A proposal to restructure Amtrak

[Thirdrail7]

Go ask NS. Go ask CSX. Go ask UP. What would they give us for $500 million? How many more trains would they let us run? Where? At what times? At what speeds? Let's make a deal. Are the host railroads just going to let us "take over" their railroads and actually put passenger service first? They might as well just sell us the tracks then (which we'd all love of course).

By CSX's estimate, $500 million is 1/4 of the Gulf Coast train even though it wouldn't meet the OTP standards. However, that would restore service to areas that do not currently have it. It is 1/4 of what CSX wanted to add additional service to the inland route before the service was killed. Again, this would have preserved direct service to FRA, WOR from the NEC and the SPG line. It would have also paved the way for additional service from ALB and points west.

The same $500 is shaving 2-3 minutes off an existing route (although it is upgrade existing infrastructure) and adds no additional service.

Who's NOT in favor of keeping the NEC?

Anyone that carps about the "costs" of operating trains. The NEC costs a fortune to operate and maintain. If everyone is so concerned about the finances, let's start with the the Faberge Egg! The numbers look good when it comes to the amount of travel it accommodates but the billions it takes to achieve somehow doesn't even raise an eyebrow....except to Congress. If you made the NEC state supported service, took the associated money and placed it into long distance service with additional corridor frequencies, there would likely be more service and less losses.

You make it seem like begging the host railroads for any new service or even rescheduled service to better serve major markets is like pulling teeth (or at least any service additions/changes I would want)

If you're not aware of what it takes to add trains and the struggles that occur with the hosts when service changes are requested, then you're really not paying attention to anything other than your own posts.

Who's NOT in favor of keeping the NEC?

. If I'm Congress, why shouldn't I spend money on my own tracks that I have more control over vs. paying "more rent" to CSX and getting little if anything of value for it? Why shouldn't I spend money on trainsets that I can use on my own tracks vs. extra trainsets that I have to beg UP to let me run at all?

If you're Congress, you don't really want to spend money on any of this. However, you left avenues in place where the hosts can make it difficult for Amtraku (or others) to add service but it protects existing services. Therefore, you can get bang for your buck if you order standard coaches that can be used anywhere, at anytime on any service as opposed to a specialized train set that can only be used in a few locations that require "billions" to implement.

 

[Tarm]

From a cost perspective, if you can't run 3-4 trains between CHI-MSP for the cost to run one EB, I must be missing something here.

One of the *several* things you are missing is freight railroad demands. They really, really, really dislike giving up additional slots. The operations costs are part of it. More is the capital demands.

I have emphasized over and over again the importance of the passenger rail operator controlling the tracks. Would I be willing to give up a long-distance train service if it meant that Amtrak got its own, wholly-owned tracks from Chicago to Porter, Indiana (where the Amtrak-owned Michigan line branches off)? Well, yeah, actually, I would. That would have huge massive long-term payback. In addition to the Michigan services, the LSL and CL would start running more reliably on time.

But those two things aren't even the same order of magnitude. Cancelling the Sunset Limited gets you, about $14 million dollars per year. (Less for all the others.) Buying South of the Lake costs $510 million dollars. In 2002 dollars. You'd have to cancel the Sunset Limited for 37 years to accumulate enough money, if there's no inflation since 2002, which there is. So this is nonsense.

Neroden: I could not agree with you more on the need of Amtrak to own or at least control the tracks it runs on so you have given me an idea, (you'll hate it.)

The SL host railroad wanted $750 million in capital payments to increase the SL from 3X to daily or $187.5 million a day. They have now set the market. So they should be willing to pay 3 X $187.5 million or $562.5 million to get rid of it. THAT'S how you pay for the South of the Lake track. Put the four western LD train routes up for auction. See what the host railroads would pay to get rid of one of them. Highest bidder per route mile is forever free of Amtrak trains. If you don't ask no one will ever know. It might be a billion dollars. Amtrak could do a lot of great things with a billion dollars. Then we will have to ask ourselves "Is it really worth 500 million dollars so passengers in Montana can ride a train instead of a bus?

 

[Bob Dylan]

Youre right Tarm, most of us hate your idea, just like we dislike all Train-Off proposals!( See Philly Amtrak Fan and the Cardinal!)

 

[ehbowen]

Youre right Tarm, most of us hate your idea, just like we dislike all Train-Off proposals!( See Philly Amtrak Fan and the Cardinal!)

Actually, I kind of like it as a negotiating tactic; when UP says they want $500M for a daily Sunset then sit down across the table from them and say, "Okay, you have 90 days to pay us $426M, in cash, and we stop running the Sunset Limited for good. Otherwise, we start running it daily at no additional charge. Dealer's choice."

The danger is that they just might hate passenger service so much that they would cut their nose off to spite their face. Still, if that happened we would be no worse off than if the LD critic congresscritters had their way right now. And, if Congress was ever to implement my own proposal...a complete exemption on state and local ad valorem taxation for any railroad line which hosts a qualifying passenger service, plus equalization and incentive subsidies for passenger seats provided and used...I think that UP would either be on the phone begging Amtrak to come back, or else spray painting some new passenger equipment Armour Yellow.

 

[CCC1007]

From a cost perspective, if you can't run 3-4 trains between CHI-MSP for the cost to run one EB, I must be missing something here.

One of the *several* things you are missing is freight railroad demands. They really, really, really dislike giving up additional slots. The operations costs are part of it. More is the capital demands.


I have emphasized over and over again the importance of the passenger rail operator controlling the tracks. Would I be willing to give up a long-distance train service if it meant that Amtrak got its own, wholly-owned tracks from Chicago to Porter, Indiana (where the Amtrak-owned Michigan line branches off)? Well, yeah, actually, I would. That would have huge massive long-term payback. In addition to the Michigan services, the LSL and CL would start running more reliably on time.

But those two things aren't even the same order of magnitude. Cancelling the Sunset Limited gets you, about $14 million dollars per year. (Less for all the others.) Buying South of the Lake costs $510 million dollars. In 2002 dollars. You'd have to cancel the Sunset Limited for 37 years to accumulate enough money, if there's no inflation since 2002, which there is. So this is nonsense.

Neroden: I could not agree with you more on the need of Amtrak to own or at least control the tracks it runs on so you have given me an idea, (you'll hate it.)
The SL host railroad wanted $750 million in capital payments to increase the SL from 3X to daily or $187.5 million a day. They have now set the market. So they should be willing to pay 3 X $187.5 million or $562.5 million to get rid of it. THAT'S how you pay for the South of the Lake track. Put the four western LD train routes up for auction. See what the host railroads would pay to get rid of one of them. Highest bidder per route mile is forever free of Amtrak trains. If you don't ask no one will ever know. It might be a billion dollars. Amtrak could do a lot of great things with a billion dollars. Then we will have to ask ourselves "Is it really worth 500 million dollars so passengers in Montana can ride a train instead of a bus?

Have you ever been to the communities you are proposing eliminating service to, at least those under 10000 population, for any length of time? Have you ever visited those of us whom you are proposing a complete elimination for? Have you ever spent any time in an area where it is 150+ miles to the nearest controlled access highway? Have you tried to fly into a place like Malta, Montana? Please actually do some of these things before trying to eliminate the Empire Builder, as that is one of the roles it has, an essential transportation option for east west travel in northern Montana and North Dakota.

 

[Ryan]

I’m not sure where a price for a one time capital upgrade to account for increased service in any way “sets the market” for the continued running of the current train. You’re comparing apples and spaceships at that point.

There is no way that anyone is going to be interested in paying anywhere near the amount of money you’re imagining to get rid of the trains.

 

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

Have you ever been to the communities you are proposing eliminating service to, at least those under 10000 population, for any length of time? Have you ever visited those of us whom you are proposing a complete elimination for? Have you ever spent any time in an area where it is 150+ miles to the nearest controlled access highway? Have you tried to fly into a place like Malta, Montana? Please actually do some of these things before trying to eliminate the Empire Builder, as that is one of the roles it has, an essential transportation option for east west travel in northern Montana and North Dakota.

Give me a reason for anyone to come to Malta, MT other than to meet people to feel sorry for them. You have a town where 2,000 people live there and virtually no one outside of the town wants to go there, that makes for a wasteful Amtrak destination. I'll bet the only person on AU that has ever gotten on or off Malta (not counting fresh air breaks) is you. You want to have trains where people live and where people want to visit. The more people ride, the more money they bring to Amtrak, the less it will cost taxpayers. You have to accept the lack of amenities the big cities have. Or fine, take all our benefits of living in big cities and we'll send you our crime, traffic, and higher taxes too. I wonder what it's like to feel safe walking out in the middle of the night. I thought people move to Malta, MT to get away from places like Chicago and New York, not to be able to travel there.

I'll gladly pay my taxes for Amtrak service in Montana the day you pay for Amtrak service in Harrisburg, Lancaster, Altoona, etc. We want a second Pennsylvanian, care to chip in? We want a direct train to Chicago, care to chip in? It doesn't help you? And service to Montana doesn't help me (or the taxpayers in Texas, Florida, and New York, where several other of our AU readers live). Care to chip in money to fund rail service in Michigan? If Michigan pulls the plug on Amtrak, they won't have any trains at all. If Amtrak ever does pull the plug on the EB, go to Helena and ask them to fund rail service in your state the way Pennsylvania, Michigan, Vermont, etc do. It's not like Montana has to pay a ton of money to fight crime.

 

[AmtrakBlue]

Have you ever been to the communities you are proposing eliminating service to, at least those under 10000 population, for any length of time? Have you ever visited those of us whom you are proposing a complete elimination for? Have you ever spent any time in an area where it is 150+ miles to the nearest controlled access highway? Have you tried to fly into a place like Malta, Montana? Please actually do some of these things before trying to eliminate the Empire Builder, as that is one of the roles it has, an essential transportation option for east west travel in northern Montana and North Dakota.

Give me a reason for anyone to come to Malta, MT other than to meet people to feel sorry for them. You have a town where 2,000 people live there and virtually no one outside of the town wants to go there, that makes for a wasteful Amtrak destination. I'll bet the only person on AU that has ever gotten on or off Malta (not counting fresh air breaks) is you. You want to have trains where people live and where people want to visit. The more people ride, the more money they bring to Amtrak, the less it will cost taxpayers. You have to accept the lack of amenities the big cities have. Or fine, take all our benefits of living in big cities and we'll send you our crime, traffic, and higher taxes too. I wonder what it's like to feel safe walking out in the middle of the night. I thought people move to Malta, MT to get away from places like Chicago and New York, not to be able to travel there.

I'll gladly pay my taxes for Amtrak service in Montana the day you pay for Amtrak service in Harrisburg, Lancaster, Altoona, etc. We want a second Pennsylvanian, care to chip in? We want a direct train to Chicago, care to chip in? It doesn't help you? And service to Montana doesn't help me (or the taxpayers in Texas, Florida, and New York, where several other of our AU readers live). Care to chip in money to fund rail service in Michigan? If Michigan pulls the plug on Amtrak, they won't have any trains at all. If Amtrak ever does pull the plug on the EB, go to Helena and ask them to fund rail service in your state the way Pennsylvania, Michigan, Vermont, etc do. It's not like Montana has to pay a ton of money to fight crime.

PAF, this is a new low for you. How more insulting can you get? I hope we don't find out.

 

[Bob Dylan]

" United we stand, Divided we fall..."

Philly:

As I asked another poster, "Do you work for the Heritage Foundation or another Right Wing Fantasy Operation?"

Or do you just believe the drivel they put out?

 

[PRR 60]

Have you ever been to the communities you are proposing eliminating service to, at least those under 10000 population, for any length of time? Have you ever visited those of us whom you are proposing a complete elimination for? Have you ever spent any time in an area where it is 150+ miles to the nearest controlled access highway? Have you tried to fly into a place like Malta, Montana? Please actually do some of these things before trying to eliminate the Empire Builder, as that is one of the roles it has, an essential transportation option for east west travel in northern Montana and North Dakota.

Give me a reason for anyone to come to Malta, MT other than to meet people to feel sorry for them. You have a town where 2,000 people live there and virtually no one outside of the town wants to go there, that makes for a wasteful Amtrak destination. I'll bet the only person on AU that has ever gotten on or off Malta (not counting fresh air breaks) is you. You want to have trains where people live and where people want to visit. The more people ride, the more money they bring to Amtrak, the less it will cost taxpayers. You have to accept the lack of amenities the big cities have. Or fine, take all our benefits of living in big cities and we'll send you our crime, traffic, and higher taxes too. I wonder what it's like to feel safe walking out in the middle of the night. I thought people move to Malta, MT to get away from places like Chicago and New York, not to be able to travel there.

I'll gladly pay my taxes for Amtrak service in Montana the day you pay for Amtrak service in Harrisburg, Lancaster, Altoona, etc. We want a second Pennsylvanian, care to chip in? We want a direct train to Chicago, care to chip in? It doesn't help you? And service to Montana doesn't help me (or the taxpayers in Texas, Florida, and New York, where several other of our AU readers live). Care to chip in money to fund rail service in Michigan? If Michigan pulls the plug on Amtrak, they won't have any trains at all. If Amtrak ever does pull the plug on the EB, go to Helena and ask them to fund rail service in your state the way Pennsylvania, Michigan, Vermont, etc do. It's not like Montana has to pay a ton of money to fight crime.

Our daughter lives in a small town in eastern Montana. We visit there several times a year.

 

[CCC1007]

Have you ever been to the communities you are proposing eliminating service to, at least those under 10000 population, for any length of time? Have you ever visited those of us whom you are proposing a complete elimination for? Have you ever spent any time in an area where it is 150+ miles to the nearest controlled access highway? Have you tried to fly into a place like Malta, Montana? Please actually do some of these things before trying to eliminate the Empire Builder, as that is one of the roles it has, an essential transportation option for east west travel in northern Montana and North Dakota.

Give me a reason for anyone to come to Malta, MT other than to meet people to feel sorry for them. You have a town where 2,000 people live there and virtually no one outside of the town wants to go there, that makes for a wasteful Amtrak destination. I'll bet the only person on AU that has ever gotten on or off Malta (not counting fresh air breaks) is you. You want to have trains where people live and where people want to visit. The more people ride, the more money they bring to Amtrak, the less it will cost taxpayers. You have to accept the lack of amenities the big cities have. Or fine, take all our benefits of living in big cities and we'll send you our crime, traffic, and higher taxes too. I wonder what it's like to feel safe walking out in the middle of the night. I thought people move to Malta, MT to get away from places like Chicago and New York, not to be able to travel there.

I'll gladly pay my taxes for Amtrak service in Montana the day you pay for Amtrak service in Harrisburg, Lancaster, Altoona, etc. We want a second Pennsylvanian, care to chip in? We want a direct train to Chicago, care to chip in? It doesn't help you? And service to Montana doesn't help me (or the taxpayers in Texas, Florida, and New York, where several other of our AU readers live). Care to chip in money to fund rail service in Michigan? If Michigan pulls the plug on Amtrak, they won't have any trains at all. If Amtrak ever does pull the plug on the EB, go to Helena and ask them to fund rail service in your state the way Pennsylvania, Michigan, Vermont, etc do. It's not like Montana has to pay a ton of money to fight crime.

Clearly you have never heard of farming, ranching, or the parable that if you destroy the city the people rebuild, but if you destroy the farms that supply a city the city will starve and cannot rebuild.

 

[JayPea]

Philly, what about people from Malta who want to travel to some other destination??? They don't count either????

You like to throw out facts and figures, so here are some of my own. According to the latest data, Malta has a population of 1997. According to 2016 data, from the Great American Stations site, ridership at Malta was 3829. That comes out to 191% of Malta residents using Amtrak. Now, also according to recent estimates,the Philadelphia metro area has a population of 6068975. The ridership figures for 2016 also from Great American Stations show a ridership of 4318728. And, throwing in the 1221 passengers from North Philadelphia (only 1221? Less than a third of Malta??? North Philadelphia is a wasted stop!!!! ), that comes to a total ridership of 4319949. That comes out to 71% of Philadelphia residents using Amtrak and presumably other rail services. Comparing that to the 191% of Malta residents using Amtrak, then the ridership based on percentages comes out to be 270% more utilization of Amtrak than at Philadelphia. Therefore we should cut service to Philadelphia.

Of course that's a ridiculous argument and not meant to be taken seriously. But if YOU want to be taken seriously, I suggest you stop insulting Rural America and its hardworking folk.

 

[Thirdrail7]

Have you ever been to the communities you are proposing eliminating service to, at least those under 10000 population, for any length of time? Have you ever visited those of us whom you are proposing a complete elimination for? Have you ever spent any time in an area where it is 150+ miles to the nearest controlled access highway? Have you tried to fly into a place like Malta, Montana? Please actually do some of these things before trying to eliminate the Empire Builder, as that is one of the roles it has, an essential transportation option for east west travel in northern Montana and North Dakota.

Give me a reason for anyone to come to Malta, MT other than to meet people to feel sorry for them. You have a town where 2,000 people live there and virtually no one outside of the town wants to go there, that makes for a wasteful Amtrak destination. I'll bet the only person on AU that has ever gotten on or off Malta (not counting fresh air breaks) is you. You want to have trains where people live and where people want to visit. The more people ride, the more money they bring to Amtrak, the less it will cost taxpayers. You have to accept the lack of amenities the big cities have. Or fine, take all our benefits of living in big cities and we'll send you our crime, traffic, and higher taxes too. I wonder what it's like to feel safe walking out in the middle of the night. I thought people move to Malta, MT to get away from places like Chicago and New York, not to be able to travel there.

I'll gladly pay my taxes for Amtrak service in Montana the day you pay for Amtrak service in Harrisburg, Lancaster, Altoona, etc. We want a second Pennsylvanian, care to chip in? We want a direct train to Chicago, care to chip in? It doesn't help you? And service to Montana doesn't help me (or the taxpayers in Texas, Florida, and New York, where several other of our AU readers live). Care to chip in money to fund rail service in Michigan? If Michigan pulls the plug on Amtrak, they won't have any trains at all. If Amtrak ever does pull the plug on the EB, go to Helena and ask them to fund rail service in your state the way Pennsylvania, Michigan, Vermont, etc do. It's not like Montana has to pay a ton of money to fight crime.

Clearly you have never heard of farming, ranching, or the parable that if you destroy the city the people rebuild, but if you destroy the farms that supply a city the city will starve and cannot rebuild.

With apologies to AmtrakBlue and the rest of the board, when someone goes low, I'm not staying high. I'm going right to their level.

Philly Amtrak Fan, I have the perfect reason for you visit Malta. A visit to Malta may help you expand your narrow little mind just enough to see there is life and functionality outside of the big city and their respective suburbs. Your snobby attitude has shown its head numerous times but let's put it in perspective. No one has to accept big city living or crime as justification for receiving service. Your "suburban soft" ( that's a term that was coined for people that think supplies come from the nearest grocery store, strip mall or convenience store) attitude might be adjusted if you actually got out and saw what happens in some of these places.

You say you want the trains where people live and want to visit? Malta has a population of 2000 people, yet it had almost 4000 riders in 2016. That's twice the population, served by 1 train a day. Clearly, people are using the service. My favorite of all time is Thurmond, WV along the Cardinal route. It has an estimated population of 5! Yet, the station had almost 300 riders served by a train that operates three times a week. In 2013, 563 riders used the same station. When 100 times the population uses your station and services, you are clearly in the right place. Do these numbers pale in comparison to the 4 million passengers using PHL/PHN? Sure, but look at the costs. Your stations (which never had 10 times the population utilizing it) is served by 120 trains that pass through the area. These trains cost BILLIONS upon BILLIONS to operate, support and maintain. How much will those Gateway and Baltimore tunnels cost? The Empire Builder and Cardinal do not cost BILLIONS to operate, support or maintain.

As I'm fond of observing, national taxes pay for Amtrak. Every SINGLE person in this country that pays taxes subsidizes certain services, including Amtrak. Don't get it twisted, Philly Amtrak Fan.While the Keystone corridor is state supported service (and only between HAR-PHL), every taxpayer contributed to the Keystone Corridor upgrades. Every taxpayer is contributing to the catenary upgrades in NJ that will shave 3 minutes off the trip to or through your state. Every single taxpayer is paying for services around your state! We've ALREADY chipped in which is why your (admittedly) high fares aren't a lot higher and why your Keystone Corridor is no longer 70mph stick rail like it was 15 years ago. OUR taxes paid for that so there is apparently money left over to fight the crime you keep alluding to.

You're welcome!!

Three minutes off a trip to your cities and towns doesn't help me or people in the rest of the country that don't have numerous, subsidized options (in case you don't realize, the rest of us help you out with Interstates 76,476,676, 81, 95, 495, US 13, US 1 etc). So continue to help out Montana because they have helped your state out. When Pennsylvania pays the FULL COSTS of the NEC and Keystone Corridor through the state (as suggested by the Amtrak Reform Council in 1997), then you can say something. Until then, your state is a the same drain that you accuse others of being.

 

[jis]

Very well stated indeed Thirdrail! Very well stated. But you may be trying to communicate with a concrete wall with a loudspeaker mindlessly playing one single loop tape

 

[TiBike]

The justification for subsidies is that trains provide a necessary transportation service. Corridor trains do a good job of that. By comparison, long distance trains don't.

False. Ask anyone on the "High Line" section of the Empire Builder, where the alternative is driving for hundreds of miles on two-lane roads. (The airplane service is minimal and ultra-expensive.) That long distance train sure provides a necessary transportation service.

I didn't say LD trains don't provide a basic transportation service. I said they do it poorly compared to corridor trains. In California, they do it poorly even compared to corridor trains plus thruways – I can rely on getting to Sacramento or LA on time via a thruway connection to the Capitol Corridor or Surfliner. Not so the Coast Starlight.

From everything I've read about the Empire Builder (never been on it myself) it is an important lifeline for the region, and I can believe that its primary role is basic transportation rather than a land cruise. That's not true of the Coast Starlight – there are plenty of options, including from California trains/thruways, that are more reliable, less expensive, cleaner and/or more respectful toward passengers. From what I've seen, that's true of most LD trains. If the Empire Builder is an exception, then the people on that route, and the taxpayers who subsidise it, deserve the same value and respect they would get from a state run train.

The Capitol Corridor and Surfliner have excellent on time performance, clean cars, decent food (and good beer) in the cafe, and invariably courteous, hardworking staff. The Coast Starlight does not.

The Coast Starlight is, of course, breaking even.

-- snip --

And California is free to pay for these at any time. If you think the Feds will pay for them, where have you *been*?

A crucial point: All of these would require MORE subsidy than the Coast Starlight. I think many people here do not understand how badly the corridor trains do financially. It's a little hard to tell now that they don't report the numbers "before state subsidy". Back when they did, it was obvious.

In general, the long-distance trains have *much better* underlying (pre-subsidy, pre-overhead) financial performance than the corridor trains.

Again, you're missing my point. It's not about financial performance, it's about delivering the kind of service the subsidies are supposed to be providing. California is willing to support more train service, like the Coast Daylight, that puts basic transportation needs ahead of the land cruise market. Every time it comes up on this board, though, the objection is that there's not enough equipment or room on UP's tracks to support it. I don't believe that, but to whatever extent it might be true, it would follow that scrapping the Coast Starlight in favor of a Daylight would improve service between LA and the Bay Area.

That said, operating west coast LD trains like corridor trains, or even eliminating them completely, would save Amtrak more than just the direct operating costs. There's a lot of overhead – staffed stations, baggage handling, maintenance, catering, administration for example – that wouldn't be necessary.

I'm not advocating eliminating long distance trains. If the federal government wants to fund them, that's fine with me, even though I think the money would be better spent on shorter runs that deliver better transportation service. But spending on corridor and LD trains should be prioritised according to the necessity and value to passengers that they deliver.

 

[Tarm]

What everyone here seems to be forgetting is in my "A proposal to restructure Amtrak" I stated that motor coach services would be provided to all locations that lost Amtrak service. The people of Malta MT would just get on a bus to travel from their town instead of a train.

 

[brianpmcdonnell17]

What everyone here seems to be forgetting is in my "A proposal to restructure Amtrak" I stated that motor coach services would be provided to all locations that lost Amtrak service. The people of Malta MT would just get on a bus to travel from their town instead of a train.

What you seem to be missing it that there is no convenient road access to the region. A bus service would be slower and far more uncomfortable than the train. As previously stated, by running trains to shorter turn around points it also would very likely cost more. Why should service be downgraded if the superior service is cheaper to run anyway? In addition, many people have a bias against buses and a bus service would likely fail to gather sufficient ridership in such a lower region. In cases where a train replaced a bus or vise versa, the train often gets 5 to 10 times the ridership of the bus service.

 

[Bob Dylan]

What everyone here seems to be forgetting is in my "A proposal to restructure Amtrak" I stated that motor coach services would be provided to all locations that lost Amtrak service. The people of Malta MT would just get on a bus to travel from their town instead of a train.

OK, we all know this already happens all over this country, but remember there is no Free Lunch, so supporting this plan would actually raise the subsidies needed for lots of real world reasons.
"Government Money" is OUR Money, aka Taxes!

 

[AmtrakBlue]

What everyone here seems to be forgetting is in my "A proposal to restructure Amtrak" I stated that motor coach services would be provided to all locations that lost Amtrak service. The people of Malta MT would just get on a bus to travel from their town instead of a train.

And I'm sure those buses won't get stuck in traffic. And won't be affected by snow. And they'll have a cafe car and diner.

 

[Tarm]

For the life of me I can not understand the attraction of so many people on this board for LD trains. The Fifties are OVER!

I have a vision for passenger rail in the US outside of the NEC.

It is modern, (Charger locomotives with Talgo trainsets). Fast, ( 110 MPH or higher.) Frequent, (4 RT per day minimum.) Running in 100 mile to 400 mile corridors, (to far to drive, to short to fly.) Covering their operational cost, (with hopefully some left over for overhead.) Without the need to rely on the good graces of Congress.

If some of the existing LD trains need to be replaced with motor coach service to make this happen, well so be it.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

Enjoy the rest of your Sunday.

Tarm

 

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

What everyone here seems to be forgetting is in my "A proposal to restructure Amtrak" I stated that motor coach services would be provided to all locations that lost Amtrak service. The people of Malta MT would just get on a bus to travel from their town instead of a train.

And I'm sure those buses won't get stuck in traffic. And won't be affected by snow. And they'll have a cafe car and diner.

So what you're saying is trains are better than buses and you want trains instead of (or in addition to) buses? So does Columbus, OH.

I'll use the "why not both?" argument. Can we try to get the BL/TR, Floridian, Lone Star, etc. back and keep the current ones? Can we add corridor service and keep the LD system (which although I don't find adequate does have value)? I hear so much about fighting to keep or expand Byrd Crap. Can we do that and meaningfully expand (and service to Roanoke isn't meaningful to most of us outside of Roanoke)? "The best cure for Amtrak is more Amtrak?" Wake me when some "more" Amtrak comes.

 

[A Voice]

Have you ever been to the communities you are proposing eliminating service to, at least those under 10000 population, for any length of time? Have you ever visited those of us whom you are proposing a complete elimination for? Have you ever spent any time in an area where it is 150+ miles to the nearest controlled access highway? Have you tried to fly into a place like Malta, Montana? Please actually do some of these things before trying to eliminate the Empire Builder, as that is one of the roles it has, an essential transportation option for east west travel in northern Montana and North Dakota.

Give me a reason for anyone to come to Malta, MT other than to meet people to feel sorry for them. You have a town where 2,000 people live there and virtually no one outside of the town wants to go there, that makes for a wasteful Amtrak destination. I'll bet the only person on AU that has ever gotten on or off Malta (not counting fresh air breaks) is you. You want to have trains where people live and where people want to visit. The more people ride, the more money they bring to Amtrak, the less it will cost taxpayers. You have to accept the lack of amenities the big cities have. Or fine, take all our benefits of living in big cities and we'll send you our crime, traffic, and higher taxes too. I wonder what it's like to feel safe walking out in the middle of the night. I thought people move to Malta, MT to get away from places like Chicago and New York, not to be able to travel there.

I'll gladly pay my taxes for Amtrak service in Montana the day you pay for Amtrak service in Harrisburg, Lancaster, Altoona, etc. We want a second Pennsylvanian, care to chip in? We want a direct train to Chicago, care to chip in? It doesn't help you? And service to Montana doesn't help me (or the taxpayers in Texas, Florida, and New York, where several other of our AU readers live). Care to chip in money to fund rail service in Michigan? If Michigan pulls the plug on Amtrak, they won't have any trains at all. If Amtrak ever does pull the plug on the EB, go to Helena and ask them to fund rail service in your state the way Pennsylvania, Michigan, Vermont, etc do. It's not like Montana has to pay a ton of money to fight crime.

This has already been said better than I will, but your prejudice against small communities and rural regions of the country is clouding your judgement. Some people living in small towns like Malta would come to Philadelphia and feel sorry for the people that have to live there (traffic, crime, urban sprawl, etc.).

I'll gladly pay my taxes for Amtrak service in Montana the day you pay for Amtrak service in Harrisburg, Lancaster, Altoona, etc.

As ThirdRail stated better than I could anyway, we already do chip in for these things. That's how government and a nation (state) works. If you don't have any school age children, are you going to argue your taxes should not support schools?

With apologies to AmtrakBlue and the rest of the board, when someone goes low, I'm not staying high. I'm going right to their level.

Philly Amtrak Fan, I have the perfect reason for you visit Malta. A visit to Malta may help you expand your narrow little mind just enough to see there is life and functionality outside of the big city and their respective suburbs. Your snobby attitude has shown its head numerous times but let's put it in perspective. No one has to accept big city living or crime as justification for receiving service. Your "suburban soft" ( that's a term that was coined for people that think supplies come from the nearest grocery store, strip mall or convenience store) attitude might be adjusted if you actually got out and saw what happens in some of these places.

You say you want the trains where people live and want to visit? Malta has a population of 2000 people, yet it had almost 4000 riders in 2016. That's twice the population, served by 1 train a day. Clearly, people are using the service. My favorite of all time is Thurmond, WV along the Cardinal route. It has an estimated population of 5! Yet, the station had almost 300 riders served by a train that operates three times a week. In 2013, 563 riders used the same station. When 100 times the population uses your station and services, you are clearly in the right place. Do these numbers pale in comparison to the 4 million passengers using PHL/PHN? Sure, but look at the costs. Your stations (which never had 10 times the population utilizing it) is served by 120 trains that pass through the area. These trains cost BILLIONS upon BILLIONS to operate, support and maintain. How much will those Gateway and Baltimore tunnels cost? The Empire Builder and Cardinal do not cost BILLIONS to operate, support or maintain.

As I'm fond of observing, national taxes pay for Amtrak. Every SINGLE person in this country that pays taxes subsidizes certain services, including Amtrak. Don't get it twisted, Philly Amtrak Fan.While the Keystone corridor is state supported service (and only between HAR-PHL), every taxpayer contributed to the Keystone Corridor upgrades. Every taxpayer is contributing to the catenary upgrades in NJ that will shave 3 minutes off the trip to or through your state. Every single taxpayer is paying for services around your state! We've ALREADY chipped in which is why your (admittedly) high fares aren't a lot higher and why your Keystone Corridor is no longer 70mph stick rail like it was 15 years ago. OUR taxes paid for that so there is apparently money left over to fight the crime you keep alluding to.

You're welcome!!

Three minutes off a trip to your cities and towns doesn't help me or people in the rest of the country that don't have numerous, subsidized options (in case you don't realize, the rest of us help you out with Interstates 76,476,676, 81, 95, 495, US 13, US 1 etc). So continue to help out Montana because they have helped your state out. When Pennsylvania pays the FULL COSTS of the NEC and Keystone Corridor through the state (as suggested by the Amtrak Reform Council in 1997), then you can say something. Until then, your state is a the same drain that you accuse others of being.

Thank You! This is another post for which the forum needs a like button. Badly.

What everyone here seems to be forgetting is in my "A proposal to restructure Amtrak" I stated that motor coach services would be provided to all locations that lost Amtrak service. The people of Malta MT would just get on a bus to travel from their town instead of a train.

A motorcoach (bus) is neither the equivalent to nor a reasonable substitute for a train. They're not the same thing and are not interchangeable. Do you think the airlines could get away with substituting a motorcoach for a plane on even their shortest flights? If not, then what makes you think a bus can take the place of a train? You can't say it's because the train is slower, because Amtrak is (generally) not competing on trip time.

If this plan would work, it would be much cheaper to just cancel most regional trains and replace them with buses.

 

[A Voice]

Very well stated indeed Thirdrail! Very well stated. But you may be trying to communicate with a concrete wall with a loudspeaker mindlessly playing one single loop tape

So, this morning picking kids up on the church van we blew the horn at a house but nobody came to the door or even to say they weren't going. After several more ignored honks all the neighbor doors opened though. I (half) facetiously suggested we keep blowing until somebody came to church!

 

[ParanoidAndroid]

You know what happened in Britain when "Sir" Richard Beeching came along in the 1960s? He proposed cutting many, many rural lines, cutting duplicate lines, and building up the main trunk lines. He said that bus service would replace the deleted rural train services. However, the buses were slow and inconvenient, and so many were removed after a short time, which left many parts of Great Britain without public transportation. Some of the lines that were saved from the Beeching cuts, such as the St. Ives Bay Line and the Looe Branch (only because of a train-supportive Transport Minister), are now popular and well-patronized. Others, like the Scottish Far North lines (due to be cut), are still operated, and frequent services run on them. The British governments are now trying to bring back some of the rural services that were cut, and have succeeded, such as the Ebbw Valley Line in Wales. What Tarm first described seems quite similar to the 1960s Beeching cuts.

Richard Beeching is now known by many in Britain as the person who hastily cut train services without seeing the consequences it would bring.

Edit: Sorry, maybe this was mentioned earlier in the thread already...

 

[A Voice]

For the life of me I can not understand the attraction of so many people on this board for LD trains. The Fifties are OVER!

I have a vision for passenger rail in the US outside of the NEC.

It is modern, (Charger locomotives with Talgo trainsets). Fast, ( 110 MPH or higher.) Frequent, (4 RT per day minimum.) Running in 100 mile to 400 mile corridors, (to far to drive, to short to fly.) Covering their operational cost, (with hopefully some left over for overhead.) Without the need to rely on the good graces of Congress.

If some of the existing LD trains need to be replaced with motor coach service to make this happen, well so be it.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

Enjoy the rest of your Sunday.

Tarm

It is not modern, it is a fantasy. How are you going to operate 110 mph - outside of a handful of areas, at least - on freight shared right-of-way, at least without billions in taxpayer funded capital improvements? It'd be far less expensive to just subsidize more trains than would this proposal.

What exactly is that you think the fifties have to do with today's long-distance passenger services? People everyday take automobiles and buses on trips of well over 400 miles; But on passenger rail, somehow people have the funny idea trains only make sense for shorter distances where they aren't significantly slower than flying. It is nonsense and absurd, yet a common myth.