All Vermonter Stations Go Unstaffed

Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum

Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Amfleet

Engineer
Joined
Aug 24, 2002
Messages
3,390
Location
Southeastern, Massachusetts
I read on OTOL that all of the Vermonter stations in Vermont will be unstaffed as of September 27. These Gunn cuts are becoming evident, however the state of Vermont might want to consider chipping in the keep the stations staffed. <_<
 
Will they at least have those ticket machines available and keep any waiting room that might be there open for people to wait fpr the train?
 
I'd guess you'd just buy your tickets on board, I think they'd close the waiting rooms so they wouldn't need anyone to clean/maintain it. The most you'd see is something like a bus shelter, if even.
 
My guess is that this is David's way of cutting the losses on the Vermonter. Since David announced that he wants the states to cover all losses on the state sponsored trains, he's sending a message.
 
I have a question about State Sponsored Trains (SST's)

I was under the impression that an SST usually operated only within one state (Piedmont in NC, Empire Service, Capitols, San Joaquin's, Sufrliners, etc.) is this the case or are there SST's in that run through multiple states and if so how would state fundign on these trains work? Would the funding be proportional to the number of miles traveled or passengers boarded or would the cost be split evenly?

Also, which trains are state sponsored other than the partil list I mentioned?
 
Some Midwest Trains are also SST's, also doesn't some money go towards the long distance trains in order to provide for residents who want to go to other (outside of state) destination.
 
TP49,

Here's a list of the various corridor's.

2001 State Supported Trains and Corridors California: Pacific Surfliner, Capitols, San Joaquins

Illinois: Illini, Illinois Zephyr, Hiawathas

Michigan: Pere Marquette, International

Missouri: Mules, Ann Rutledge

New York: Adirondack

North Carolina: Carolinian, Piedmont

Oklahoma: Heartland Flyer

Oregon: Cascades

Pennsylvania: Some Keystone Corridor trains

Vermont: Ethan Allen Express and Vermonter

Washington: Most Cascades service

Wisconsin: Hiawathas
There are a few that cover more than one state, but most don't. The Vermonter however is the biggest exception to the rule, in that it covers multiple states. However, it's only because Vermont wants the train that in continues to run.

This list along with a rather nice article talking about this topic can be found

here from Trains.com.
 
Viewliner said:
Some Midwest Trains are also SST's, also doesn't some money go towards the long distance trains in order to provide for residents who want to go to other (outside of state) destination.
I think that just about all mid-west trains are SST's, if not all of them. I didn't compare the list to the timetable, but I think just about every short haul service out of Chicago is on the list.

I'm not aware of any monies however that go to LD trains, other than thru creative accounting. The type practiced before David Gunn took over.
 
We all know that Warrington did a horable job at weening Amtrak to operation self sufficency, but do any of you think Gunn could possibly do it or does the government need to continue to subsidize.
 
Guess your right. However, it doesn't take much to do something big in a short amount of time (comparing to airports and hiways). I think Canada's rail system is certainly shaping up. Looks like America is the only major country with a daggling under subsidized rail system. ;)
 
The federal government needs to continue to subsidize passenger service for it to remain as it is never profitible. Kind of our mantra isn't it :)

As far as states go I believe the idea of SST's came about as states wanted increased passenger service in places. Honestly, if states want to keep service at their current levels or expand service within their states then they will have to continue subsidizing their services.
 
Canada is doing well, however they still do receive government subsidies. Secondly in Canada, Via Rail was allowed to cut really unprofitable routes several years ago. Something that Congress won't allow and Amtrak can't afford to do it on it's own for fear of angering Congress. In fact did you know that there is a law on the books that prevents Amtrak from killing the Cardinal?

Finally, while Canada's subsidies are less than Amtrak's they have two things going for them. One VIA covers less route miles than Amtrak. Second and far more importantly, they still get Capital Improvement funds from Canada. The past few years those monies have been quite substantial. That money helped to buy the new loco’s, the new cars they brought from England, and many station improvements. Amtrak no longer gets capital improvement money. All of it’s monies are just lumped together into that measly 521M per year.
 
tp49 said:
The federal government needs to continue to subsidize passenger service for it to remain as it is never profitible. Kind of our mantra isn't it :)
As far as states go I believe the idea of SST's came about as states wanted increased passenger service in places. Honestly, if states want to keep service at their current levels or expand service within their states then they will have to continue subsidizing their services.
California has by far the largest SST system in the nation. There is also a huge network of Amtrak Thruway bus connections. Only the smallest of towns in California are not served by Amtrak trains and/or buses.

With each schedule change, they are continually adding more and more service. What I cannot understand is why the vast majority of people here refuse to even consider using this service, but will automatically opt to fly or drive for relatively short intrastate trips.
 
Allen Dee,

The reason for that is largely due to what’s been ingrained in people’s minds. We want the freedom to go where we want, when we want. The car offers this luxury. It’s only starting to turn now that the road have reached and moved beyond capacity for the number of cars. Unfortunately old habits die-hard.

I can also think of a few other reasons that continue to hold up people converting to trains. One is the fact that, especially with long distance, too many times trains are late. Another factor is that people tend to equate trains in two different ways. The first way being the subway/commuter type of train, which is typically not very comfortable and often over crowded. People don’t realize that many of the California Intercity service offer’s very nice seating. The second way that too many people think of trains is as tourist attractions. Yes I think that it’s wonderful that we have preserved so much of our train history through museums and tourist RR’s. The problem is this put people into the mind set that today’s trains aren’t really intended to be useful in getting somewhere.

One shining example of this mentality can be seen in the Monorails of Walt Disney World and Disneyland. Walt conceived these trains as the nice, quiet, sleek, modern, and environmentally safe transportation of the future. He was right, the monorail was all of those things. Unfortunately it was a little ahead of its time when he first built it. Then over the years people began to see it as an amusement park ride and not a viable transportation system. Only now years later is Las Vegas installing a real full-scale system. Yes we’ve had a few monorails here and there, mostly in airports. But so far no cities, until Vegas, have adopted it to solve their transportation woes.

Yet it’s far easier to construct than any light or heavy rail system, it’s easier on the environment in so many ways, and it’s quieter than rail. Plus it’s safer than rail, since it’s elevated and there are no grade crossings. You can’t find any pictures of a monorail hitting a truck or a car. The Disney Monorails also have an attractive record for durability. The original 10 Marc IV monorails at Disney World before they were retired several years ago, had logged enough miles to go to the moon and back. These trains saw service 365 days a year and they needed 9 in service at all times to handle the crowds. That left room for only 1 train to be bad ordered on any given day, or they would have to run short. Most of the Disney Monorails ran with a 99.9% reliability rating.

Now Disney has 12 new Marc VI trains, and they are doing equally well. In Florida they currently move during the busy season over 200,000 people per day. Yet sadly despite all of those impressive numbers, many people still think and refer to the monorail as “Walt’s Toy Trains.”

All of that was just a long-winded way of saying that people’s expectations and ideas about rail travel need to be altered and improved, before we can get them out of their cars. We have finally started doing that out here in the east, thanks to the Acela Express trains. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard people on board for the first time remark, “Why did I ever take the shuttles?” “This is so much nicer and more comfortable.”

Yet we still have a long way to go out here. Amtrak only owns 53% to 54% of the market between NY and DC. It should own 100% of that market. Plus we’ve got a long ways to go on the NY to Boston market. But at least revolution has started, even if it’s still on the quiet side.
 
Allen Dee,

I want to preface this by saying that I am a regular rider on the Capitol Corridor in NoCal. I think it best to look at this issue based upon the most heavily traveled intrastate air corridor SF/Oakland/San Jose-Los Angeles.

The only train directly serving both regions with a one-seat ride is the Coast Starlight running only once a day. From my ovservation, most people want a one-seat ride between their destinations or as close to it as possible. The San Joaquins while linking both regions requires the bus connection at Bakersfield, then an additional two plus hours from there to Los Angeles.

On average flights between the two regions are numerous and cheap. The time factor is also important as unlike in the Northeast Corridor train travel times run substantially longer than the three or four hours needed to complete the flight. I really do not see much improvement or willingness of people to ride this (SF to LA) route via train until the High Speed Corridor is developed and operational.

The Capitol Corridor in my eyes having grown up riding the Long Island Railroad is nothing more than a nicer version of a commuter service. Most people who ride this route commute from their homes in the Sacramento Area (especially Davis) to the SF Bay area getting off primarily at Richmond (BART connection to downtown SF), Emeryville and Oakland.

During the week, ridership on this route is high. Over the last year ridership levels are broken every month with the service carrying over one milion passengers last year.

I cannnot speak for the Surfliners as I have never taken them but I hope to ride them in the future.
 
tp49 said:
I cannnot speak for the Surfliners as I have never taken them but I hope to ride them in the future.
The Los Angeles to San Diego corridor has the heaviest travel (all modes: air, rail, and highway) of any 2 city-pairs in the nation. There is a substantial amount of rail service in this area. If you consider the intermediate cities, the combined services of Amtrak, Metrolink, and Coaster are very substantial; and yet very few people ride these trains compared to the amount that drive and fly.

Most of these trains run on-time or with very minimal delays. The delays on the highways and at the airports are phenominal and occur quite regularly, and the majority of the people still prefer these two modes to the train.

I agree with you that those travelling greater distances (LA to Bay Area) can do better by air or highway.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top