CBS: more americans taking the train

http://www.narprail.org/cms/index.php/n ... _the_rise/

a very pro rail piece of reporting . Short interview wiht Latenburg and Kummant .

That's a very nice piece. Great summary of the issues. 69% nationwide on-time performance doesn't seem that bad. However, the NEC must really be holding that average up.

Finch wrote:That's a very nice piece. Great summary of the issues. 69% nationwide on-time performance doesn't seem that bad. However, the NEC must really be holding that average up.

Not only that, but many of the rest of the routes run on a VERY slow time card. If you take the NEC out of the picture and talk about the average velocity of Amtrak the number would be a national embarrisment. You can't cover that up with ontime performance, a 69% success rate in reaching a very low standard in anything in nothing to brag about.

People will take any mode of transportation that will get them to their destination on time. Unfortunatly, the transportation system in the US doesn't give us that very often. The NEC is the only line that allows for on time travel almost all the time. If only people would stop looking into expanding already massive, congested highways and stop looking into building more airports that can't guarantee you an on time flight due to weather and other factors. I think the main problem is the majority of people in this country, particularly outside the NEC, haven't looked into other possible transportation solutions. The only state outside the NEC that I've seen so far looking into high speed rail solutions is California (Watch this video). I think there are three states that are going to explode in populations within 30 years. The states are New York (generally around the city), California and Florida. Florida is the state that is going to end up in trouble. It looks fine now and is fine but once metropolitian areas such as Tampa and Orlando grow, the need to get from one city to another efficiently is also going to grow. I don't think people want to be stuck in a traffic jam in the middle of I-95 traveling between Miami and Orlando or on I-4 between Tampa and Orlando. Jacksonville will probably catch up population wise sometime between 30 and 50 years and then you're going to have people going in all directions. Hopefully people will see the potential for high-speed rail soon.

According to the Travel Industry Association in December 2007 Amtrak ridership was up 11.7% over December 2006. Also in December 2007, domestic passenger enplanements were down 4.1%, demand for gasoline was even with 06 and demand for hotel rooms fell. So Amtrak is attracting significantly more passengers even though overall demand for travel seems to be trending downward.

In the first quarter of FY08 (Oct-Dec 2007) every Amtrak route had an increase in ridership, and that includes every one of the LD trains. Overall the LDs were up by 8.1% in the first quarter.

Amtrak President and CEO Alex Kummant says he feels Amtrak could grow ridership “between 50 and 100 percent in the next 15 years

That would wonderful if it happened, though I'm sure the forum would be crowded by "Trains too crowded" posts!

Might be a good time to get all of that equipment in Bear, DE and Beech Grove, IN out of storage!

Call, e mail or write your congressional reps and US sentaros and tell them to strongly support Amtrak!!! Ignore the lame duck (and lame brained) Bush!!!

capecodlocoguy wrote:Call, e mail or write your congressional reps and US sentaros and tell them to strongly support Amtrak!!! Ignore the lame duck (and lame brained) Bush!!!

I tend to ignore such comments; because there's no way I'm going to change their minds or they mine. BUT...some perspective is in order.

I made (as a locomotive engineer) $61k last year. After taxes, my take-home was $42k.

Now, Amtrak is not, repeat NOT, going to meet any of my transportation needs in its current form. I'll still need a car; and I'll still need to drive it to work.

On vacation and leisure travel, I SAVE MONEY by flying or driving. Amtrak is at best a leisure-time activity; for travel TO GET TO SOMEPLACE it's neither practical nor money-saving.

Now...increased subsidies for Amtrak are not going to materially benefit me. Even if costs were HALVED for passengers, it would at best be a toss-up - time versus speed, on leisure travel.

Nor will it lessen the legitimate claim of other programs on the Federal budget.

So...what is being advocated here is MORE of my tax money for a service THAT DOES NOT BENEFIT ME; that CAN NOT BENEFIT ME except for an extraordinary once-in-a-lifetime event; or for retirement leisure travel.

That is neither just nor wise nor fair to the taxpayer.

The ONLY other way Amtrak-style transit will get a clientele...will be be by government compulsion, further regulating private or air transport.

Which leads to the question: is a subsidized transit system better when the only way to gain a ridership is to somehow FORCE people onto it? Is a working family benefitted when with a week's vacation, they have to spend THREE DAYS each way to cross the nation to see Uncle Joe, instead of THREE HOURS on a plane?

As a railroader I'm in favor of increased railroad usage. But as a taxpayer, I'm in favor of NO SUBSIDIES for other people's leisure activities.

Conrail engineer:

I would gather that, as a freight engineer, you would rather not have passenger trains getting in the way of moving freight, which from your point of view is clearly a much greater revenue producer. (Not to mention the fact that Amtrak trains are a general pain in the ass because they get in the way and screw up your schedules.)

However, you should note, that if done right, as per the Downeaster, Amtrak and freight can happily co-exist on the same line, if the passenger trains run on time and adequate time is allowed for freight movement. Those taxpayer subsidies you bemoan also go to track maintenance and upgrades, which directly benefit freight operations. More enlightened freight railroads have begun to see that passenger rail can be a significant revenue enhancer. In the future, this is a partnership which can and should grow to be mutually beneficial.

trainhq wrote:Conrail engineer:

I would gather that, as a freight engineer, you would rather not have passenger trains getting in the way of moving freight, which from your point of view is clearly a much greater revenue producer. (Not to mention the fact that Amtrak trains are a general pain in the ass because they get in the way and screw up your schedules.)

Has nothing to do with it - Amtrak is seldom in my way and we don't HAVE a schedule. Point A to Point B, inside of twelve hours - that's our schedule. If we get to the other end inside of twelve, they burn the clock by holding us outside the yard.

I don't really care, as someone in an operating craft, what is the higher revenue cargo. TOFC and containers are lower revenue; yet they have higher priority. So it goes.

I'm opposed to Amtrak subsidies as a taxpayer.

However, you should note, that if done right, as per the Downeaster, Amtrak and freight can happily co-exist on the same line, if the passenger trains run on time and adequate time is allowed for freight movement.

No question; and no problem with it.

Those taxpayer subsidies you bemoan also go to track maintenance and upgrades, which directly benefit freight operations. More enlightened freight railroads have begun to see that passenger rail can be a significant revenue enhancer. In the future, this is a partnership which can and should grow to be mutually beneficial.

My opposition to subsidies go beyond paying for them; it comes from personal philosophies, which hold that it is immoral to take money from one person or group to benefit another person or group.

Freight railways, like passenger service, should be held to pay for itself. If for some reason it cannot...then it needs to go the way of wagon-trains, canalboats, and the Pony Express.

If that means my job...hey, life is tough. Jobs change with technologies; and we'd have been fools to subsidize blacksmiths' shops a hundred years ago.

The same today.

Well then, that's your point of view. Since this is a rail forum, and not a political one, I will offer no further comment.

conrail_engineer wrote:My opposition to subsidies go beyond paying for them; it comes from personal philosophies, which hold that it is immoral to take money from one person or group to benefit another person or group.

Freight railways, like passenger service, should be held to pay for itself. If for some reason it cannot...then it needs to go the way of wagon-trains, canalboats, and the Pony Express.

Good thing you don't ever take advantage of the subsidies of the air system and the road system. Oh wait....

conrail_engineer wrote:On vacation and leisure travel, I SAVE MONEY by flying or driving.

Transportation doesn't make money anywhere in the world or in any mode. It is a basic part of the framework for the economic system, like courts, laws, and police protection.

Libertarian leanings, when pure, are an interesting and attractive point of view, but ignore the realities of maintaining civilization. When they are not pure ("don't subsidize trains, but subsidize the freeways") they are dishonest and damaging.

I watched the CBS report, and I think it was a good (if basic) look at some of the current transportation issues in this nation. We are going to need to expand our transportation infrastructure if we expect to keep up economically with the EU. Our at capacity railroads are a HUGE part of that.

My opposition to subsidies go beyond paying for them; it comes from personal philosophies, which hold that it is immoral to take money from one person or group to benefit another person or group.

The real kicker is determining what constitutes a "benefit." In 2008, I will pay $7900 in Medicare and Social Security taxes. I put far more into a 401k than I pay into SS. I have my own 401k and health insurance. Since I've got at least 35 years to retire, what am I going to get for that $7900 each year?

Similarly, part of my federal taxes go to underwrite homebuying programs that I'm not eligible for because I'm not poor? What's my benefit then?

In both cases, I don't seem to benefit at all, except when you consider the alternative...hordes of homeless poor, elderly without access to health care, etc. The benefit is to the society that I live in.

In terms of Amtrak, I always remember the elderly sisters in the lower level bedroom of the Superliner car I was in while traveling from from Washing to Chicago. They were pretty frail, were equipped with oxygen tanks, and very thankful there was a train they could take to their sister's funeral. Bus and airline travel was not even remotely possible for them.

I certainly respect your opinion, and I know that when you retire, you'll assiduously keep track of the SS benefits that you receive and will stop cashing the checks when you've received an amount equal to what you contributed (plus interest).

I have had to learn alot about Libertarian ideas because Ron Paul is in the same fraternity as I am (Lambda Chi Alpha) so everyone expects me to vote for him (even though our oath basically says look for the best candiate) so I mean yeah I def. agree with FatNoah and jsmyrs.

I've also been lucky to, my grandpa was in a nursing home for 5 years and it was paid for by state and federal medicare (which I contributed too). The alternative was to either have me not go to college and help care for him, or for my grandma and aunt to loose everyone (house, farm, everything) for him to go.

BTW, did anyone find it funny that they were discussing how ontime Amtrak is and the Solari Board showed a train 20min late?