Will the US Ever Be Supportive of Rail Travel?

[zepherdude]

As I was looking at Amtrak posters and artwork, the question came to mind, will train travel ever get back to the success it once enjoyed? I don't mean the white linen and fresh flowers, but Frequencies and Expansion of services. Since I have been on this form, we have lost part of the Sunset Limited, but gained more Virginia service. But, no other increases or decreases. Sunset Limited reduction was inevitable, it just needed an excuse. I wonder if the public has had enough of air travel expenses and airport hassles to return to trains. Travel by car is even an outlandish expense, last time I drove cross country it was $1000 plus stress and fatigue, no more of that for me.

Republicans seem to hate trains

Democrats embrace the train travel concept.

Who will win the White House dictates how/if Amtrak succeeds, I suppose.

The massive cutbacks promised, did not happen, as many predicted here.

So, I am thinking out loud, will the increase of Amtrak routes continue with the new equipment arrivals and will states anti up for their fair share?

Is Amtrak back on track for success and the re-invention of Rail Travel?

 

[Shanghai]

I don't see any major changes in passenger rail travel in the US.

Maybe increased ridership when gasoline costs $6 to $7 per gallon,

but that will be in populated areas. I think there will be decreases

in federal and state funding but they will not be significant as they

are mostly political grandstanding.

If high speed rail ever becomes reality, that may have some influence

on Long Distance trains but that would take several years.

As a country, we all must accept the premise that we can no longer afford

whatever we want and have to learn to live within our means.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

First of all, the premise that we can't have everything we want is false, if we can accept that we can't get away with not paying for what we want. Increasing the tax rate to an average of 40% for everybody- and I am so not getting into how that should be distributed class wise - would comfortably fund our current government spending, and frankly, if we were to fix the economy, that tax rate on average is not draconian. So the crazy idea that current spending is not fiscally possible is hogwash. But back on topic.

I have talked to, or listened to, various friends in the transit advocacy world. Some of my friends, including my really good friend, David Peter Alan, who chairs the Lackwanna Coalition, an NJ advocacy organization that I am treasurer of, tend to see doomsday. I've heard "end of all train service in two years". I think that is extreme. I have heard others, including Jishnu Mukerji (JIS) and James T. Raleigh, whose intelligence and awareness of what goes on, and understanding of politics are much better than mine, who think that impact will be fairly limited, and business as usual is likely to continue.

I expect some cuts. The Sunset and Cardinal have a decent chance of getting the axe. I don't expect the end of Amtrak. And I don't expect great respect for transit riders. Dave once told me, "It took [blank] years for blacks to get the civil rights they were granted at the end of the war, and it took [blank] years for women to get suffrage. It will take even longer for transit riders to get the rights they deserve, and lost with GM's dismantling of our nations transit system." I agree completely. Transit will get respect when the average man depends on transit, and not before.

 

[the_traveler]

Americans always think that the cost to drive is only the cost of fuel they out into their cars!

But they conveniently "forget" about the federal subsidies used to build and maintain the roads they drive in!

And the cost of flying coast to coast for $99 or $159 is great, but if you remove the subsidies for the FAA, ATC, airports, etc... (and had the airlines pay those expenses), you would never see those fares again!

If you remove those subsidies for roads and flying, Amtrak would make a profit!

But Americans would not go along with "paying more to drive or fly"!

The only way it could be done is to reduce them little by little, and increase Amtrak's subsidy by that amount.

I highly doubt this would ever happen!

 

[NAVYBLUE]

As I was looking at Amtrak posters and artwork, the question came to mind, will train travel ever get back to the success it once enjoyed? I don't mean the white linen and fresh flowers, but Frequencies and Expansion of services. Since I have been on this form, we have lost part of the Sunset Limited, but gained more Virginia service. But, no other increases or decreases. Sunset Limited reduction was inevitable, it just needed an excuse. I wonder if the public has had enough of air travel expenses and airport hassles to return to trains. Travel by car is even an outlandish expense, last time I drove cross country it was $1000 plus stress and fatigue, no more of that for me.

Republicans seem to hate trains

Democrats embrace the train travel concept.

Who will win the White House dictates how/if Amtrak succeeds, I suppose.

The massive cutbacks promised, did not happen, as many predicted here.

So, I am thinking out loud, will the increase of Amtrak routes continue with the new equipment arrivals and will states anti up for their fair share?

Is Amtrak back on track for success and the re-invention of Rail Travel?

NO !!!!

1. America has a love affair with the automobile and it is hard to convince them to take a train if they can get to a destination in (2) 8 hour drive days.

2. Most of America does not know Amtrak has long distance train travel. When I got on Facebook to tell family/friends about my 12/11 LAX-CHI-BAL and 1/8 return, most said "A train ?". Most of my family/friends are college educated, cross different

political parties and are social media and techno savy. Other than my daughter/SIL and son virtually none were aware of LD train travel. They live from Maine to S.C. and MD to UT. Yet they were unaware of LD travel, but knew of the ACELA (Northeast US family/friends) and their local Metro/Metra/ LTrains.

3. So, what is causing this. Go to this site (http://www.infrastru...ough-the-years/). It shows Amtrak ads from the 70s which I remember. Could you envision 2012 Amtrak ads for the CS with the CA coast, the EB

going through Glacier/Montana, the CZ going through the Rockies, the SWC going through the AZ/NM desert/canyonlands, the SL going through Texas pararie or New Orleans. You can't sell your product if people don't know it exists.

If people think the President or the GOP hopefuls care about Amtrak LD trains you are delusional. The HSR serves Obama's base. The inner city, the metro state/county/federal union workers, the Democrat voting rail fans, the inner city businesses and assorted special interest groups(union construction). The Amtrak cuts from the GOP are red meat for conservatives like me.

But I am not fooled. The sausage is made in the sub-committees and all the Obama/GOP yapping is political B.S. Below is a piece I penned on another thread. The (4) Congress critters from my former home state of 62 years (3Rs/1D) have a vested interest in freight/passenger train expansion for the reasons I outlined. Those are the ones you need to watch. Bud Shuster Sr ® was the king of pork from PA with John Murtha (D) and their successors see Amtrak/freight as the future for PA's economic development. Below is my screed from a previous post.

" I hear rumblings from fairly reliable offices that the 1 billion plus deficit that AMTRAK runs is a drop in the bucket and relatively safe as certain Congressmen in Pennsylvania have an interest in getting more money NOT less money to AMTRAK.

Number one is the desire to extend the "Morristown Line" that presently goes from N.Y. Penn Station to Hackettstown, NJ in western N.J. all the way to Delaware Water Gap/Stroudsburg, PA just across the state line. The program is to buy the right of

way from a freight line whose name escapes me right now that would complete the system. Although it is not an Amtrak train, it is a line that receives Fed money.

The N.E, Pennsylvania area has exploded in population over the last (20) years I lived there. A line from the PA/NJ state to line to NYP serves (2) important purposes. First it would provide transportation for some of the approximately 2,000-3,000 people who commute Mon-Fri 1 1/2- 2 hours one way by bus/car to work in eastern NJ and NYC. The prices of houses/taxes and quality of education continues to draw more NJ/NY residents year after year after year to move to Northeast PA. The second reason are the all season resorts and ski resort that are reachable within 1 1/2-2 hours by car. A daily train would support both these endeavors. It would help PA very much economically.In addition there is a casino within 20 minutes of where a train station terminus would be in Stroudsburg, PA.

Secondly of the (28) members on the sub-committee that funds trains and infrastructure, (4) are from Pennsylvania. We have the committee stacked as a lot of interstate commerce goes through PA. It has always been that way. Three (Rs) and one (D). All (4) share two things in common. Each one represents a district that encompasses part of Harrisburg, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia and Northeast Pennsylvania that the Pennsylvanian runs through or near. Each one of those has a casino less than 4 years old. Their dream is to have a DAILY Pennsylvanian run from NYP and past Pittsburgh to Cleveland. The reasons are thus:

1. Casinos

2. Baseball/Football/College/Hockey in the cities or along the route

3. Lancaster, PA- Amish country and Pennsylvania Dutch.

4. Ski resorts at or near (5) of the spots

5. Business travelers

6. Leaf peepers during the fall<br style="mso-special-character:line-break"> <br style="mso-special-character:line-break">

75% of the tourists in PA are from NY, NJ, DE, and Ohio. The casinos weld a lot of power. Why do you think Sen Reid wants the HSR to Las Vegas. The faster you can get them there, the more time they have to spend money. The PA group doesn't want speed, they just want them there.

You can forget all the loud mouthing off from Mica. ALL politicians speak with forked tongue. He wants what he wants and to get the (4) votes from PA for his pet projects he is going to support more money for their projects. And the Pennsylvanian/Amtrak is big on the radar screen of those for (4) guys.

Amtrak is not going away. It's a **** ant on a very large ant hole as far as expenditures go. So sleep good tonight, Amtrak will live to fight another day."

NAVYBLUE

 

[zepherdude]

Remind me next time I decide to start a discussion, not to, so I wont be called "Delusional" from a person that has no idea who I am

 

[NAVYBLUE]

Remind me next time I decide to start a discussion, not to, so I wont be called "Delusional" from a person that has no idea who I am

Zepherdude,

My bad. I changed it to "people" vice "you" It was not meant to be personal. I was using "you" as a collective pronoun. Sorry.

NAVYBLUE

PS: Lived (20) years in the Poconos after (28) years in the NAVY and spent time up your way in Narrowsburg, NY area eagle watching. Moved to Nevada. tired of snow.

 

[trainviews]

Is Amtrak back on track for success and the re-invention of Rail Travel?

In terms of the much beloved LD's - no.

It might be possible to preserve the system on a level roughly on par with today, but that is probably it. And the problem isn't even political. Even if plane tickets go up by several hundred procent, for crossing half a continent flying is still going to be the most feasible for the far majority of the market simply because of time. Amtrak is here forever a niche market catering to people who will or cannot fly, holiday makers taking the train for the experience and not least people going to intermediate stops where the train is the only alternative to driving. High gas and airline prices will add some traffic of people who have enough time and want to go the cheapest way, but the equation doesn't fundamentally change. The bulk of passengers will fly.

The equation has changed, however on short and medium distance corridors with high or medium density. Short distance flying loses on it's biggest asset - time. Usually driving wins, but congestion can change that. And actually commuter rail and other transit has been seeing a pretty good growth and many new projects in the last decade. Short intercity corridors like the Downeaster, Keystone or parts of the NEC is doing good too.

For the medium corridors this is really where I see potential for growth. Flying has gotten slower, more expensive and more annoying. Driving hasgotten slower (in congested areas), more expensive and more annoying (congestion again). Meanwhile trains have at least potentially gotten faster and the trio of laptops, wifi and AC outlets on the train has turned wasted transport time into value time. Add into it an airline net with declining service for smaller airports sending medium sized cities scrambling for alternatives (Lynchburger....)

Now whether this growth will be a rennaissance or just incremental comes down to politics. Two routes are getting extended this year (Downeaster, Norfolk service) and others are upgrading (Lincolns, Cascades, Wolverine), several of them in preparation for more frequencies. A couple of "new" states seem to be at least considering services (Florida and less likely Kansas).

But whether this will grow into a sustained network is down to politics. The problem here is that trains and Amtrak has been turned into a hate symbol by the extreme right, and they have gotten very influential in the republican party. In states that already have a decent service, popular rail support is strong and even the conservative governors in Virginia and Michigan are wiser than to alienate the voters and swallow the Tea Party tea on the issue. Here the support is bipartisan, as it is in a state like Pennsylvania as a previous poster noted. But in a lot of other areas the conservative stance has developed from indifferent or critical to an all out high profile war against rail, and that is perilious. The flip side of the otherwise not very well thought out PRIIA provisions is that it has taken the short corridors out of federal politics, at least in terms of operating subsidy. This will protect all of the existing routes save the Hoosier, as the bipartisan coalition seems to be holding up in the rail friendly states. But as the events in Florida, Wisonsin and Ohio shows new routes will very easily get to be a political football far beyond the difficult task of getting the funding. While none of the projects were perfect in themselves, they all shared the quality of being the starters of a larger network and not reaching their full potential in the first phase. This was effectively used to shoot them down and score a few fast political points. And this makes me quite sceptical in terms of getting very far unless the basic political discourse changes in the US...

 

[NAVYBLUE]

Is Amtrak back on track for success and the re-invention of Rail Travel?

In terms of the much beloved LD's - no.

It might be possible to preserve the system on a level roughly on par with today, but that is probably it. And the problem isn't even political. Even if plane tickets go up by several hundred procent, for crossing half a continent flying is still going to be the most feasible for the far majority of the market simply because of time. Amtrak is here forever a niche market catering to people who will or cannot fly, holiday makers taking the train for the experience and not least people going to intermediate stops where the train is the only alternative to driving. High gas and airline prices will add some traffic of people who have enough time and want to go the cheapest way, but the equation doesn't fundamentally change. The bulk of passengers will fly.

The equation has changed, however on short and medium distance corridors with high or medium density. Short distance flying loses on it's biggest asset - time. Usually driving wins, but congestion can change that. And actually commuter rail and other transit has been seeing a pretty good growth and many new projects in the last decade. Short intercity corridors like the Downeaster, Keystone or parts of the NEC is doing good too.

For the medium corridors this is really where I see potential for growth. Flying has gotten slower, more expensive and more annoying. Driving hasgotten slower (in congested areas), more expensive and more annoying (congestion again). Meanwhile trains have at least potentially gotten faster and the trio of laptops, wifi and AC outlets on the train has turned wasted transport time into value time. Add into it an airline net with declining service for smaller airports sending medium sized cities scrambling for alternatives (Lynchburger....)

Now whether this growth will be a rennaissance or just incremental comes down to politics. Two routes are getting extended this year (Downeaster, Norfolk service) and others are upgrading (Lincolns, Cascades, Wolverine), several of them in preparation for more frequencies. A couple of "new" states seem to be at least considering services (Florida and less likely Kansas).

But whether this will grow into a sustained network is down to politics. The problem here is that trains and Amtrak has been turned into a hate symbol by the extreme right, and they have gotten very influential in the republican party. In states that already have a decent service, popular rail support is strong and even the conservative governors in Virginia and Michigan are wiser than to alienate the voters and swallow the Tea Party tea on the issue. Here the support is bipartisan, as it is in a state like Pennsylvania as a previous poster noted. But in a lot of other areas the conservative stance has developed from indifferent or critical to an all out high profile war against rail, and that is perilious. The flip side of the otherwise not very well thought out PRIIA provisions is that it has taken the short corridors out of federal politics, at least in terms of operating subsidy. This will protect all of the existing routes save the Hoosier, as the bipartisan coalition seems to be holding up in the rail friendly states. But as the events in Florida, Wisonsin and Ohio shows new routes will very easily get to be a political football far beyond the difficult task of getting the funding. While none of the projects were perfect in themselves, they all shared the quality of being the starters of a larger network and not reaching their full potential in the first phase. This was effectively used to shoot them down and score a few fast political points. And this makes me quite sceptical in terms of getting very far unless the basic political discourse changes in the US...

I agree with most of what you said. I think the future for expansion is the 6-8 hour MD (medium distance) trains. That range is where I think the leisure consumer says the hassle of a plane is countered by the train with less hassles, more comfort and possibly a day trip with no overnight (sleeper ?) requirement IF the schedule is right. It "might" appeal to the business person who wants to say go from Pittsburgh to points west(Chicago), east (NYC), south (DC) and north (NYC/Hartford, CT) as along as Amtrak has the foresight to back fit the older cars and have the new ones have Wi-Fi, electric outlets and workspace for the business person to do work en route to a business meeting. That is where I see the future of Amtrak.

As I also mentioned, you can't sell a product like Amtrak to people if they don't know you exist. I think the type ads from the 70s need to "sell": Amtrak to my generation. The boomers, more than any previous generation, has more disposable income and are discovering the beauty of this country through the Travel channel and Discovery channel and more and more of them are doing more outdoor things like hiking, biking, boating, wildlife watching, sightseeing and camping. IF, you get that generation on the train, guess who also can get introduced to trains. GRAND KIDS !!! I am looking forward to going to MD and bringing mine back to Nevada by train. Need to spend money to make money. Need more advertising.

I am going to let you in on a secret BUT you can't tell anyone else. I have been a conservative since about 1980. I have NEVER, NEVER, NEVER had a fellow conservative say, "Lets get rid of Amtrak". The 2011 federal budget was about 3.456 trillion. The Amtrak subsidy was about 1.3 billion or about .004% of the budget. You really think that is the main focus of conservatives or that they care about that amount. The real red meat is in giving money for social programs that still have not solved the problems after 47 years (1964-LBJs Good Deals)

No Amtrak will live to fight another day. HSR will be fought by conservatives as the Acela program showed with it's over runs/technical problems because the government insisted on building from scratch instead of using quality engines and cars from other world wide systems that would have sufficed. Conservatives remember this article (http://www.nytimes.c...al/24acela.html) and also present day articles that the California HSR is running into financial/political problems

NAVYBLUE

 

[George Harris]

GML, I am trying to think of a polite way to say it, but am failing. You want a 40% tax rate???? If so, feel free to write a check to Uncle Sam for the difference between what you are paying now and the 40%. What needs to happen is the government to get real and reduce expenditures by doing it more wisely. That is what has to be done individually or in business.

* * * *

I see here the some of the same discussion that seems to go on every time long distance trains are discussed by politicians. Do not lose sight of the fact that long distance trains carry a lot more than end to end passengers. The can and do function like a series of overlapping short to medium distance trains with people getting on and off at all stops between end points. If the general timekeeping would improve we would be seeing a lot more of these short and medium distance travelers on the long distance trains.

As the point has been made, given wifi, trains would be a lot more business person friendly. Even if your end to end time by air is less, it is usually almost entirely lost time. When you get on the trian, you can sit down and pull out your laptop without delay, so your lost time when traveling is much less.

 

[NAVYBLUE]

GML, I am trying to think of a polite way to say it, but am failing. You want a 40% tax rate???? If so, feel free to write a check to Uncle Sam for the difference between what you are paying now and the 40%. What needs to happen is the government to get real and reduce expenditures by doing it more wisely. That is what has to be done individually or in business.

* * * *

I see here the some of the same discussion that seems to go on every time long distance trains are discussed by politicians. Do not lose sight of the fact that long distance trains carry a lot more than end to end passengers. The can and do function like a series of overlapping short to medium distance trains with people getting on and off at all stops between end points. If the general timekeeping would improve we would be seeing a lot more of these short and medium distance travelers on the long distance trains.

As the point has been made, given wifi, trains would be a lot more business person friendly. Even if your end to end time by air is less, it is usually almost entirely lost time. When you get on the trian, you can sit down and pull out your laptop without delay, so your lost time when traveling is much less.

GH,

I agree. I am new to train travel so I don't know a lot about consists. I think the LD could be used to fill in as MD (medium distance) to attract business travelers. Say leave PGH for NYP on a Sunday morning for a Monday meeting in NYP. After early Monday meeting, return to PGH. But,

1. Can you attract the business traveler with the "right" kind of advertising ?

2. Can the LD schedule be modified to accommodate the business traveler for MD trips one way of 4-8 hours and not mess up the present schedules for LD leisure passengers ?

3. Are there enough BC coaches out there to add to LD trains to be used by business travelers ?

4. Is it technologically possible to have consistent WiFi on LD trains for the business traveler ?

Again, I think the future is advertising to attract the baby boomers for leisure travel and the business traveler for MD travel on a LD train.

NAVYBLUE

 

[Anderson]

I agree with Navyblue's comments. A lot of the trouble is:

1) Getting enough well-timed frequencies between major destinations. At the present, you've got a lot of "good" corridors (the extended NEC, a couple on the West Coast, and some areas around Chicago)...but also some mediocre-to-awful ones. NYP-PGH is a bad one right now (as noted above). In some cases, with longer trains (overnight and otherwise), you get into jams: For example, on the NEC LD trains, you can get WAS/PHL or PHL/NYP within a "good" arrival slot (say, 7:00 AM-9:00 AM) in the morning with one train. You can't get all three into that slot, so to get a good morning arrival time for all three (say, from RVR), you need two trains. Going the other way, for a "good" evening departure time (4:30-6:30 PM), you need two trains, because either that train has to leave NYP before 4:00 to hit WAS by 6:30, or it has to hit WAS at about 8:00 to leave NYP after 4:00.

2) I think you can attract the business traveler with the "right" advertising and the "right" schedule...but again, you need to provide a good shot at them being able to spend most of "9-to-5" at their destination. A 10:00 AM arrival isn't necessarily a killer, and neither is a 3:00 PM departure, but both together can squeeze that trip a bit more than would be desirable. You also need enough frequencies to allow for at least a little flexibility in trips. As much as hourly trains would be nice, in a lot of cases simply getting two in the morning and one in the evening in the "dominant" direction (i.e. northbound for NPN-WAS) would be sufficient to at least make inroads into the market.

A good example here is that for Norfolk-WAS, a 5 AM departure, an 8 AM departure, and a 5 PM departure would be a good combination: The first gets you to WAS by about 9 AM. The second hits Richmond sometime around 9:30 AM and WAS about noon. The last one allows someone on a "backwards" trip to get to DC at a sane hour in the evening (9 PM) while giving them the full day in Hampton Roads. Southbound, one morning departure (perhaps around 6 AM) and two evening departures (3 PM and 5:30 PM) would allow a reasonable arrival time in Norfolk for that backwards trip, a decent Richmond-Norfolk time (the 3 PM would hit Richmond around 5:00-5:30 PM and Norfolk around 7 PM), and a "full day in DC" time (the 5:30 PM would still get folks home by 9:30 PM).

Hampton Roads to New York is instructive in how those longer trips can be a pain in the rear: That 5 AM departure gets to NYP around 1 PM (half a day lost), the 8 AM hits NYP around 4 PM (oops, just lost the whole day en route), while the 5 PM hits NYP at 1 AM or thereabouts (yuck!). Southbound, your 5:30 PM departure from WAS leaves NYP at 1:30 PM, the 3 PM leaves NYP around 11-11:30 AM, while the 6 AM leaves NYP at 2 AM. None of those are great, though a set-out sleeper on the 2 AM from NYP wouldn't be too bad.

I'd also note that in some cases, setting out sleepers one way or the other might be an answer. If the Meteor "dropped" a sleeper in WAS at 6 AM, it could be in NYP by around 9:30 much of the time. The sleeper could basically be thrown on the first regional leaving after "check out time" and just arrive in Sunnyside a little later than the rest of the train (though with the current schedule, a few hours on that front wouldn't be the end of the world). Southbound, setting out that sleeper is far less necessary unless the Meteor reverts to a later departure out of NYP (say, 7 PM). Mind you, this is helped by the presence of lots and lots of trains that can deadhead the sleeper north...but the point is that it is doable (of course, if the train is badly enough late, you just drop those folks off in WAS normally and run the sleeper through to NYP on the Meteor with no real hiccup).

 

[NomDePlume]

With more auto trains, a major ad campaign, and some cool celebrity sightings you might could get the up and coming generations interested. Outside of that I don't see it happening unless gov't is willing to make serious investment.

 

[cirdan]

I have no doubt that rail travel will grow in importance in the longer term?

Why?

Because cities are growing. In a rural farmland setting it is quite difficult to provide an adequate train service. The present LD trains cater for niche markets such as people who can't or won't drive and tourists who are doing it for the experience. The service isn't frequent enough and stations are in the wrong places to make such trains attractive for shopping trips or commuting to work. That's not going to happen.

But in the cities, as population grows, so is the number of cars going to grow. Congestion is more and more of a problem. In the past city planners have tried to build their way out of congestion by adding more roads. Of course they are going to continue doing that where space and conditions allow, but for cities to work efficiently there has to be an alternative system that is independent of road congestion. Already today we are seeing more and more new commuter systems starting up and my prediction is that this trend will continue with new lines and systems starting and existing lines adding frequencies. Also, shorter city hops will be more and more attractive for the same reason. So cities that are one hour or two hours apart will start running inter city trains. Amtrak may be getting some of the action but local commuter rail lines may also be expanding in that direction. So all in all it will not be a change of politics that causes rail to expand but the necessity caused by demographic development.

It's no coincidence that the world's most densely populated countries also have teh best rail systems. Some things don't happen because people want them to happen but because the conditions make them happen.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

GML, I am trying to think of a polite way to say it, but am failing. You want a 40% tax rate???? If so, feel free to write a check to Uncle Sam for the difference between what you are paying now and the 40%. What needs to happen is the government to get real and reduce expenditures by doing it more wisely. That is what has to be done individually or in business.

* * * *

I don't want to turn into an off topic rant, but two things: First of all, I didn't say, and don't say, that I need or want a 40% tax rate. I am simply tired of various people saying that our current spending rate is not fiscally possible, is not practical, can not be done, and so forth. Desirable or not, it is sustainable, can be done, and isn't a huge problem, if the tax rate was raised to about 40% average. A huge percentage of that average would be closing loopholes for the well off. I'm not asking for it, I'm just tired of people declaring the impossibility of the perfectly possible. We have one of the lowest tax rates of the industrialized world, and our tax rate is not one of the things stifling our growth, whatever the political nincompoops would have you believe. A 3.18 trillion budget means an average tax payment of $12,500 per person. Why this is "impossible" is beyond me. Desirable? Maybe not. Possible, yes.

That being said, it is my fondest wish to cut the IRS a $1,000,000 quarterly check. Cuz lets face it, even if I am taxed at 40%, that means I've made about $10,000,000 for the year, and I can keep $6,000,000 of it. Which means I would shortly be permanently retired.

 

[the_traveler]

With more auto trains, a major ad campaign, and some cool celebrity sightings you might could get the up and coming generations interested. Outside of that I don't see it happening unless gov't is willing to make serious investment.

Not to generalize, but the "older" generation seem to know about trains, the "middle" generation not so much (cars and airlines more), but the "younger" generation are more attracted to rail - especially with mass transit. These are those most likely to take Amtrak!

And there are many celebrity sightings on Amtrak happening more and more! Some even tweet their trips! (Free advertising and awareness!)

 

[NomDePlume]

With more auto trains, a major ad campaign, and some cool celebrity sightings you might could get the up and coming generations interested. Outside of that I don't see it happening unless gov't is willing to make serious investment.

Not to generalize, but the "older" generation seem to know about trains, the "middle" generation not so much (cars and airlines more), but the "younger" generation are more attracted to rail - especially with mass transit. These are those most likely to take Amtrak!

And there are many celebrity sightings on Amtrak happening more and more! Some even tweet their trips! (Free advertising and awareness!)

Cool. I think I fall more into that "middle generation". Lots of car and plane trips, but this will be our first train trip. Maybe because of bad experiences on the subway during a NYC trip (it was hot and smelly and nauseating) and just plain ol' never lived anywhere it was a real option.

 

[Shawn Ryu]

GML, I am trying to think of a polite way to say it, but am failing. You want a 40% tax rate???? If so, feel free to write a check to Uncle Sam for the difference between what you are paying now and the 40%. What needs to happen is the government to get real and reduce expenditures by doing it more wisely. That is what has to be done individually or in business.

* * * *

I don't want to turn into an off topic rant, but two things: First of all, I didn't say, and don't say, that I need or want a 40% tax rate. I am simply tired of various people saying that our current spending rate is not fiscally possible, is not practical, can not be done, and so forth. Desirable or not, it is sustainable, can be done, and isn't a huge problem, if the tax rate was raised to about 40% average. A huge percentage of that average would be closing loopholes for the well off. I'm not asking for it, I'm just tired of people declaring the impossibility of the perfectly possible. We have one of the lowest tax rates of the industrialized world, and our tax rate is not one of the things stifling our growth, whatever the political nincompoops would have you believe. A 3.18 trillion budget means an average tax payment of $12,500 per person. Why this is "impossible" is beyond me. Desirable? Maybe not. Possible, yes.

That being said, it is my fondest wish to cut the IRS a $1,000,000 quarterly check. Cuz lets face it, even if I am taxed at 40%, that means I've made about $10,000,000 for the year, and I can keep $6,000,000 of it. Which means I would shortly be permanently retired.

Just because it can be done doesnt mean it should be done.

Besides if US cuts their defense budget by even 1/5, bet they can sustain Amtrak for another 3 decades with the money they save plus more.

Cutting spending doesnt necessarily mean it has to be the end of Amtrak.

 

[GG-1]

And there are many celebrity sightings on Amtrak happening more and more! Some even tweet their trips! (Free advertising and awareness!)

True Some of us saw you recently! :giggle:

Aloha

 

[the_traveler]

I don't tweet anymore, I grad-de-u-a-ted to blogging!

 

[Oldsmoboi]

Only once the gas tax is increased to more acurately reflect the cost of running the nation's road systems. Even doing a more accurate state tax for state funded roads and county tax for county funded roads is needed.

However, some of that gas tax could even be used to fund public transit because there often cases where funding mass transit is cheaper than funding highway/roadway expansion.

 

[TexRail]

As I was looking at Amtrak posters and artwork, the question came to mind, will train travel ever get back to the success it once enjoyed? I don't mean the white linen and fresh flowers, but Frequencies and Expansion of services. Since I have been on this form, we have lost part of the Sunset Limited, but gained more Virginia service. But, no other increases or decreases. Sunset Limited reduction was inevitable, it just needed an excuse. I wonder if the public has had enough of air travel expenses and airport hassles to return to trains. Travel by car is even an outlandish expense, last time I drove cross country it was $1000 plus stress and fatigue, no more of that for me.

Republicans seem to hate trains

Democrats embrace the train travel concept.

Who will win the White House dictates how/if Amtrak succeeds, I suppose.

The massive cutbacks promised, did not happen, as many predicted here.

So, I am thinking out loud, will the increase of Amtrak routes continue with the new equipment arrivals and will states anti up for their fair share?r

Is Amtrak back on track for success and the re-invention of Rail Travel?

Not all Republicans hate trains. If not for Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX), the Texas Eagle (known at the time as just The Eagle) would have been discontinued in late 1996. The service continued with a lot of support. So much so, that the Texas legislature voted to help subsidize the route to save it from the chopping block and the route was renamed the Texas Eagle. All from a very red state full of politicians that "hate trains". So you are wrong on that point. Where Republicans annoy me is their belief that passenger rail travel should be self-sustaining. No travel system anywhere in the world is self sustaining that I can think of. Highways are not fully paid for with gasoline taxes or tolls. The amount of money the feds pay for airports makes airlines possible. Imagine how expensive flying would be if the govt didn't subsidize the airports, air traffic control, nav aids, etc. I am a pilot and have flown to some really small airports (most without airline service) that hardly anyone flies to and those airports wouldn't exist without govt help so the notion that Amtrak has to be self-sustaining is not fair when the airlines enjoy a lot more govt money than Amtrak (probably even counting dollars per passenger but I can't back that up right now).

Until the above mentality changes, we will continue to be a flying/driving nation.