Repulsive Anti-Amtrak Article

[Amfleet]

Congress's Solution To Rural Air Service:Take The Train

Senator Earnest Hollings wants to spend $4.6 million each and every year to keep long-distance passenger trains running empty across the nation. Never mind that nobody other than get-a-life train buffs ride the things. Never mind that as a long-haul passenger transport mode, trains are about as attractive as riding a camel in a snowstorm.

Hollings and his buddies, by the way, have allocated less than $200 million to develop rural air service. President Bush wants to spend $900 million on Amtrak, and let the states take over the system. Amtrak itself screams that it needs $35 million a week in subsidies just to keep this dinosaur running. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson of Texas plans to introduce legislation to give Amtrak several billions. This from the stellar politician that was recently the chairman of the Senate Aviation sub-committee.

Do the numbers. Airports around the nation are begging for money for necessary facility upgrades that people can actually use. Meanwhile, Senator Hollings and his colleagues want to keep the California Zephyr crawling empty and late between Chicago and Los Angeles. Or the intra-California line where passengers going to Los Angeles board a train in Fresno, get off in Bakersfield and ride a bus the rest of the way. Real attractive.

Let's make a politically-incorrect statement. Amtrak is a giant, money-guzzling boondoggle. With the exception of a few intra-urban routes, such as the Northeast corridor, trains are a mode that's no longer efficient - and, message to the politicians, it's one that consumers won't use for long-haul travel, regardless of the billions that Hollings and the congressional kindergarten pour into it. Trains are highly capital and labor intensive - they cannot carry passengers cost-effectively between smaller towns. And taking three or four days to get between New York and San Francisco is right up there with the stage coach in travel efficiency. Amtrak is a giant bureaucracy that wastes money - which may be why Congress likes it so much.

If anybody has a doubt about why rural air service is a mess, they need look no farther than this Amtrak fiasco. Congress is off in wacko-land.

Hollings, Hutchinson, and the Administration may want to look at a calendar. The 19th century is over.

Their site can be found here. These people have no clue what the heck they're talking about, and they have nothing to back what they are saying. I'm guessing they think that the government should pay for their private planes. I don't think so. What in thw world are they thinking???? :angry:

 

[seajay]

The link is incorrect. It should be

http://www.aviationplanning.com

Only two consecutive "n"'s in planning.

B)

seajay

 

[jccollins]

They sure have guts to pick on the Amtrak California-funded San Joaquin route: ("Or the intra-California line where passengers going to Los Angeles board a train in Fresno, get off in Bakersfield and ride a bus the rest of the way. Real attractive.")

Numbers prove that this is a very popular route in California. Over 70,000 people/months climb aboard the San Joaquins, and a very high percentage of these passengers (somewhere around 60-70%, I believe) make part of their trip by Amtrak thruway motorcoach to/from Bakersfield. The answer is to give serious study to building a rapid rail line through the Grapevine to the Los Angeles Metropolitian area that would offer the same speed and reliability as the San Joaquin motorcoaches over the pass, not scrap the entire system.

 

[battalion51]

Knowing the source definitely tells you why the view is so slanted. The simple answer is there is no one perfect mode of transportation. If there was I'm sure we would have found it by now. The simple answer is this, all forms of transportation, air, sea, rail, and road are necessary in their own way. Air travel is needed to cross the continent (and oceans) quickly, road travel is necessary to get people to their ultimate destination (house, hotel, etc.), rail is needed for some short to long distance travel that hits small town USA, and sea is needed to haul freight over oceans. The simple truth is that small airports can't be built everywhere for every little town, they're too expensive and too hard to maintain for the relatively little use they get. Train stations on the other hand are fairly cheap to build, and don't require nearly the amount of heavy maintenence and personnel that airports do. So, in short we as a country need to find the balance between train, air, road, and sea that is necessary to keep this great country moving.

 

[tp49]

I can understand this group's point about rural air service especially in parts of the country where the nearest major airport is several hours away by car, but to bolster your argument by trashing other modes of transportation is not a good way to get that point considered. This is especially the case when they cannot even get the city pairs right that the trains they are bashing serve.

 

[steve_relei]

I tried to access their "talk to us," but it didn't work. Anybody have a link that does?

I am pro-rail and pro-air, I believe both are important. Living in Portland, I find a number of people who ride the train from a smaller town to Portland or Seattle (or other) in order to board a plane to somewhere else. This is especially true of Seattle, where I have met people on the train, then boarding a plane for Alaska. There are many small towns that have no real air service, and trains are the primary means of public transportation. Also, if you take away the trains, it won't make people fly more. They will get into their cars and drive, and they may as well drive the rest of the way than to fly.

I am for air subsidies to smaller communities. Also, air fares for those communities are often expensive, since there is no competition to bring the prices down.

As far as Amtrak trains being empty, the only time they are is when they are on layover. The Coast Starlight, Empire Builder, California Zephyr, the Florida trains, Auto Train are all trains that are well patronized. The Northwest Talgo Cascades train are frequently filled up. On many trains, it may be difficult to get a seat at the last minute. Sleepers are well used.

There are many people who will take the train one way and fly back (or vice versa). In Europe, there are train stations at the airport in a number of places. Also in Japan.

 

[Amfleet]

I tried to access their "talk to us," but it didn't work. Anybody have a link that does?

It was an e-mail. If you need the adress send me a PM as I do not want to post it directly on the boards.

 

[Allen Dee]

They sure have guts to pick on the Amtrak California-funded San Joaquin route: ("Or the intra-California line where passengers going to Los Angeles board a train in Fresno, get off in Bakersfield and ride a bus the rest of the way. Real attractive.")
Numbers prove that this is a very popular route in California. Over 70,000 people/months climb aboard the San Joaquins, and a very high percentage of these passengers (somewhere around 60-70%, I believe) make part of their trip by Amtrak thruway motorcoach to/from Bakersfield. The answer is to give serious study to building a rapid rail line through the Grapevine to the Los Angeles Metropolitian area that would offer the same speed and reliability as the San Joaquin motorcoaches over the pass, not scrap the entire system.

There are far more passengers transported by Amtrak Thruway buses from Bakersfield to Southern California points than there are those transported by Greyhound and all the regional airlines combined.

The only present all-rail alternative is a 7 hour trip over the Tehachapi Loop. This is virtually unacceptable to all but die hard rail fans. I would enjoy one trip over the Loop, but otherwise I would prefer the motorcoach connection, as would virtually all of the potential passengers.

Constructing a direct rail link is currently out of the question, considering the budget problems the state of California faces.

 

[jccollins]

There are far more passengers transported by Amtrak Thruway buses from Bakersfield to Southern California points than there are those transported by Greyhound and all the regional airlines combined.
The only present all-rail alternative is a 7 hour trip over the Tehachapi Loop.  This is virtually unacceptable to all but die hard rail fans.  I would enjoy one trip over the Loop, but otherwise I would prefer the motorcoach connection, as would virtually all of the potential passengers.

Constructing a direct rail link is currently out of the question, considering the budget problems the state of California faces.

I completely agree (as I usually do with your posts, Allen )

 

[steve_relei]

The editorial comes from a newsletter dealing with airplanes, air travel, air advocacy, etc. That may explain their viewpoint. I am pro-air travel but also pro-trains. We need both.

One reason for the bus between Bakerfield and LA is the amount of time it would take for a train between the two cities through the mountains. Maybe they feel they make better time doing it this way. I'd like to see an overnight train do the run. They could afford to take the extra time to make better arrival times in the two cities.