Future of Passenger Rail in America

[Amfleet]

It is quite apparent to me that this country and members of Congress want to expand passenger rail in America (while others don't). This means a system of long-distance trains, short-distance trains, and high-speed rail. However, this has lead to a fork in the road. Should Amtrak become a monoply of passenger railroad operations or should operations be divided into different national companies all with federal subsidy? Don't get me wrong, I'm am not saying operations and subsidy should be put into an indivisual states control.

 

[battalion51]

I think Amtrak should be charged with all rail operations (with the exception of Commuter [although they should be able to Contract for it as they do now]). I think that especially with emerging high speed corridors in the Northwest, California, and the East, Amtrak can provide the consitency between high speed services that is key in people's mids with what to expect from high speed service.

 

[gswager]

I would add one- Amtrak would get most of them while others- either private or states- would get some. Probably to show the gov't better than just one.

 

[steve_relei]

I am not sure what Congress and the American people think Amtrak should be doing. Amtrak does a pretty good job, especially under the circumstances, of running trains--both corridor and long distance. The two types of trains feed off each other. Local commuter services bring passengers to amtrak and vice versa. Several states have contracted with Amtrak to run their trains, including some commute lines. Amtrak must be doing something right in order to gain those states' trust and interest. We have have complaints, horror stories, wishful thinkings, wonderful experiences. What kind of rail system do we want, what will it take to put such a system to service, how much will it cost, how much are we willing to pay? What are the other alternatives?

Many of us pine for the service given on such trains as the Super Chief, 20th Century Limited, etc., but we realize those days are gone, and that type of service is impractical in today's times. But, we want the best train services we can get and that will work for today's passengers.

Many of us look at European countries and Japan and how nice their trains are and wish we could have something like that here. Some ways we do, but their governments are not trying to withhold funds or get rid of their railroads. They recognize the need for them. Amtrak does fairly well, and there is a lot more that it could be doing, if given time and money.

 

[tp49]

While I feel Amtrak should operate intercity rail service and even interstate HSR corridors, when it comes to intra-state HSR I believe states should have more latitude to determine who runs their HSR espeially in cases where they fund the majority of the infrastructure.

 

[jdwolfskill]

At the risk of inserting my arm here and pulling back a bloody stump, I think that AMTRAK should be liquidated and restructured into several regional rail authorities, each with a charter to provide regional rail passenger service (including interstate, intrastate and high-speed commuter rail).

After a reasonable startup period, public funding (state pool and federal) would be contingent upon average ridership, on-time service and customer satisfaction ratings. In the meantime, a federal law would pass giving all interstate passenger trains priority on railroad right-of-ways, or the offending company would face stiff fines and lose federal dollars and contracts.

We need to make these folks (AMTRAK and all railroads) accountable for the public money they receive/spend, and the way they treat the public as paying passengers. This has never been the case with AMTRAK, and the railroads all do exactly as they please with AMTRAK trains. That's the primary reason why some AMTRAK trains are never on time.

I've witnessed AMTRAK in operation since its birth in 1971, ridden a hundred or more AMTRAK trains in that time and have seen very little change in anything (save the cost of tickets) in over 30 years of Congressional head-banging and bickering. Every President since Jimmy Carter has wanted to give AMTRAK the heave-ho, but none have had the fortitude (or real support) to do so. However sad, I think its now time to let the other shoe drop.

Personally, I don't need a passenger train that takes me 2000 miles at a crack in a private sleeping car with fancy napkins on the table. Although it was fun while it lasted, those days are gone. I would much rather be able to plan a long rail journey 400-500 miles at a time, travel in a comfortable coach seat, and take reasonably-priced meals when I get OFF the train each day to stay at the AMTRAK Regional Rail Passenger Station Hotel ($69.95 double), which was booked for me when I purchased my rail tickets. We can talk about it and debate it until we're blue in the face, and this basic fact will remain:

Long-distance passenger trains are too expensive to operate

Also, When I need to get to LAX from NYC in a hurry, there are new-fangled things called airplanes. So I also don't need an interstate train that travels 200 MPH. What I need is a comfortable, passenger-oriented rail system that offers me frequent regional service to where I want to go, and value for my travel dollar.

And that's what I think about the future of AMTRAK.

 

[Amfleet]

Personally, I don't need a passenger train that takes me 2000 miles at a crack in a private sleeping car with fancy napkins on the table.

You don't need that, but on most Amtrak trips I've met many people who use Amtrak long-distance trains to get from one place to another whether it be 50 miles down the line or 1500 miles across the country. I would say about 10% of passengers who ride Amtrak do it for the heck of it just to try it out or for the experience. The other 90% is there because they don't like flying or driving or just like the slower pace. I will also tell you that in order for Regional and Corridor trains to survive, Long-Distance trains are needed. Many passengers come from corridor trains to connect with LD's. It narrows down to the concept of national or nothing.

 

[battalion51]

The other thing about LD service is that very few people (on a train as a whole for the run) use the service to go from one metropolis to another. The vast majority of people who use Amtrak are going to/coming from small towns with little to no air service, bad bus service, or fear of driving. I feel Amtrak serves the small towns like Beaumont, TX, Sebring, FL, and Winter Park, CO (just to name a few) very well. Train service's main goal in Long Distance capacity is not to haul everyone from New York to Miami, but from New York to Miami and all the small towns in between.

 

[jdwolfskill]

Your point is well taken, batalion51. I agree that trains are needed to provide this vital service to small towns and cities throughout the U.S. This is precisely why we need more trains that can operate with greater efficiency and more frequency. I think both you an Amfleet missed the point of my original message. I do not propose doing away with AMTRAK. I propose regionalizing it to make long distance trains into medium distance trains. Under this scheme, you could still travel from CHI to LAX on AMTRAK, but perhaps not always on the same train. What I think we need is a national transportation system to serve everyone, not a national tourist railroad to serve scared drivers, and the curious. As Amfleet stated (in paraphrase) , 90% of the people are doing it because they like the "slower pace", and the other 10% are gaining "life experiences". That's o.k. as long as we don't have to use everyone's tax money to do it.

 

[battalion51]

Well here's the other thing about breaking up routes into smaller more regionalized routes. First you will have higher capital expenses in maintaining and operating equipment. Secondly people want a one seat ride. This is one of the main reasons why they did not cut Silver Service back to Washington, people don't want to have to change trains if at all possible.

 

[jdwolfskill]

In most cases, wouldn't the higher capital expense of regionalization be offset by increased ridership? I'm not an expert in these matters, but from what I've read It has been proven time and again that adding train frequency and realistic scheduling (who wants to board a train at 3:15 AM) increases ridership, which increases revenues. Of course, you still couldn't send a train out to service a route where there aren't enough potential riders to make a profit.

Also, I suppose folks want that "one-seat ride" because either a realistic connection does not exist, or they know from experience that the connecting service may not be there. More trains running on better daylight schedules would certainly help with these problems, which will need to be addressed no matter what the eventual outcome of this matter. I hope Amtrak survives this latest crunch because we need it, whether we realize it or not.

 

[AlanB]

After a reasonable startup period, public funding (state pool and federal) would be contingent upon average ridership, on-time service and customer satisfaction ratings. In the meantime, a federal law would pass giving all interstate passenger trains priority on railroad right-of-ways, or the offending company would face stiff fines and lose federal dollars and contracts.
We need to make these folks (AMTRAK and all railroads) accountable for the public money they receive/spend, and the way they treat the public as paying passengers. This has never been the case with AMTRAK, and the railroads all do exactly as they please with AMTRAK trains. That's the primary reason why some AMTRAK trains are never on time.

JD,

Well you've already shot yourself in the foot with this statement above. The freight RR's are privately owned businesses. Therefore Federal Government can't pass a law mandating that passenger trains get priority on private property. The Supreme Court would toss any such law out faster than you can blink.

That's why part of the agreement with the freight RR's when Amtrak was formed, included the provision to allow priority to passenger trains. Unfortunately, the Feds never gave Amtrak nor the FRA the teeth to enforce that agreement. So many of the freight's just thumb their noses at Amtrak, whenever they complain about late trains.

 

[AlanB]

Also, I suppose folks want that "one-seat ride" because either a realistic connection does not exist, or they know from experience that the connecting service may not be there. More trains running on better daylight schedules would certainly help with these problems, which will need to be addressed no matter what the eventual outcome of this matter. I hope Amtrak survives this latest crunch because we need it, whether we realize it or not.

No, people want a one seat ride because they are in a hurry and they are lazy. This is even true with the airlines. Most people will pay extra for the direct flight, instead of the cheaper one-stop flight.

 

[battalion51]

Most people will pay extra for the direct flight, instead of the cheaper one-stop flight.

Well...it depends how much more. 10 or 20 bucks yeah, 100 or 200 bucks no. But I definitely want to get where I'm going as quick as I can with as little hassle as possible, this means one seat ride.

 

[jdwolfskill]

Alan,

Well let's see. I've no right arm, and no left foot (due to shotgun blast) , but I have managed to get everyone thinking and talking and sitting up straight in their computer chairs. There's something to be said for that. No?

 

[AlanB]

Alan,
Well let's see. I've no right arm, and no left foot (due to shotgun blast) , but I have managed to get everyone thinking and talking and sitting up straight in their computer chairs. There's something to be said for that. No?

JD,

Agreed.

And while I may have pulled that trigger (I did however take out some of the buck shot, before I pulled that trigger :lol: ), that doesn't mean that I don't wish that what you suggested was indeed possible. It really would be nice if there was some way to enforce the "passenger trains get priority" rule.

This very issue is one reason that many of the freight RR's don't want to take federal monies to help improve their tracks. They know that accepting such monies would obligate them to run the passenger trains on time and with priority.

On the other hand, I think that within the next 20 years or so, the freight RR's will have no choice but to accept federal money in order to level the playing field with trucks. The only question is, will Amtrak and passenger rail survive that long in one form or another, to take advantage of finally getting priority.

 

[AlanB]

Last chance to vote!

 

[carknocker51]

I mite be nuts"[but] with the money we'er pouring into this "iffy" war & rebuilding of this "other" country,could'nt we put everyone to work rebuilding our own cities,roads,rail,ports ect. ect....is it just me??

 

[jdwolfskill]

carknocker,

You aren't nuts at all. What a novel idea: "Spend our tax money here at home!" The problem is that we're driving an old two-seater, and everyone wants a "one-seat ride" these days.

 

[Amfleet]

Rebuilding Iraq and helping other countries fighting against poverty is a key link to making this country strong and I feel those efforts should continue. With our country's economy today however, the problem I feel is we are not making any long-term commitments, but as true Americans wait until the last minute to deal with problems such as funding our nations passenger railroad. The government needs more long-term plans for air, rail, and roads to succeed and be funded properly. Gunn made a similar statement the other night on CNN.

 

[tp49]

The Feds are forever shooting themselves in the foot when it comes to regulating industries in general and transportation inparticular. For example the FRA does not have the ultimate authority to mandate passenger priority over freight, and in the hated air arena the FAA is mandated to regulate and promote the industry (which to me does not seem possible as doing one would hinder the other).

That said the regionalization idea is an interesting one bit might be flawed in one area: unless all of the routes were of a short enough distance to be easily covered within 10-12 hours time so that major cities on the route would be served at more reasonable hours it would be something that would give the schedulers fits. Also, the increased cost in regionalization would probably not be offset by an incerase in ridership as for this plan to be effective it would require an increased investment in rolling stock. An interesting idea yes, but the feasability is shaky.