Amtrak: fixing a broken system: a guide

[roomette]

 

[Phil S]

Excellent discussion. Almost all the pertinent issues raised and facts presented somewhere in this thread, even if the OP could benefit from a little more knowledge of the current status and history of the US rail system..

Enough pontificating on my part.

So -- nowhere do I see climate change mentioned along with the critical need to drastically reduce C emissions starting now. What gives here? Does anyone still not believe \we have a problem? Seems to me that getting people (and cargo) our of cars and trucks and onto rail is one of the easiest things we could do to begin to solve the climate change problem? If it isn't, then we may be in even bigger trouble than I think.

Just my 2c worth.

Phil

 

[Anderson]

I'll say that it's hard to peg anyone as "tea party" or not in many regards, but I can at least list some politicians on that end of the spectrum who haven't come across as anti-rail. Ken Cuccinelli, in particular, went to pains not to go off in that direction. That said, it's often a function of geography...you're not going to find many folks, regardless of affiliation, running for office on Long Island calling for cuts to the LIRR.

Most Tea Party types openly self-identify as such. It's a badge they wear with pride and not a scarlet letter they try to hide. I'm no expert but I thought Ken's "big idea" was to split up the VDOT budget into much smaller pieces and hand out each sliver to local politicians to spend as they saw fit. If that's the case then I fail to see how dividing the state budget into a series of relatively tiny local budgets would serve to promote any major public transit initiatives. Handing out micro budgets may not rule out eventual cooperation, but it certainly wouldn't do anything to promote such projects. Am I missing something obvious or are we scraping the bottom of the barrel here?

When you look at the internal wars that have gone on in VA for the last few decades, this comes across as a "least bad" option. Is it ideal? No. But when you look at the sausage-making morass that was the transportation bill last year, and how it came after about a decade of failed attempts at something similar (albeit with varying degrees of effort), I don't see this as a bad thing. This goes double as NOVA and Hampton Roads are materially different from the rest of the state (broadly speaking, at least) in terms of needs and priorities.

Another way to put it is this: Given the political divisions in the state (including some "lagging" seats in areas that it makes little sense for a Democrat to win), you get very odd coalition-building to get some transportation stuff through. It seems quite plausible that the bar on using the Hampton Roads transportation money for transit/rail stuff would have gone in if there hadn't been the need to scrape net votes out of Southwest VA, the Shenandoah Valley, or Old Southside. Again, it's not a great situation, but it strikes me as a "less bad" option than some others.

A large part of the "evolution/devolution" fight, however, does come down to the fact that there's no perfect level to deal with stuff at because almost any level includes a mess of disparate, conflicting interests that want to screw with how the "other guy" can spend their money. Federally-directed transportation funding policy has helped provide us with numerous pavement-pouring projects, after all...while at the same time, states and localities often show a remarkable ability for making their own messes regardless.

 

[roomette]

I have always enjoyed and used the words remarkable and regardless. Though never until now on this forum.

 

[afigg]

It is known that getting funding for Amtrak is a Catch 22. However, given the fact that the carrier has reached the 30,000,000 rider mark in 2013, perhaps looking at a new service on a highly-populated route is worth discussing for future considerations. Of course there once was service on this sector.

I am sure that Amtrak has looked into this run again in the recent years, but this is a sector that should be seriously considered for a potential three-times-weekly Superliner round-trip:

Chicago-Indy-Louisville-Nashville-Birmingham-Atlanta-Macon-Waycross-Jacksonville-St Augustine and FEC cities to Miami.

Amtrak is not going to start another 3 days a week LD service regardless of the route because those have proven to be major money lowers. Daily service is really the minimum for a viable service. The problem with your route is the large amount of funding it would take to start passenger service over it. The freight railroads will want money for track and capacity upgrades for any line that is reasonably active, which are also the only lines by and large that are well maintained.
A good example is the agreement that VA just signed with NS to extend passenger service from Lynchburg to Roanoke, a distance of 49 track miles. This is for a one train a day, but I expect it includes provisions for a second daily train. VA will spend $92.7 million for track upgrades, a new station & facilities in Roanoke, and other NS capacity projects. That may be a high cost per mile extension project, but it is not out of line for other passenger service extension projects. Projecting a $1 million a mile over the Chicago - Florida route between Indy and Jacksonville results in a rather large price tag. Which is not going to be funded for a once a day LD train.

Shorter to medium distance corridor services with state support are the key to expanding passenger service. If the Midwest Regional Rail system were built as currently envisioned and then expanded with a Chicago-Indy-Nashville corridor, Georgia gets behind a regional rail system centered on Atlanta with Nashville to Atlanta and Atlanta to Savannah to JAX corridors, then a Chicago to Florida LD train might be feasible. But until then, not likely. Would also require a far more favorable funding environment in Congress for Amtrak and LD trains. That could be a long wait.

 

[gmushial]

"big idea" was to split up the VDOT budget into much smaller pieces and hand out each sliver to local politicians to spend as they saw fit. If that's the case then I fail to see how dividing the state budget into a series of relatively tiny local budgets would serve to promote any major public transit initiatives. Handing out micro budgets may not rule out eventual cooperation, but it certainly wouldn't do anything to promote such projects. Am I missing something obvious or are we scraping the bottom of the barrel here?

I don't want to comment on this particular case here as I don't know anything about it.

However, in general, giving lower authorities the power and budget to do things on a local level is not a bad idea.

I am thinking of the example of Spain, where over the last 30 years or so, the central government has given transportation budgets and powers to those local (provinicial level) authorities who asked for it. Places like Catalonia and Valencia province have built commuter rail systems that have little in common with what these systems looked like when the central government ran them. The central government tries to please everybody equally and spread money around fairly and apply a common set of rules (which generally meant that the little cash that finally filters through all the levels of burocracy is barely enough to make do and mend groaning and failing legacy infrastructure). On a local level priorities and needs are different from place to place and local initiative has led to far much more money and investment happening where it is seen as a priority, and indeed less happening in places where nobody cares.

Generally have to agree in that the local people are more knowledgeable about the local needs and generally produce better locally optimal solutions. But in saying such all too often one finds that locally optimal solutions are suboptimal in less local views. So the question becomes: is one trying to engender a rail system that is optimal strictly for the locale, or for everyone that might ride it, as part of a nationwide system. Since most of this money is coming from Wash DC, I personally would like to see some nation-wide knowledge attached to it.

 

[gmushial]

I think these blog posts have gotten way off topic. In my guide I provided specific points that should be followed to fix a failed system (for example highly speedy rail between Texas and the Dakotas, proven to double ridership over 10 years),

How many people in Texas are interested in going to the Dakotas? I realize maybe everyone in the Dakotas may want to get out, even if it means going to Texas, but how many people is that? Not sure there are all that many folks in between those states that would want to go north either.

Dan

Maybe at least for the short-term: with the refineries in TX and the oil sources in ND: there might be a need/desire for an interchange of persons.

 

[gmushial]

I think these blog posts have gotten way off topic. In my guide I provided specific points that should be followed to fix a failed system (for example highly speedy rail between Texas and the Dakotas, proven to double ridership over 10 years), and now this has turned into political fodder for leftist anarchists and tea partiers. This isn't a joke. It's about riders and rails. China is building new lines every weeknight and the USA is being left in the dust. I am what they call apolitical. That means I don't believe in party labels and the big money that goes with it. If I can build just one more foot of track and see one more kid develop a love for railroading then my mission will be accomplished.

As much as anyone may disdain the conversations around the politics, it's absolutely necessary. Unless you personally have the money and resources to complete such an ambitious project, it has to be handled by government at some level. Even if you DO have all the money, you STILL need politics to get the approval to construct.

Here's a bit about China. China has a population which is about 3 times larger than the United States. They have about 20% more land than the Lower 48. As a communist country, there are no particular individual human rights. As a result, labor is cheap and the government can pretty much build wherever they want to with very little or no compensation to property dwellers (private ownership of anything, including land, was just recently added to the constitution). China's indifference to the ecology and environment are also noteworthy. And sometimes they build stuff so fast that the quality is very poor.

It's interesting - I saw a photo of the "cockpit" of the Shanghai Maglev train. In it was a portable plug in fan for the operator. No A/C for the crew?

So, perhaps here in the USA, "If you build it, they will come." But quite frankly if a private corporation can't justify a demand to supply a particular service or product, then it probably shouldn't be the task of the government to do it.

I find it very interesting that in the last 10 years or so, many local businesses have closed because of the internet. FedEx and UPS have grown like crazy - and made huge profits. Yet the USPS, which has seen just as much of an increase in business and still holds a majority of the market share, continues to drown in debt. If the USPS shut down, then everything would have to go by UPS or FedEx (or a number of smaller similar companies). But the cost would be high enough for people to perhaps go back to buying things from their corner store.

Have you been there anytime within the last five years (not as a tourist, but on business)? I'm guessing not in that what you cite is mostly what would come from the echo-machine and not from actual feet-on-the-ground perception. I think if it were an actual communist nation than one would see everyone still driving Trabant class cars, and not BMWs, Mercedes and Rolls Royces [noting that China is now the largest market for all three]. If you want to see real free-market capitalism at its finest: try spending a week in Shanghai. W/re the low quality goods: they will build whatever you want/specify - if American businesses order schlock goods, that's what they will have to sell; conversely if one orders quality goods they will likewise have such to sell [just look at the PC motherboard market - China makes everything from the bottom-end I'd never waste my time building with; thru the very very best top end server class boards].

 

[Dan O]

Maybe at least for the short-term: with the refineries in TX and the oil sources in ND: there might be a need/desire for an interchange of persons.

Not sure what the numbers are for that. I would think there may be other population centers that need connecting more than anything that involves North Dakota. Maybe reconnecting Los Angeles and Las Vegas NV. More people are likely to want to travel between those two cities on a regular basis I'd think.

Dan

 

[Lumeria]

I read this thread because I'd like to help trains become more available, better used, and financially secure. To that end, I'd love to see a guide to fixing the train system. My concept of a guide, however, is to help activists take practical and useful steps to facilitate improvements. To that end, I would suggest a few items to be added into a Guide:

* Join the National Association of Rail Passengers. Even if you don't become a paid member, use their Action Alerts (http://www.narprail.org/take-action/action-alerts) to contact decision-makers and legislators. NARP has some slick tools making it easy to contact your legislator or write letters to your local newspapers.

* Educate yourself. Again, NARP has a solid base of information. Others here will probably have additional resources to suggest.

* Educate others. As with any campaign, the better others understand the issues and facts involved, the more equipped they are to take action. Awareness-raising is critical.

* Stick with real facts. In any campaign, political or otherwise, there are temptations to diminish the negatives and emphasize more optimistic points. That's bad science, and it's bad policy. The ultimate goal is to make the whole system work, and that requires realism. From that solid stance, armed with a full understanding of the landscape and mechanics of the numerous complex issues involved, it becomes possible to work out what paths might be ultimately successful.

* Encourage others. It's unlikely any of us alone will fix Amtrak, transportation, the environment, and the economy alone, but together we stand a better chance of accomplishing something.

That's my $0.02. Others more knowledgeable than I can probably do a lot better than this, and I encourage them to do so. Let's sideline any oh-so-very-Internet poster-bashing and topic-flaming, and move the thread into how and what to do to make things better.

 

[VentureForth]

And remember - a paid NARP member gets 10% most Amtrak travel.