD's competing with the new commercially run trains. Or who is going to have the windfall when investments enhances the profits of the operations in the corridor?

Another problem is, that it is the Acelas that make all the profit. The regionals just barely break even. So a private operator would want to scrap the regionals and run more Acelas, if you auction it all off, and that is not desireable from a transport (or local political) point of view. You could then auction off only the Acelas, but then you have one more entity competing for space on the crowded tracks or you could have a detailed service contract, which are causing quite a lot of disputes between operators and government entities on some of the European networks.

I would definately go and testrun it in another, less complicated corridor first....


----------



## Ryan (Jun 6, 2011)

trainviews said:


> Well instead of selling it actually is possible to auction the opration of the trains off to the highest bidder for a period of years, and then use the price to minimize the amount the taxpayers have to spend on renewing the infrastructure. That is the way it is done in several European countries (and likewise getting a bids to operate lossmaking routes at the lowest possible price).


That's exactly what I was talking about as a terrible idea. If the corridor is going to generate an operating profit, that money should go towards the capital costs of maintaining the corridor, not to the profits of an operating company.


----------



## GP35 (Jun 6, 2011)

It'll cost a lot to install, however ballastless tracks would save a ton on long term maintenance.


----------



## henryj (Jun 6, 2011)

I know it's impossible to solve this here or get into the details. But one suggestion is for the DOT to maintain ownership and do the maintenance on the NEC and contract out the operation of the trains, essentially similar to the European design. The rest of the system could be put under the DOT and handled similar to the interstate highway system in that the Federal Government funds something like 80-90 percent and the states the rest. Funding comes from the fuel tax. I can't go into the details of how that works because I don't know, but basically no state has said they won't maintain the interstate highway going through their state and they would not be able to do that to an interstate train either. Yet when we travel on US or interstate highways, who do we see maintaining it or patrolling it. The state. How would that work with a train, I don't know, but it could be worked out. LD trains would still have to have an operating company that was in charge of the network. Intrastate trains could be contracted out to an operator of the states choosing. All I am really getting at here is that the current system which has been limping along for 40 years now is just broken. It is not developing new routes or showing any innovation. Parts of the country have good service and other parts are vastly underserved. Leaving it solely to the states results in spotty service that is subject to the whims of state legislatures and budgets. Running it from the Federal level would result in a more balance approach as in the highways. Rail service could be run where there are existing markets for it as developed by a balanced approach to the nations transportation needs.

On the long distance train, particularly in the West, Amtrak probably should adopt the Canadian idea that they are a luxury service for tourist, offer mostly sleeper type service with only marginal coach service and price it appropriately, particularly pricing coach at least above Greyhound. The Canadian when I rode it only had two coaches, with the rest of the train sleeper class of various types. The days when the LD train was basic transportation went away with the jet plane and the interstate highway. If they still can't be made to at least cover their operating costs then perhaps we should look at making them all three times a week to reduce overall cash outlays. I would think something like the NY to Florida corridor should be able to make it on it's own. Same for NY to Chicago and DC to Chicago.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Jun 6, 2011)

It's evident that some Thought and Work went into Your proposal henry, but Id like to point out that the Ridership on the LD Trains is Increasing by Leaps and Bounds, even in COACH! Even the Poor Eagles are having SOLD OUT Days with the High Bucket Coach Rail Fare being applied to most Days!  I'd think that if the so called "Leaders" in Washington saw this Plan adopted they would start Screaming about "Land Cruises" Subsidizing Lesiure Travel etc. etc.

Id like to see Coach Travel ENHANCED since lots of us can't Afford to do Sleeper travel all of the time even though it's so Very Nice in comparison! Me, of course in the Ideal World both would be possible, but as the Old saying goes: "Be Careful What You Ask For, You May Get It!!" :help:


----------



## trainviews (Jun 6, 2011)

henryj said:


> I know it's impossible to solve this here or get into the details. But one suggestion is for the DOT to maintain ownership and do the maintenance on the NEC and contract out the operation of the trains, essentially similar to the European design. The rest of the system could be put under the DOT and handled similar to the interstate highway system in that the Federal Government funds something like 80-90 percent and the states the rest. Funding comes from the fuel tax. I can't go into the details of how that works because I don't know, but basically no state has said they won't maintain the interstate highway going through their state and they would not be able to do that to an interstate train either. Yet when we travel on US or interstate highways, who do we see maintaining it or patrolling it. The state. How would that work with a train, I don't know, but it could be worked out.


Generally I agree that it would be beneficial to get someone in to show an alternative way of operating passenger trains in America. But uprooting the whole Amtrak network would be foolish. Being in Europe here, all I'm saying is: be careful. Some of the outsourcing here has generally worked well probably providing better service for less money, especially on side lines with a relatively simple operation. The British did it to the whole system including the main lines in one go, and has had huge problems over the years (not that the old British Rail took any prizes) and after initial savings costs are again spiralling upwards. Here in Denmark the cross country traffic to Sweden is in major trouble and it is part of the backbone of the whole regional transportation system (links Copenhagen to the airport, the third largest Swedish city just on the other side of the sound and regional network in southern Sweden). On the other hand Arriva is operating a number of low volume provincial lines, and they seem to benefit from having an operator that sees that as their core business instead of being left hand work of the national train company DSB. And generally, bear in mind that no conventional speed trains operates on a surplus, and the serviceheavy LD's even less so. Subsidies are still needed if you want train service.



> LD trains would still have to have an operating company that was in charge of the network. Intrastate trains could be contracted out to an operator of the states choosing.


Agree with the first. One of the mistakes the politicians did when creating Amtrak in 1971 was that they did not mandate it to provide ticketing service and networking deals to other companies. That effectively killed off the last of the profitable passenger routes, as they cound not provide network service. As for the corridor services, the states can already today choose who they want (Veolia has just made a fool of themselves, I forgot where), but most have chosen Amtrak for intercity service. The rules have to be combed through for hidden competition advantages.



> All I am really getting at here is that the current system which has been limping along for 40 years now is just broken. It is not developing new routes or showing any innovation. Parts of the country have good service and other parts are vastly underserved. Leaving it solely to the states results in spotty service that is subject to the whims of state legislatures and budgets. Running it from the Federal level would result in a more balance approach as in the highways. Rail service could be run where there are existing markets for it as developed by a balanced approach to the nations transportation needs.


You are right in the sense that the states have been the only innovators here and there. The blame though is hardly on Amtrak though, which can only do what there is political will to do, and there has been very little focus on innovation or on where train service is actually feasible and needed. It has all been pro all existing trains or abolish them all, with regional protection of "our" routes added to limp the system along.



> On the long distance train, particularly in the West, Amtrak probably should adopt the Canadian idea that they are a luxury service for tourist, offer mostly sleeper type service with only marginal coach service and price it appropriately, particularly pricing coach at least above Greyhound. The Canadian when I rode it only had two coaches, with the rest of the train sleeper class of various types. The days when the LD train was basic transportation went away with the jet plane and the interstate highway. If they still can't be made to at least cover their operating costs then perhaps we should look at making them all three times a week to reduce overall cash outlays. I would think something like the NY to Florida corridor should be able to make it on it's own. Same for NY to Chicago and DC to Chicago.


I agree that many of the LD's are obsolete as mass transport. There's passengers all right, but not any noticable share of the market, and keeping them alive is a purely political choice, basically benefitting some of the smaller and medium sized communities they run through. Making them tri-weekly is only going to make the subsidy per passenger much larger though, as all the fixed costs will stay the same, and ridership will plummet, if people cannot travel or go back on the day they prefer. Maybe your idea of a luxury sleeper could maybe work on a few routes, but any subsidies for it would be a political nonstarter.

So in basic some of your ideas are worth considering, but should be tested before going systemwide.

And where I think we basically disagree is that I think subsidizing and expanding a train network is both desirable and necessary. Right now I just think it's pretty debateable wether America is getting the most bang for the buck.


----------



## henryj (Jun 6, 2011)

Interesting ideas Trainviews. Of course I am not suggesting that subsidies for passenger trains cease. That would be impossible as long as every other mode of transport is subsidized by the Government. I would just put them on equal footing such as funding them from the DOT along with highways using the fuel tax rather than begging for money every year from Congress. As for upgrading the LD trains, Via gets away with it so I am sure Amtrak or whatever it morphs into could also.


----------



## GP35 (Jun 6, 2011)

> I agree that many of the LD's are obsolete as mass transport


Not true. Amtrak LD's are limited by equipment. Take the Sunset, the tri-weekly train is full.

If the train goes daily, full. 5 coaches and 10 sleepers, FULL.


----------



## George Harris (Jun 6, 2011)

trainviews said:


> Agree with the first. One of the mistakes the politicians did when creating Amtrak in 1971 was that they did not mandate it to provide ticketing service and networking deals to other companies. That effectively killed off the last of the profitable passenger routes, as they cound not provide network service. As for the corridor services, the states can already today choose who they want (Veolia has just made a fool of themselves, I forgot where), but most have chosen Amtrak for intercity service. The rules have to be combed through for hidden competition advantages.


There were NO profitable passenger routes when Amtrak started. Through tickes were done. At the time of Amtrak takeover, there were three railroads that continued to operate their own passenger service. D&RGW between Denver and Ogden UT, Southern between Washington DC and New Orleans, plus a Salisbury NC to Asheville NC train, and CRIP (the Rock Island), two trains that were barely beyond commuter trains. For both D&RGW and Southern it was primarily a case of keeping control of their own, and for the CRIP that between the basing period and the Amtrak start up they had dropped most of their longer distance trains, so the cost of continuing their own was considerably less than the cost of joining. Within a few years the company went bankrupt and dissapeared from existence.


----------



## Ryan (Jun 7, 2011)

henryj said:


> Interesting ideas Trainviews. Of course I am not suggesting that subsidies for passenger trains cease. That would be impossible as long as every other mode of transport is subsidized by the Government. I would just put them on equal footing such as funding them from the DOT along with highways using the fuel tax rather than begging for money every year from Congress.


There's a proposal on the table to do just that. Not sure if it'll really help or not, Congress can still get their hands into the budget and make whatever changes that they want.

http://discuss.amtraktrains.com/index.php?/topic/39195-no-more-direct-funding-for-amtrak/page__p__294169__fromsearch__1#entry294169


----------



## Lamar (Jun 12, 2011)

Guest said:


> A perfect example of why people get fed up with government!  A lousy location, a waste of money (this is not small potatoes fro basically a shed!)when it could be built downtown or @ least in a more accesable and safe location!  Perhaps Amtrak could even eliminate Beaumont as a stop if the pax load is so low and stop in Orange! (Texas, not California or Florida!)


I agree. The people of Orange would appreciate it, and there are plenty of good places for a station along the way.


----------



## transit54 (Jun 12, 2011)

trainviews said:


> Generally your point that Texas and much of the south east and south west is underserved is right, but it won't get any better until the region starts electing rail-friendly politicians on both the federal and the local level. You need not just a KBH fighting for her own little train, but politicians fighting in Washington for rail. Thats where the dog is buried (as we say in Danish), and not som grand scheme conspiration from the North East (that does not hold a majority of seats in Congress you know).
> 
> And to transit54: Texas actually does put money into Amtrak, as it pays it's share of the Heartland Flyer (together with Oklahoma). Per capita it is of course still minuscule compared to like Vermont.


Ah, did not realize that Texas paid for the Heartland Flyer. Thanks for the info.

But I think you really hit the nail on the head with regard to the politics argument. If underserved states elected politicians that were pro-rail, they would have much better service. Is it a crime that Texas and much of the south has incredibly little corridor service, relative to population? Of course. But look at who they elect, especially on a federal level. The majority of the politicians that actively oppose the mere existence of Amtrak are from the areas that are poorly served. Sure, there are challenges in getting people interested about service they don't yet have, but hey, it's not like many other states didn't have to do that at some point (look at the huge expansions in service in CA, WA, OR, IL, VA, etc in the last 10 or 20 years).

Ultimately, I wish there was greatly expanded passenger rail service in all regions of the country. But it's a little hard to be sympathetic to states that elect the politicians that vociferously oppose Amtrak. AZ (McCain) and FL (Mica) are two that quickly spring to mind, but a review of NARP's voting records clearly shows what regions are electing anti-rail politicians. Also, think about the governors of OH, WI, FL and other places that rejected HSR money. I respect politicians who don't feel Amtrak is necessary in their areas, but these guys used the HSR funding to launch political attacks and paint all rail investment as wastes of our taxpayer dollars. Politicians who do that impact service not only in their states, but in all states. So it's hard to be sympathetic to states where people have put politicians in office that have the potential of undermining service in my own state (if the last round of HSR money wasn't reduced, I have good reason to believe that the Ethan Allen extension would have been funded in VT).

I understand that it's got to be frustrating to a rail advocate in Texas or Florida or Ohio or any of these other places, but really the most you can do is blame your fellow state residents. Sure, the NEC gets federal capital funding, but many of these states were OFFERED federal capital funding and they not only REFUSED it, they ATTACKED the politicians who offered it to them. I'm sorry, but I don't see any reason to offer a dollar more of funding to those states until they elect politicians who do a dramatic about-face on these issues.


----------



## AlanB (Jun 12, 2011)

transit54 said:


> I understand that it's got to be frustrating to a rail advocate in Texas or Florida or Ohio or any of these other places, but really the most you can do is blame your fellow state residents. Sure, the NEC gets federal capital funding, but many of these states were OFFERED federal capital funding and they not only REFUSED it, they ATTACKED the politicians who offered it to them. I'm sorry, but I don't see any reason to offer a dollar more of funding to those states until they elect politicians who do a dramatic about-face on these issues.


I'd be a bit careful about lumping Florida in with the rest.

Yes, the Governor made a very political decision to impress the leaders of extreme side of the party. And it was political, seeing as how the Governor promised the residents of Florida a full review of the project before he would make any decision. Then 2 weeks before the new study that he ordered hit DOT to do, he suddenly pulled the plug. He pulled the plug based upon a study co-authored by a man who had been the Governor's aide during his transistion government. A study that claimed it would lose money.

Then the DOT study came out and it showed that the service would have at least covered its operating expenses.

Sixteen Republican State Senators joined with 10 Democratic State Senators to form a veto proof majority in rebuking their Governor's foolish and political decision. They also tried to find a way around the Governor, even working with Sec. Trans. Ray LaHood, but were unable to find any way to commit the state to the project over the Governor.

But my point of course is that a clear majority of the politicians in Florida did support that project; in Florida's case it was the actions of one man, not the majority. That cannot be said for Wisconsin & Ohio, where even if the incoming Gov's had gone for rail, it might well have been blocked by the legislature.


----------



## George Harris (Jun 12, 2011)

AlanB said:


> .Yes, the Governor made a very political decision to impress the leaders of extreme side of the party.


Could also say that he and these same "leaders" misread the perspective of th majority of his supporters, even the mose "extreme" ones. Much of his support was on issues that were completely irrelevant to the rail issues. On rail related issues there is a so far fairly successful attempt to hijack extreme political conservatism for the benefit of the oil and oil users, read automobile, airline, and trucking industries. Those people aren't stupid. They have done the math and figured out that anything that puts passengers (and freight) on rails instead of on roads and in the air reduces fuel usasge per passenger mile or per ton mile. Therefore, if they can propogandize themselves into the mantle of political consservatism they can keep things going their way a while longer. In actuality their future depends upon anything but a politically conservative government. These people do more to cause this country to bleed money to foreign parts than any other single industry.


----------

