Fire Richard Anderson Campaign?

[fredmcain]

I was chatting to a guy, I think it was on one of the Silvers. I think he was from Florida. He told me he had been on a plane that had been shot down and had crash landed in the Vietnam War. As a result he had a recurring trauma and couldn't go near a plane again.

But such stories aside, I don't think it's right to have to defend Amtrak too strongly on the basis of special groups and special needs. Rather, Amtrak should be there for everybody and that's how we should pitch it.

Right. But what are passengers, really, (either rail or air) but a huge collection of different people with "special needs"? In the last part of my post I mentioned that the trains are full. So, why can't we get more service?

Now, here's another question. Last year Congress gave Amtrak a huge, record-breaking appropriation. But the $ didn't stop there. How much ticket revenue did they collect last year? If you add the ticket revenue to the taxpayer support, that is one helluva a lotta money. *WHERE* is it going? I don't know but for that much money we ought to be able to have more service and not expect to have cuts. I'm not sure what the problem is but I strongly suspect that truncating trains like the Chief and offering a "bus bridge" in the middle is not going to help things or solve anything.

Regards,

Fred M. cain

 

[Seaboard92]

The reason I'm fighting for the Chief is not because I've ever ridden, or maybe even will ride the route. But by cutting the Chief and being quiet you are setting the precedent that this is an acceptable behavior. And by doing that you open up every train for the chop block even that blessed curse the NEC.

We need to save trains because they exist for everybody. And should be able to be used by everyone. I'm honestly appalled at a lot of people who are being quiet about cuts to the network despite the risk to their own trains. I've been vocal but then again I lost my PV job thanks to Anderson.

Just because one train doesn't directly affect you. Doesn't mean it doesn't effect your friends, business dealings, among other things. As eventually it won't be the Chief being threatened it'll be your train. And you'll want us on board with you to save it. And I don't think Kansas, New Mexico, or West Virginia will fight to save the NEC of they are robbed of their train to help divert assets to it.

It's national or nothing.

 

[fredmcain]

The reason I'm fighting for the Chief is not because I've ever ridden, or maybe even will ride the route. But by cutting the Chief and being quiet you are setting the precedent that this is an acceptable behavior. And by doing that you open up every train for the chop block even that blessed curse the NEC.

We need to save trains because they exist for everybody. And should be able to be used by everyone. I'm honestly appalled at a lot of people who are being quiet about cuts to the network despite the risk to their own trains. I've been vocal but then again I lost my PV job thanks to Anderson.

Just because one train doesn't directly affect you. Doesn't mean it doesn't effect your friends, business dealings, among other things. As eventually it won't be the Chief being threatened it'll be your train. And you'll want us on board with you to save it. And I don't think Kansas, New Mexico, or West Virginia will fight to save the NEC of they are robbed of their train to help divert assets to it.

It's national or nothing.

Dear "Seaboard",

Your thoughts are spot-on. I believe it has been NARP's stance for years that the American taxpayers are NOT going to support the NEC once the L-D trains are gone. That only makes sense.

Wanna fix the tunnel under the Hudson River? How 'bout wrapping that into an investment package that would also buy a lot of new equipment and provide better service to Phoenix, Cleveland, Cheyenne, Sioux City, Oklahoma City, etc, etc., etc.

Regards,

Fred M. Cain

 

[cpotisch]

Rather, Amtrak should be there for everybody and that's how we should pitch it.

They should be, but sometimes it just doesn't work like that. A good example is speed. LD trains objectively can not compete with air travel in that respect - if you need to get somewhere quickly, you have to fly. For example, it takes six hours to fly from Los Angeles to NYC, but it takes almost 70 hours to take the train. And there really is nothing Amtrak can do about that.

 

[fredmcain]

Rather, Amtrak should be there for everybody and that's how we should pitch it.

They should be, but sometimes it just doesn't work like that. A good example is speed. LD trains objectively can not compete with air travel in that respect - if you need to get somewhere quickly, you have to fly. For example, it takes six hours to fly from Los Angeles to NYC, but it takes almost 70 hours to take the train. And there really is nothing Amtrak can do about that.

Oh, I dunno. Using this same logic, who would ever drive their car from New York to California or from Chicago to Florida or from Washington to Chicago or a myriad of other cross-country city pairs?

Make no mistake about it. Much of the "traffic" in this country, even long distance traffic, is actually on the roads, NOT in the air. So, if Amtrak (or some other entity) could entice people out of their cars and onto the rails, then they would have a lot more business. But that can never/will never happen if they don't have the equipment and the services don't even exist.

Regards,

Fred M. Cain

 

[fredmcain]

Just a brief add-on to my above post as an after-thought; polls have shown that many Americans do not like to fly and it is not looked upon as an enjoyable experience but a rather miserable experience to dread. They only do it because they have to when they are in a pinch for time. If they have the time, most Americans (and Canadians) would probably rather drive that fly. BUT ! They might consider the train IF the trains went more places more often.

Regards,

Fred M. Cain

 

[jebr]

<snip> However, and maybe I'm just an eternal optimist, I'm hopeful that Anderson's changes will put Amtrak on a more solid footing and make Amtrak more relevant to more people as a transportation option that's competitive with the air and road markets, instead of being seen as either an option of last resort or a "land cruise" outside of a few corridors.

<snip> So, you see, it's not all "land cruise" customers. There are lots of different kinds of people on those trains and throughout most of the year they are also full.

I saw that before you made your post. That's why I explicitly stated that there are people who use Amtrak as an "option of last resort"; because there are a lot of people who can't fly or drive and need some sort of alternative transportation option.

However, as long as the long-distance trains have a (pretty well-earned) reputation of not adhering close to their schedule a fair amount of the time, it's hard to see any large group of people switching from competing modes of transportation to the long-distance trains. Anderson has made moves that suggest that he's aware of this and trying to eliminate delays within Amtrak's control. If, once he's done that, he can move to the host railroads and convince or coerce them to run Amtrak on time as frequently as airlines can, or he can get Congress to either put some teeth into enforcing Amtrak's priority on the rails, that will do more to make Amtrak relevant than almost anything else.

 

[cpotisch]

The quote was "Amtrak should be there for everybody and that's how we should pitch it." Considering a large portion of "everybody" traveling long distance go with the airlines, and the train just can't compete when it comes to speed, I don't think that the train works for everybody. Amtrak might be a great alternative to a car or a bus, however I think that cars and busses are a lot less common than flying for people traveling thousands of miles. My point is, I don't think Amtrak is for everybody. If you're going on a short vacation a thousand miles away, you may well not have time to take the train.

 

[cirdan]

I just wanted to get back to the "cruise" thing.

Maybe, if you catch a cruise from, say, Miami, and tour the Caribbean, that is an entirely vacation thing that has nothing to do with transportation.

But there are other types of cruises. I think in Norway they have coastal ships that are marketed as cruises and have all the cruise amenities on board. But they allso perform a vital trasnportation role as locals use them for transportation between intermediate points on shorter trips, I think some even take mail.

This is a classic example of how you can combine two prodicts, neither of which would necessarily be able to stand on its own feet, into one product that serves two distinct markets.

Chopping up LD routes into corridors would be the equivalent of choping up cruise ship routes and replacing them by nominally interconnecting ferries. Local travellers probably don't mind but you lose the entire "cruise" overlay and with them their contribution to the fixed costs.

 

[tricia]

I just wanted to get back to the "cruise" thing.

Maybe, if you catch a cruise from, say, Miami, and tour the Caribbean, that is an entirely vacation thing that has nothing to do with transportation.

But there are other types of cruises. I think in Norway they have coastal ships that are marketed as cruises and have all the cruise amenities on board. But they allso perform a vital trasnportation role as locals use them for transportation between intermediate points on shorter trips, I think some even take mail.

This is a classic example of how you can combine two prodicts, neither of which would necessarily be able to stand on its own feet, into one product that serves two distinct markets.

Chopping up LD routes into corridors would be the equivalent of choping up cruise ship routes and replacing them by nominally interconnecting ferries. Local travellers probably don't mind but you lose the entire "cruise" overlay and with them their contribution to the fixed costs.

An example of this closer to home is the Alaska Marine Highway system of ferries, which serves a mix of local/regional passengers (especially to/from coastal towns with little or no land routes connecting them to the wider world) and tourists.

 

[keelhauled]

The quote was "Amtrak should be there for everybody and that's how we should pitch it."

Can we perhaps define who "everybody" is? It certainly isn't anyone in Phoenix, Columbus, Las Vegas, or Nashville, nor is it anyone in any of the thousands of smaller towns and cities not served by Amtrak. In fact, with ridership of about 30 million in a country of somewhat more than 300 million, "everybody" would seem to be, at best, slightly less than 10% of the United States. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that Amtrak is here for nobody, and everybody gets along fine without it.

Not that I believe that is true, either, but to pretend that Amtrak is some critical part of the country's national infrastructure is stretching facts to the point of absurdity.

 

[Seaboard92]

But see the trains may run transcontinental but they don't truly function as that. Denver-Chicago, Denver-Omaha, Denver-Salt Lake, Florence-Orlando, Buffalo-Toledo, Charlottesville-Indy, Saint Paul to Fargo, and so many others.

To think its all about end points is to make the same categorical error as Anderson and Gardner themselves. Each person has a unique set of end points. And those are all important.

 

[tricia]

The quote was "Amtrak should be there for everybody and that's how we should pitch it."

Can we perhaps define who "everybody" is? It certainly isn't anyone in Phoenix, Columbus, Las Vegas, or Nashville, nor is it anyone in any of the thousands of smaller towns and cities not served by Amtrak. In fact, with ridership of about 30 million in a country of somewhat more than 300 million, "everybody" would seem to be, at best, slightly less than 10% of the United States. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that Amtrak is here for nobody, and everybody gets along fine without it.

Not that I believe that is true, either, but to pretend that Amtrak is some critical part of the country's national infrastructure is stretching facts to the point of absurdity.

All US citizens are citizens of the entire country, not just our home towns. We need NATIONAL transportation infrastructure that enables us to travel where we want and need to, throughout our entire country. Amtrak is part of that--perhaps a part that we'll very much need to build upon in future decades, as fossil fuels continue to become scarcer, less accessible, and more expensive.

 

[pksundevil]

Just a brief add-on to my above post as an after-thought; polls have shown that many Americans do not like to fly and it is not looked upon as an enjoyable experience but a rather miserable experience to dread. They only do it because they have to when they are in a pinch for time. If they have the time, most Americans (and Canadians) would probably rather drive that fly. BUT ! They might consider the train IF the trains went more places more often.

Regards,

Fred M. Cain

JD Power's 2018 survey- a gold standard- show that consumer satisfaction among airline passengers has risen 7 years in a row and is at an all-time high. Delta scores very well in that survey.

http://www.jdpower.com/press-releases/jd-power-2018-north-america-airline-satisfaction-study

 

[bretton88]

The reason I'm fighting for the Chief is not because I've ever ridden, or maybe even will ride the route. But by cutting the Chief and being quiet you are setting the precedent that this is an acceptable behavior. And by doing that you open up every train for the chop block even that blessed curse the NEC.

We need to save trains because they exist for everybody. And should be able to be used by everyone. I'm honestly appalled at a lot of people who are being quiet about cuts to the network despite the risk to their own trains. I've been vocal but then again I lost my PV job thanks to Anderson.

Just because one train doesn't directly affect you. Doesn't mean it doesn't effect your friends, business dealings, among other things. As eventually it won't be the Chief being threatened it'll be your train. And you'll want us on board with you to save it. And I don't think Kansas, New Mexico, or West Virginia will fight to save the NEC of they are robbed of their train to help divert assets to it.

It's national or nothing.

Dear "Seaboard",
Your thoughts are spot-on. I believe it has been NARP's stance for years that the American taxpayers are NOT going to support the NEC once the L-D trains are gone. That only makes sense.

Wanna fix the tunnel under the Hudson River? How 'bout wrapping that into an investment package that would also buy a lot of new equipment and provide better service to Phoenix, Cleveland, Cheyenne, Sioux City, Oklahoma City, etc, etc., etc.

Regards,

Fred M. Cain

That used to be the case. Now the NEC is too vital to that region to be allowed to fail, regardless of what happens to the national network. What we're now seeing is an Amtrak that isn't scared of losing those votes because they know someone will pick up the void in the NEC. What I think we're heading for is the full John Mica scenario, a Northeast corridor that will be owned by some separate entity: whether that's a federal entity, or a state led entity (like a Northeast states compact) with Amtrak being purely an operator. National no longer means what it used to mean.

 

[fredmcain]

Just a brief add-on to my above post as an after-thought; polls have shown that many Americans do not like to fly and it is not looked upon as an enjoyable experience but a rather miserable experience to dread. They only do it because they have to when they are in a pinch for time. If they have the time, most Americans (and Canadians) would probably rather drive that fly. BUT ! They might consider the train IF the trains went more places more often.

Regards,

Fred M. Cain

JD Power's 2018 survey- a gold standard- show that consumer satisfaction among airline passengers has risen 7 years in a row and is at an all-time high. Delta scores very well in that survey.

http://www.jdpower.com/press-releases/jd-power-2018-north-america-airline-satisfaction-study

Well, that might be so but does that prove that it's an enjoyable experience? My point was that much travel is by road and that point is borne out here:

https://www.bts.gov/archive/publications/highlights_of_the_2001_national_household_travel_survey/section_03m

Scrolling down it shows that air has less than half (42%) of trips between 1,000 and 2,000 miles.

So, I stand by my statement that if Amtrak could lure some cars off the road they'd get a lot more business. But they can't do that without more equipment and service.

Regards,

FMC

 

[Devil's Advocate]

Just a brief add-on to my above post as an after-thought; polls have shown that many Americans do not like to fly and it is not looked upon as an enjoyable experience but a rather miserable experience to dread. They only do it because they have to when they are in a pinch for time. If they have the time, most Americans (and Canadians) would probably rather drive that fly. BUT ! They might consider the train IF the trains went more places more often.

Regards,

Fred M. Cain

JD Power's 2018 survey- a gold standard- show that consumer satisfaction among airline passengers has risen 7 years in a row and is at an all-time high. Delta scores very well in that survey. http://www.jdpower.com/press-releases/jd-power-2018-north-america-airline-satisfaction-study

Makes sense. I know every time I get on a plane people are falling all over themselves to remark at how wonderful the experience has become. People love the endless fees, the cramped seats, the indifferent staff, and the wonderful food.

 

[bretton88]

Just a brief add-on to my above post as an after-thought; polls have shown that many Americans do not like to fly and it is not looked upon as an enjoyable experience but a rather miserable experience to dread. They only do it because they have to when they are in a pinch for time. If they have the time, most Americans (and Canadians) would probably rather drive that fly. BUT ! They might consider the train IF the trains went more places more often.

Regards,

Fred M. Cain

JD Power's 2018 survey- a gold standard- show that consumer satisfaction among airline passengers has risen 7 years in a row and is at an all-time high. Delta scores very well in that survey. http://www.jdpower.com/press-releases/jd-power-2018-north-america-airline-satisfaction-study

Makes sense. I know every time I get on a plane people are falling all over themselves to remark at how wonderful the experience has become. People love the endless fees, the cramped seats, the indifferent staff, and the wonderful food.

The sad truth is airline flying has gotten better over the last few years. They've significantly improved in flight entertainment options, and the first class products are miles better than where they used to be. That being said, it's still a really low bar that's been set.

 

[keelhauled]

All US citizens are citizens of the entire country, not just our home towns. We need NATIONAL transportation infrastructure that enables us to travel where we want and need to, throughout our entire country. Amtrak is part of that--perhaps a part that we'll very much need to build upon in future decades, as fossil fuels continue to become scarcer, less accessible, and more expensive.

I agree that we need a national transportation infrastructure, but I don't think that trains are the universal answer. The Interstate system stitches together most of rural America far better than Amtrak ever has or most likely ever will, and aviation will always be a more efficient mode of transcontinental travel, unless something even more radically different than the Hyperloop is developed, and at that point I doubt you could even call it a train. Expanding the long distance train system for the purposes of long haul and/or basic transportation for on-line communities is both redundant in the face of existing and effective options and at odds with every point where rail transport has an efficiency advantage (high passenger density in a right of way, high frequency, delivery of passengers to urban cores, relatively few incremental costs to adding capacity), as well as exacerbating the high capital costs required.

 

[cirdan]

Can we perhaps define who "everybody" is?

Everybody has a right to be protected by the police. Everybody has the right to a legal counsel when arrested. Everybody has the right to use the court systen.

But many people live their entire lives without actually making use of that right, or having the need to.

 

[KmH]

Anyone expecting the police to protect them doesn't get how it works.

Your protection is your responsibility.

Our courts are a bad joke.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

Anyone expecting the police to protect them doesn't get how it works.

Your protection is your responsibility.

Our courts are a bad joke.

Link: https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-police-do-not-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html

 

[railiner]

After reading all the posts on this page...the answer is simple....

What we need here, is another 1973 OPEC embargo....

 

[Palmetto]

Just a brief add-on to my above post as an after-thought; polls have shown that many Americans do not like to fly and it is not looked upon as an enjoyable experience but a rather miserable experience to dread. They only do it because they have to when they are in a pinch for time. If they have the time, most Americans (and Canadians) would probably rather drive that fly. BUT ! They might consider the train IF the trains went more places more often.

Regards,

Fred M. Cain

JD Power's 2018 survey- a gold standard- show that consumer satisfaction among airline passengers has risen 7 years in a row and is at an all-time high. Delta scores very well in that survey. http://www.jdpower.com/press-releases/jd-power-2018-north-america-airline-satisfaction-study

Makes sense. I know every time I get on a plane people are falling all over themselves to remark at how wonderful the experience has become. People love the endless fees, the cramped seats, the indifferent staff, and the wonderful food.

The sad truth is airline flying has gotten better over the last few years. They've significantly improved in flight entertainment options, and the first class products are miles better than where they used to be. That being said, it's still a really low bar that's been set.

Apparently, you don't fly American in ecomony. Reduced seat pitch, new planes without seatback entertainment, basic economy. Great stuff.

 

[bretton88]

Just a brief add-on to my above post as an after-thought; polls have shown that many Americans do not like to fly and it is not looked upon as an enjoyable experience but a rather miserable experience to dread. They only do it because they have to when they are in a pinch for time. If they have the time, most Americans (and Canadians) would probably rather drive that fly. BUT ! They might consider the train IF the trains went more places more often.

Regards,

Fred M. Cain

JD Power's 2018 survey- a gold standard- show that consumer satisfaction among airline passengers has risen 7 years in a row and is at an all-time high. Delta scores very well in that survey. http://www.jdpower.com/press-releases/jd-power-2018-north-america-airline-satisfaction-study

Makes sense. I know every time I get on a plane people are falling all over themselves to remark at how wonderful the experience has become. People love the endless fees, the cramped seats, the indifferent staff, and the wonderful food.

The sad truth is airline flying has gotten better over the last few years. They've significantly improved in flight entertainment options, and the first class products are miles better than where they used to be. That being said, it's still a really low bar that's been set.

Apparently, you don't fly American in ecomony. Reduced seat pitch, new planes without seatback entertainment, basic economy. Great stuff.

I said it's a low bar and American is actually the one airline I don't fly. I can deal with Spirit or frontier being miserable because I pay only 50$ (usually) to fly them. At Americans prices though, I have other better options.