Fire Richard Anderson Campaign?

[cpotisch]

Yes!

The quicker we get started on replacing the national network with corridor services the better chance we have of preserving passenger rail for the future. If we passenger rail advocates maintain the position of a national network or bust we might just get the bust.

Ok, here's a question: If you lived in a rural area only served by long distance trains, and you relied on train travel, do you think you would be singing the same tune?

 

[Amtrakfflyer]

Yes!

The quicker we get started on replacing the national network with corridor services the better chance we have of preserving passenger rail for the future. If we passenger rail advocates maintain the position of a national network or bust we might just get the bust.

Why is it national or BUST?

The LDT trains are the skeleton for corridors at an overall cost of next to nothing all things considered. Look how corridors popped up along the route of the Coast Starlight with the actual  Coast Starlight filing in the gaps between. That’s a poster child of how it can and should work. The difference is CA, OR and WA stepped to the plate to make it happen. That investment in infrastructure generally won’t happen in red states in today’s political climate and the 750 mile rule makes it a catch 22. Amtrak can’t run the corridors unless the states pay for them.

 We are/were the most prosperous nation on the planet. There obviously are more pressing issues like social security or  healthcare for example where we just fell into second world standards being 34th in the world in lifespan. 

Keeping this on Amtrak/infrastructure we have issues and decisions to make as a country. But having a cohesive first world infrastructure is peanuts in the big picture and will reap benefits in the day to day lives of ours and future generations. 

 

[jis]

Realistically, nothing will BUST if we keep the national core network and even fill out the few obvious gaps, and also nothing will blow up completely if we get rid of the national network. I don't think there are too many rail advocates beyond a few foolish ones, who believe in "national network or bust" even though they may try to use that as an argument for maintaining the national network, assuming that all funding for everything will disappear if the national network disappears. Of course when they talk of "corridor" they also usually mean just the Northeast Corridor, because again they foolishly make it a either-or proposition between the NEC and the LD network. Unfortunately once you paint yourself into a foolish corner then it becomes an issue of how you extricate yourself from that corner while saving your face, and I believe many of those that are going on about "national or bust" will find themselves in that situation.

As it is, most of the corridors are funded from a funding source that is different from the one used for the core national network. The NEC maintenance of SOGR is funded through Amtrak, but from a separate account than the national network, and bulk of the funding is now in the national network bucket. The NEC major new constructions will get funded separately, and the funding will be a mix of FRA, FTA and State funds. Make no mistake, no matter what happens to the national network, NEC will get funded. So please stop this destructive line of politicking.

Having said that, the existence of the national network can only help the development of new corridors where none exist now, and also to interconnect such corridors to provide a vastly superior interconnected network with many additional pairs of stations accessible easily. If we add to this an enhanced Thruway bus/van network to connect more remote rural areas, we will have a well developed and usable public surface transportation system,

 

[neroden]

I believe if the national network becomes disconnected, we will have some really serious problems.  Specifically, losing the Lake Shore Limited & Capitol Limited would seriously trash Amtrak -- inability to move people between the Northeast Corridor network and the Chicago network would be a disaster.  Losing Denver service would also be a disaster, and losing East Coast - West Coast service would severely hamper Amtrak's future.

As long as the core links between regions remain intact, the national network can afford to be altered.  If we lose the core links, we break the network effects, and it bleeds the regional traffic, visibility, and finances on both sides -- this is more dramatic in the NEC/Chicago case than the East Coast/West Coast case, but it is true in both.  People here know that I've advocated for rerouting the Southwest Chief through Amarillo, where the people are -- I'm an opponent of the "essential service" argument -- but I'm a strong supporter of the "network connectivity" argument. 

Train systems thrive on connectivity, and the weakest systems, financially and in ridership terms, are always the isolated lines.

 

[bretton88]

Ok, here's a question: If you lived in a rural area only served by long distance trains, and you relied on train travel, do you think you would be singing the same tune?

Being in a rural area, I would say 95% of people would say yes, as long as it came with a nice 4 lane expressway.

 

[cpotisch]

Ok, here's a question: If you lived in a rural area only served by long distance trains, and you relied on train travel, do you think you would be singing the same tune?

Being in a rural area, I would say 95% of people would say yes, as long as it came with a nice 4 lane expressway.

Firstly, it doesn't. Secondly, do you really think that 95% of people who need train travel would support losing it? 

 

[ehbowen]

Ok, here's a question: If you lived in a rural area only served by long distance trains, and you relied on train travel, do you think you would be singing the same tune?

Being in a rural area, I would say 95% of people would say yes, as long as it came with a nice 4 lane expressway.

What about those persons that for either physical or financial reasons are unable to own and/or operate a motor vehicle? Are they now unpersons?

 

[jebr]

Yeah, I think even if most rural residents would want a rural expressway over train service, there's a certain amount of people that can't drive or can't afford to own a vehicle. Given how much tax money goes into roads (beyond that collected via gas tax,) it seems fair to make sure everyone can get places even if they can't use the roads with their own vehicle.

That said, depending on the cost I think there's an argument to be made that most of those people would rather see a few well-timed buses connecting them throughout their region, with connections available to nationwide bus, rail, and air networks, versus having an once-a-day train, especially if that train stops in the middle of the night. That, however, would require us making a strong effort to build those connections and making it simple to use, and having it coordinated much more than the rural intercity bus subsidies currently are. It'd also still require a network for people to connect to, and having no rail network connecting the East Coast to Chicago, or Chicago to the West Coast, would make that a difficult proposition.

 

[TiBike]

Yeah, I think even if most rural residents would want a rural expressway over train service, there's a certain amount of people that can't drive or can't afford to own a vehicle. Given how much tax money goes into roads (beyond that collected via gas tax,) it seems fair to make sure everyone can get places even if they can't use the roads with their own vehicle.

That said, depending on the cost I think there's an argument to be made that most of those people would rather see a few well-timed buses connecting them throughout their region, with connections available to nationwide bus, rail, and air networks, versus having an once-a-day train, especially if that train stops in the middle of the night. That, however, would require us making a strong effort to build those connections and making it simple to use, and having it coordinated much more than the rural intercity bus subsidies currently are. It'd also still require a network for people to connect to, and having no rail network connecting the East Coast to Chicago, or Chicago to the West Coast, would make that a difficult proposition.

I agree. Time and money is better spent improving rural bus service and highways.

Most travel is local. There's a much greater need in rural areas (I live in one too, although it's one of California's versions of rural) for well timed local and regional transportation than for direct access to long haul travel, e.g. a long distance train with the next stop being a hundred miles or more away. Good regional links will get you to long distance services. Highways are orders of magnitude more important to rural economies than a daily train of any kind, and provide access to far more essential services (e.g. health, education, jobs) to far more people.

Passenger rail connections to the coasts are nice, but of near zero utility compared to highways – in the U.S., there are as many motor vehicle trips in six minutes as there are LD train passengers in a year.

 

[mlanoue]

I'm no expert on any of this, but it seems to me that most of the people who ride intercity trains (or we hope will ride them in the future) don't know or care if it's considered Long Distance or Corridor.  The cars say "Amtrak" on the outside--in some form or the other--and if it's going where they want to go in a reasonable amount of time, then they buy a ticket and get on. I used to ride the Illinois Zephyr/Sandburg between Macomb and Plano, and had no clue how it was funded--nor did I realize that that made any difference from how any other trains were funded.  It looked close enough to the other Amtrak's I had ridden in the past.  (I suppose Midwest corridor trains might be a little more generic in appearance when compared to those in California and maybe the NEC.)

Of course, now I do believe that it actually IS important to understand the funding streams, though.

It's great to have frequent departures and on-time arrivals between a bigger cities, but it's also great to be able to get on in some smaller town nowhere near an airport and get off at another smaller town nowhere near an airport, even if you only have that opportunity once a day  And, having a bus available to get you closer to a train makes it even better. I'd hate to lose any of the service we have, but I definitely can understand why most, if not all, of the expansion we see would be of the corridor variety.

 

[jis]

Passenger rail connections to the coasts are nice, but of near zero utility compared to highways – in the U.S., there are as many motor vehicle trips in six minutes as there are LD train passengers in a year.

I don't think all service "to the coast" are equivalent either. For example,the east of Mississippi network is much more viable as a series of interconnected and overlapping corridors that can easily support multiple service per day through trains like say from Chicago to New York or even St. Louis to Washington/Virginia and such.

OTOH, this approach becomes far more tenuous, if not difficult to keep going once you get west of Denver, just roughly speaking, until you get to the west coastal states. But such is life. Geography and population distribution and demographics rules.

 

[jebr]

Passenger rail connections to the coasts are nice, but of near zero utility compared to highways – in the U.S., there are as many motor vehicle trips in six minutes as there are LD train passengers in a year.

Comparing specifically LD train passengers to the entirety of motor vehicle travel is a pretty stacked comparison in favor of vehicle travel. Certainly, LD train travel has a pretty small market share (thanks to its lack of frequency, cost compared to nominal cost of driving, among other things,) but there's a lot of motor vehicle trips that would make no sense trying to switch to a LD train even if our goal was to get as many trips as possible onto trains. The vast majority of trips would likely fall into that category (commuter trips or trips to the grocery or hardware store, for example, would almost never make sense as part of a LD train's market.)

I'd generally agree that LD trains, in and of themselves, are a pretty poor form of local transit, but that's not what they're designed to do. It'd be better to compare them to something closer to essential air service. There also has to be an intercity system for people to connect to in order for a bus connecting to those modes of transportation to work for those longer trips; it's pretty hard to have an intercity bus connect to a national rail network if that national rail network doesn't exist! It really needs to be a "both/and" conversation, not an "either/or." They both have their strong suits, and as long as we have some semblance of a national rail network there's always going to be a few rural towns that are along the way and that make sense to serve as an "along the way" destination even if that city needs other forms of transportation in order to fully connect their residents to the wider world. In general, rail also makes sense once you have capacity that buses can't meet, but it's much harder to justify that when the rail network is primarily privately owned and the road network is primarily publicly owned and doesn't charge a direct fee (or toll) in most cases.

 

[Rover]

The "fix" to me is a Federal Investment in dedicated Passenger LD rail (in Billions of Dollars). How that becomes reality is beyond me.

 

[TiBike]

Comparing specifically LD train passengers to the entirety of motor vehicle travel is a pretty stacked comparison in favor of vehicle travel. Certainly, LD train travel has a pretty small market share (thanks to its lack of frequency, cost compared to nominal cost of driving, among other things,) but there's a lot of motor vehicle trips that would make no sense trying to switch to a LD train even if our goal was to get as many trips as possible onto trains. The vast majority of trips would likely fall into that category (commuter trips or trips to the grocery or hardware store, for example, would almost never make sense as part of a LD train's market.)

I'd generally agree that LD trains, in and of themselves, are a pretty poor form of local transit, but that's not what they're designed to do. It'd be better to compare them to something closer to essential air service. There also has to be an intercity system for people to connect to in order for a bus connecting to those modes of transportation to work for those longer trips; it's pretty hard to have an intercity bus connect to a national rail network if that national rail network doesn't exist! It really needs to be a "both/and" conversation, not an "either/or." They both have their strong suits, and as long as we have some semblance of a national rail network there's always going to be a few rural towns that are along the way and that make sense to serve as an "along the way" destination even if that city needs other forms of transportation in order to fully connect their residents to the wider world. In general, rail also makes sense once you have capacity that buses can't meet, but it's much harder to justify that when the rail network is primarily privately owned and the road network is primarily publicly owned and doesn't charge a direct fee (or toll) in most cases.

It's a fine thing to have long distance trains stop at towns along the way, but it's not a justification for the trains. How many Amtrak stations are only served by long distance trains? A couple hundred? Fewer? Subtract out the number on an interstate highway and/or with an airport with commercial service, and you're down into the dozens. There are 3,000 counties in the U.S., 19,000 incorporated cities and thousands more unincorporated communities. The number of communities that rely solely on Amtrak LD trains is a rounding error. If you're worried about rural transportation policy on a national, or even state, scale, Amtrak LD is irrelevant.

Assigning more resources to regional/corridor services, and less to long haul connectivity, will serve more people and more communities – rural and otherwise – than the current system. If we had unlimited resources, it wouldn't be a problem. But that's hardly the case: it is a matter of either/or.

 

[daybeers]

It's a fine thing to have long distance trains stop at towns along the way, but it's not a justification for the trains. How many Amtrak stations are only served by long distance trains? A couple hundred? Fewer? Subtract out the number on an interstate highway and/or with an airport with commercial service, and you're down into the dozens. There are 3,000 counties in the U.S., 19,000 incorporated cities and thousands more unincorporated communities. The number of communities that rely solely on Amtrak LD trains is a rounding error. If you're worried about rural transportation policy on a national, or even state, scale, Amtrak LD is irrelevant.

Assigning more resources to regional/corridor services, and less to long haul connectivity, will serve more people and more communities – rural and otherwise – than the current system. If we had unlimited resources, it wouldn't be a problem. But that's hardly the case: it is a matter of either/or.

There are many communities Amtrak serves that don't get regular long-distance bus service by Greyhound or something of the sort, and we already established that many people in such rural areas don't own cars or aren't able to due to financial or physical limitations. Many stops are quite far from large cities and/or interstate highways, a system which usually works well, but doesn't go everywhere.

Also, in regards to airports: do you know how expensive it is to fly from small, regional airports? Usually in the several hundred to thousands of dollars. Meaning I could fly from the East Coast to Europe and back for less money (and probably less time) than someone from Havre, Montana could fly to Chicago and back.

In my opinion, American culture around transportation is changing: fewer people, especially the younger generations, are choosing to own cars and are taking public transportation instead. The population growth in the U.S. is spurring the desperate need for more of it, and it's clear there is a lot of demand. It just takes the advocacy of citizens and the determination by governors and representatives to expand and increase service, not necessarily just on Amtrak, but on all modes of public transportation.

I think this just takes us back to probably (hopefully) the #1 stance on Amtrak by its supporters: the cure for what ails Amtrak is more Amtrak!

 

[Rover]

Name a nation as large as the US that has long distance trains not underwritten by the Govt.

 

[cpotisch]

It's a fine thing to have long distance trains stop at towns along the way, but it's not a justification for the trains. How many Amtrak stations are only served by long distance trains? A couple hundred? Fewer? Subtract out the number on an interstate highway and/or with an airport with commercial service, and you're down into the dozens. There are 3,000 counties in the U.S., 19,000 incorporated cities and thousands more unincorporated communities. The number of communities that rely solely on Amtrak LD trains is a rounding error. If you're worried about rural transportation policy on a national, or even state, scale, Amtrak LD is irrelevant.

The amount of government funds spent on long distance trains is also a rounding error. And concentrating on corridors that are already developed and thriving won't serve any more of those 3,000 counties. So your own logic defeats you.

 

[bretton88]

What about those persons that for either physical or financial reasons are unable to own and/or operate a motor vehicle? Are they now unpersons?

No, not here in Iowa. that's what dial a ride is for. Every region has one here in Iowa. They will get you to the big city or the place with nearest facilities. It is not uncommon to see those vans/minibuses at the local grocery stores and medical facilities. In rural areas you're talking about a very small number of people that can't run a motor vehicle.

 

[jebr]

What about those persons that for either physical or financial reasons are unable to own and/or operate a motor vehicle? Are they now unpersons?

No, not here in Iowa. that's what dial a ride is for. Every region has one here in Iowa. They will get you to the big city or the place with nearest facilities. It is not uncommon to see those vans/minibuses at the local grocery stores and medical facilities. In rural areas you're talking about a very small number of people.

At least the last time I looked, the dial-a-ride for northwest Iowa only provides service "around town," at least in some towns, with no way to connect to the larger world. I have a friend who lives there and doesn't have a car (and can't legally drive) and he has to rely on other people when he wants to leave town. He can walk around town easily enough, but getting to Sioux City or Sioux Falls to catch intercity transportation requires the kindness of friends in the area.

In Minnesota many rural dial-a-rides are similar, though some at least offer once-a-week (or, in some cases, once-a-month!) transportation to the larger city. Once-a-month transportation works for appointments if you can schedule them well in advance, but it does little to connect to the wider world (most people don't want to take a month-long trip somewhere!)

 

[jebr]

It's a fine thing to have long distance trains stop at towns along the way, but it's not a justification for the trains. How many Amtrak stations are only served by long distance trains? A couple hundred? Fewer? Subtract out the number on an interstate highway and/or with an airport with commercial service, and you're down into the dozens. There are 3,000 counties in the U.S., 19,000 incorporated cities and thousands more unincorporated communities. The number of communities that rely solely on Amtrak LD trains is a rounding error. If you're worried about rural transportation policy on a national, or even state, scale, Amtrak LD is irrelevant.

Assigning more resources to regional/corridor services, and less to long haul connectivity, will serve more people and more communities – rural and otherwise – than the current system. If we had unlimited resources, it wouldn't be a problem. But that's hardly the case: it is a matter of either/or.

Maybe rural connectivity alone isn't justification for the trains, but that, along with larger-city connectivity and connecting regional rail networks to each other, certainly make them relatively useful and necessary on the whole. It's the totality of what those trains do, not just the individual aspects, that make them worthwhile. Are they perfect? Certainly not, and there's instances where I think there's better alternatives; as but one example, if BNSF wants to abandon the Raton line, Amtrak should be pushing for a reroute onto the southern transcon and using connecting bus service only for the bypassed communities to connect to the rerouted SWC. That still preserves the general connectivity of the system, ensures some service for every community that currently has it, and seems to be a good way to minimize long-term costs for the current frequency in the area.

As for funding, the current amount is frankly minuscule for the size of country we have, and either a small increase in taxes or cuts to other parts of the federal budget could certainly provide enough funding for a both/and situation across the country. It requires lobbying for more money for intercity ground transportation, sure, but that seems to be a much better course of action than trying to find a way to parcel out the very limited funds in a way that would actually provide comprehensive connectivity; the funds seem so limited that doing so seems like a fool's errand.

 

[TiBike]

There are many communities Amtrak serves that don't get regular long-distance bus service by Greyhound or something of the sort, and we already established that many people in such rural areas don't own cars or aren't able to due to financial or physical limitations. Many stops are quite far from large cities and/or interstate highways, a system which usually works well, but doesn't go everywhere.

Also, in regards to airports: do you know how expensive it is to fly from small, regional airports? Usually in the several hundred to thousands of dollars. Meaning I could fly from the East Coast to Europe and back for less money (and probably less time) than someone from Havre, Montana could fly to Chicago and back.

In my opinion, American culture around transportation is changing: fewer people, especially the younger generations, are choosing to own cars and are taking public transportation instead. The population growth in the U.S. is spurring the desperate need for more of it, and it's clear there is a lot of demand. It just takes the advocacy of citizens and the determination by governors and representatives to expand and increase service, not necessarily just on Amtrak, but on all modes of public transportation.

I think this just takes us back to probably (hopefully) the #1 stance on Amtrak by its supporters: the cure for what ails Amtrak is more Amtrak!

How many is "many"? How many communities on Amtrak's long distance network would otherwise be without any public transportation service? People without cars in rural areas (and everywhere else) need local and regional transportation, i.e. buses, more than a daily long distance train. I'm not saying a long distance train is useless for them, but the idea that Amtrak's long distance network is essential transportation is nonsense in all but a handful of cases. Maybe there are enough of those along the Empire Builder's route to justify it (I doubt it, but I can see the argument), but you can either find buses, planes and highways everywhere else already or bus service can be extended – the proposed bus bridge on the SW Chief route was feasible.

You're right, there is a trend toward more use of public transportation. That's why Amtrak's focus should be on corridors and key city pairs. Put the money, people and equipment where the passengers are. The cure for what ails Amtrak is more Amtrak only if economically rational decisions are made

 

[Mystic River Dragon]

The trouble with buses is that they have the same conditions as cars--traffic jams, more possibility of being in or affected by accidents, and having to deal with distracted drivers all around them. Also, in some places (and I will not say where, but I know of one place that people who have been on that bus have told me about), buses are not safe because fights break out and the bus driver cannot stop them because he is driving the bus and can't do two things at the same time. Plus, some people who take trains and are fine in them get carsick in a bus if they have to be in it for a long time.

In addition, for older people who no longer want to (or cannot) drive (and nobody seems to care a bit about them, even though there are a lot of baby boomers living a long time, and even some Greatest Generation people still around), a train is a lot better than a bus (even if just for the fact that there is a conductor to help them on and off and answer any questions).

I am going on a bus trip in early December with a friend who wants to do it--just a day trip, and with a reputable company--but I am actually dreading it because I rarely ride a bus at all now.

 

[daybeers]

How many is "many"? How many communities on Amtrak's long distance network would otherwise be without any public transportation service? People without cars in rural areas (and everywhere else) need local and regional transportation, i.e. buses, more than a daily long distance train. I'm not saying a long distance train is useless for them, but the idea that Amtrak's long distance network is essential transportation is nonsense in all but a handful of cases. Maybe there are enough of those along the Empire Builder's route to justify it (I doubt it, but I can see the argument), but you can either find buses, planes and highways everywhere else already or bus service can be extended – the proposed bus bridge on the SW Chief route was feasible.

I never claimed that Amtrak's long distance network is essential local or regional transportation. In my opinion, it's terrible for that, primarily due to frequency and reliability. However, it is sometimes essential for transportation to far-away parts of the country. And no, we already covered that the interstate highway system doesn't go everywhere, so how do those buses get between stops? Slow, windy roads that are dangerous in the harsh winters for a small sedan, not to mention a large commercial coach bus.

"the proposed bus bridge on the SW Chief route was feasible." What?!?!?! Ridership on the SWC would have tanked and I think everyone here knows that.

 

[TiBike]

The trouble with buses is that they have the same conditions as cars--traffic jams, more possibility of being in or affected by accidents, and having to deal with distracted drivers all around them. Also, in some places (and I will not say where, but I know of one place that people who have been on that bus have told me about), buses are not safe because fights break out and the bus driver cannot stop them because he is driving the bus and can't do two things at the same time. Plus, some people who take trains and are fine in them get carsick in a bus if they have to be in it for a long time.

In addition, for older people who no longer want to (or cannot) drive (and nobody seems to care a bit about them, even though there are a lot of baby boomers living a long time, and even some Greatest Generation people still around), a train is a lot better than a bus (even if just for the fact that there is a conductor to help them on and off and answer any questions).

I am going on a bus trip in early December with a friend who wants to do it--just a day trip, and with a reputable company--but I am actually dreading it because I rarely ride a bus at all now.

Everything you say here is true. The greater the population served, the truer it is.

 

[TiBike]

I never claimed that Amtrak's long distance network is essential local or regional transportation. In my opinion, it's terrible for that, primarily due to frequency and reliability. However, it is sometimes essential for transportation to far-away parts of the country. And no, we already covered that the interstate highway system doesn't go everywhere, so how do those buses get between stops? Slow, windy roads that are dangerous in the harsh winters for a small sedan, not to mention a large commercial coach bus.

"the proposed bus bridge on the SW Chief route was feasible." What?!?!?! Ridership on the SWC would have tanked and I think everyone here knows that.

The SW Chief bus bridge was feasible as a means of providing whatever essential service was needed in the gap. That's my only point. That said, we don't know what the service would have looked like – maybe redesigned to be individually optimised for the two rail segments? – or what would have happened to ridership or profitability. Everyone here might have an opinion, but no one knows.

Which towns on Amtrak's long distance network are only accessible by "slow, windy roads that are dangerous in the harsh winters for a small sedan"? I'll bet you a beer that in any town you can point to, Amtrak long distance service accounts for less than 1% of the passenger trips in and out of the town limits every day. Some towns on the long distance network are relatively small and remote, but I can't think of a single one that would qualify as small and remote by rural development standards (that's really small and remote). Amtrak does not go to Ice Station Zebra.