Anderson possible changes: Dismantling LD, Corridor, Etc.

eolesen wrote: Ultimately, Amtrak’s problem on the LD “network” isn’t speed. It is a lack of interest by the general public to take a “rail cruise” when they simply want to get from A to B as quickly and economically as possible. Nothing anyone at Amtrak can do will overcome that. We aren’t Europe where freight rarely goes by rail, or Asia where population density and dedicated ROW make high speed practical.

Isn't ridership up systemwide?

https://media.amtrak.com/2017/11/amtrak ... s-records/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

charlesriverbranch wrote:Chasing profitability is like pursuing the horizon; you can never get there. There is no mode of transportation that isn't subsidized.

The Massachusetts Turnpike Extension, part of I-90, with a toll of $1.70 over 11.3 miles or 15¢/mile earns a profit (or earned a profit in the past), despite road construction costs that average triple the national average.

BandA wrote:

charlesriverbranch wrote:Chasing profitability is like pursuing the horizon; you can never get there. There is no mode of transportation that isn't subsidized.

The Massachusetts Turnpike Extension, part of I-90, with a toll of $1.70 over 11.3 miles or 15¢/mile earns a profit (or earned a profit in the past), despite road construction costs that average triple the national average.

Fair, and other toll roads (Illinois, Ohio, Florida) are profitably managed by holding companies. But they still don’t exist in a vacuum, and a lot of public money goes into the network that links the Turnpikes to the destinations. Amtrak shares some of toll roads’ and airlines’ advantages, but definitely not others.

. But they still don’t exist in a vacuum, and a lot of public money goes into the network that links the Turnpikes to the destinations.

Exactly. For the better part of a century now the United States has used public money (city streets, free parking), tax expenditures (tax deductible mortgage interest), mortgage guarantees, zoning and other elements of public policy to create a country in which most people need a car to live at all conveniently, and many people need a car to be able to work and shop at all. Private investors have done the same, from mall and subdivision developers to companies choosing to locate where employees more or less have to drive.

Next to that, all the state, local, and federal transit, bike paths, intercity rail, and intercity bus subsidies are a pretty tiny pile of money and resources.

Once people own a car, it is much harder to get them to pay the full cost of any other mode of transport. Once nearly everyone owns a car, it become politically difficult to tax gas enough to discourage driving (and the pollution and huge highways, parking lots, etc.) that go with it, or even to cover the cost of the road system. Once people know there is a gas tax, they miss the fact that a lot of general revenue also goes to streets and other car infrastructure. When people in the US hear that Europe, Japan, and some other places tax gas and cars at very high levels as luxuries and provide really frequent public transportation all over, many of them cry out socialism, because they don't understand that government policy shapes and subsidizes the car-based society they live in.

I guess many forget the western railroads in particular received half of the land in the townships adjacent to the right of way to sell in raising funds for construction and pre profitability operations.

John_Perkowski wrote:I guess many forget the western railroads in particular received half of the land in the townships adjacent to the right of way to sell in raising funds for construction and pre profitability operations.

That's true. I read a good book a few years back that told the saga of how we got to where we are now, entitled Getting There: The Epic Struggle between Road and Rail in the American Century.

John_Perkowski wrote:I guess many forget the western railroads in particular received half of the land in the townships adjacent to the right of way to sell in raising funds for construction and pre profitability operations.

But not my MILW, Colonel

But where in the provisions of the Land Grants did it state a road was required to provide any class of service. Regulation did not come abound until 1887 with the Interstate Commerce Act.

Are you certain the MILW didn't get any land grants?... CMC (the remains of the MILW estate that weren't picked up by SOO) was still doing land sales into the late 80s and early 90's along the Pacific Extension. It's still a legal entity as well if I recall, but may have since changed names.

Some of the people pushing for this seem to want something that is unobtainable. They want a railroad that combines the speed and efficiency of the Shinkansen with the luxury of the Orient Express at the price of the Moscow Metro.

He's changing Amtrak, Amtrak needs to change. Some changes are bad. I don't like the cold dinners on the eastern trains. I think that they could have found a way to serve hot food. Some changes are good, the idea of assigned seats, I can't wait.

gprimr1 wrote: He's changing Amtrak, Amtrak needs to change. Some changes are bad. I don't like the cold dinners on the eastern trains. I think that they could have found a way to serve hot food. Some changes are good, the idea of assigned seats, I can't wait.

The idea that sleeper passengers should get worse food service than Acela first class seems bonkers to me.

John_Perkowski wrote:I guess many forget the western railroads in particular received half of the land in the townships adjacent to the right of way to sell in raising funds for construction and pre profitability operations.

It should be noted that at the time of the land grants any land more than a half-day by horse and wagon from a navigable waterway was fit only for subsistence farming since there was no way of getting anything to distant markets at an affordable price to the consumer. The land was as good as worthless until the coming of the railroad; it gained in value only because the railroad was there. And in the early years traffic was mostly westbound except for a harvest once or twice a year (when no doubt there were complaints of car shortages).

I'd like to see regular writing from Anderson laying out his strategy. If he has a valid plan he should lay it out for everybody to see so that people can either get behind it or change it to a better plan. This could be in the form of "blog posts", folksy writing like we used to get from Radio Shack CEO, or the well written articles in the NYC employee newsletter and annual reports. Amtrak is a sorta monopoly, so it shouldn't be afraid of competitors stealing it's ideas.

I think it is time to accept that when President Trump leaves office during January 2025. there will be an Amtrak, but it will hardly be "Amtrak as we know it".

Simplified Dining on LD trains will only go one way, if Amtrak is successful in truncating, if not outright discontinuing, the Chief - not that it's a "basket case" so far as public acceptance, but rather because the maintenance of a good portion of its route represents "cash out the cookie jar" and not simply an assignment of costs - the "basket cases" will follow.

All told, it will be a new day - and Congress has placed it's bets with the record $1.9, that new philosophy will result in providing intercity transportation in the markets that demonstrate the need for such - and not rolling pork barrels.

Gilbert B Norman wrote:I think it is time to accept that when President Trump leaves office during January 2025. there will be an Amtrak, but it will hardly be "Amtrak as we know it".

I hold out a grain of hope that Congress fights the attempts to dismantle Amtrak.

Turing our attention back on topic: https://www.dropbox.com/s/397rbtfluu9ui ... 4.pdf?dl=0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And: http://railpac.org/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

There is no question now Deltalina Dick and his acolytes are attempting to dismantle the LD system. No traveler is going to endure a train to the bus to the train transfers. It will be a self fulfilling prophecy of discouraging ridership, and then the final blow will be total elimination of truncated service due to "low ridership".

I'm also surprised how the unions have been extremely quiet on this.

Continue petitioning your elected officials (who work for you, by the way), and RPA to stop these proposed travesties. Haul Deltalina Dick and his lackeys in before Congressional Oversight Committees to explain on the record his objective to dismantle the LD system.