Fred Frailey Column- "It's Time"

mtuandrew wrote:since no one charges airlines by the air-mile.

Some tangentially related info, but they do charge overflight fees, though these do not apply to domestic flights (either because the cost is baked into other fees, or as a hidden subsidy for domestic air travel). It's interesting because it provides a dollar amount to the cost of providing air traffic control for a single plane in the sky for 100 nautical miles.

As for dismantling / bus-bridging the national network - this would have the negatives of rail travel combined with the negatives of air travel: long travel times, cramped seating, extra transfers, limited opportunities to stand up or get food. The same reasons touted for why high speed rail wouldn't work (our country is too big with population centers too spread out) also make bus travel that much more undesirable. Without planes or through trains, those who can't fly would sooner drive themselves across the country before taking a bus.

The long distance network may not be the most cost effective way to get people from A to B, but until we have something better, it is a necessary one. So, "it's not time".

george matthews wrote: The US is the only major industrial power that has such an undeveloped rail system.

We have a great rail system. It's just built to service freight, since we also have the most airline service of any developed country (tied to how geographically dispersed we are as a country)

hs3730 wrote: The long distance network may not be the most cost effective way to get people from A to B, but until we have something better, it is a necessary one. So, "it's not time".

Well, we do have something better.... 88% of Americans own a car... and I'd say that of the 5-10% living outside a major city who don't own a car aren't likely to be traveling cross-country very often.

Mr. Olesen: your point is taken re: passenger cars and airline travel. However there is still that 5% who you estimate do frequently drive longer distances. I’m going to go out on a limb and say that trips of 500+ miles are more like 0.05% of the 3 trillion vehicle-miles (2008 FHWA numbers) driven per year in the US, or 1.5 billion miles annually. What if Amtrak was able to siphon off 0.05% of that total in expanded auto train service? By removing 1/400,000 of total vehicle-miles, that means 7,500,000 vehicle-miles no longer clogging highways, contributing to point pollution, or risking accidents.

If Amtrak LD service generally needs a new raison d’etre, that should be it.

Expanded Auto-Trains seem like a great direction to take the LD network (as opposed to abandoning it). The amount of time an average person can reasonably drive in one day is somewhere between 6-12 hours. Draw a 6 hour radius around potential Auto Train terminals, and you have your potential customer base. Drive -> Auto Train -> Drive gets people to their destination faster, more relaxed, with less miles on the car than Drive -> Sleep -> Drive Some More -> Sleep again -> Drive.

Not to mention, freight RRs can treat it more like another freight train, since it doesn't need to make intermediate stops on any specific timetable, or use "that one track with a platform", etc...

This argument of the "can't drives, won't flys, have to get to my Doctor" overlooks one major point. Absent a relative to drive them to "Doc", this demographic gravitates to urban areas where "Doc" is a bus, taxicab, or "Medi-Van" ride away.

Finally, there must be someone out there who would prefer to ride an "inland ferry" (as distinct from a "luxocruise") from Natchez to Vicksburg rather than drive US61 "The Great River Road". Even the most "you want it, you got it" politician imaginable knows there are limits - and I think continuation, or let alone expansion as some out there advocate, of the LD system will simply represent interference with the "mission" of investor owned Class I roads in today's economy.

mtuandrew wrote:

JoeBas wrote:Why does it have to be a race to the bottom? Why can't we level a playing field without someone feeling they're being "Penalized"?

And oh yeah, things aren't perfect now, so chuck the whole thing. That's the (new) American Way, right?

In addition, Col Perkowski’s point supposes a self-fulfilling prophecy: freight hosts reduce speeds due to lack of investment, Amtrak reduces system speeds and downgrades service while raising fares, fewer people due to reduced capacity and features, Amtrak raises fares higher and cuts amenities more, people complain in ever-decreasing numbers to a Congress that hasn’t been so divided since 1859 and to an uncaring FRA, the government orders Amtrak to reduce losses, and there come the Adios drumheads — but piecemeal.

There is an alternative, gentlemen and any ladies who happen across this talk: negotiating a broad-base incentive tax credit and investment plan to improve freight capacity and passenger speeds. This could include allowing the Last Round of mergers between BNSF/CN/probably NS, UP/CP/probably CSX, and KCS to whoever gets the jump ball. It could also involve (blech) reduced government oversight. Y’all know I’m a fierce critic of this administration and its policies, but one thing they have is a direct line between the transportation industry, Congress, and the White House in SecTrans Chao. As a shipping company executive, she very intimately understands the need for intermodal transportation and speedy container trains out of Long Beach, Oakland, Tacoma, Hampton Roads, Galveston, and New York Harbor. Generally those important routes are shared by Amtrak, and would benefit both public and private interests.

Actually, I disagree with you. UP and BNSF are maintaining a chunk of their system at FRA Class 5 standards. It makes sense for the high dollar loads they move. Well maintained track, power and rolling stock are investments which pay off.

Frankly, the issue of LD passenger rail is who does it serve that another mode could not? It used to serve a political need. I’m not sure it’s worthy of 218 and 51 anymore.

mtuandrew wrote:Mr. Olesen: your point is taken re: passenger cars and airline travel. However there is still that 5% who you estimate do frequently drive longer distances.

Not quite sure how you got to that number... I was referring to vehicle ownership rates, and the likelihood that those not owning a car would be taking a long-distance trip....

But.... you're right that trips > 500 miles are < 1% of interstate traffic. They're usually once-a-year trips for families who still believe in vacations that aren't at an all-inclusive resort, or who can't afford airline tickets. Many of these are to visit family or things like National Parks which are well off the beaten path and not very navigable without your own transportation.

What if Amtrak was able to siphon off 0.05% of that total in expanded auto train service? By removing 1/400,000 of total vehicle-miles, that means 7,500,000 vehicle-miles no longer clogging highways, contributing to point pollution, or risking accidents.

If Amtrak LD service generally needs a new raison d’etre, that should be it.

Yeah, no. Vacationers aren't clogging up highways.

We considered driving to Miami for our spring break, round trip 2600 miles. That comes out to about 120 gallons of gas, less than $400 with our van and then maybe another $200 for meals @ 100 per day plus another $200 for a good hotel along the way at the halfway point. $800 all-in, and yes, there's some wear on the vehicle. Let's go with another $200 between incremental wear on tires, an oil change, etc... Now up at $1000 for six people.

Amtrak wants $1750 for Autotrain, a distance of only 1600 miles round trip, for reserved coach seats with zero flexibility to change our plans. For flexibility, it goes up to over $3500...

I'm sure it's a good option for the affluent up in the DC area, but not for everyone. Extending that to Chicago-California would cost 2 to 3x as much.

If the goal is to reduce pollution, accidents, etc. in numbers big enough to matter, you don't focus on the 0.005%. You force more long distance freight back onto the rails.

east point wrote:I have a temporary medical condition for next 10 weeks. Actually 9 weeks now. No flying, bus trips due to need to be constantly mobile, car trips as well ( 30 minute limit. So for next 9 weeks if a family emergency I a s---t out of luck. This condition is a very prevalent problem so what happens to the persons so affected?

I appreciate your position, but what does that mean? That Amtrak should run a train from your home town to any town you might need to visit? This is the same argument the remote access people make, and it doesn't hold water for the same reason. If you live in Northwest Kansas and have to get to Northern Michigan, what's the solution given today's network? Even given 1967's network that would be tough.

george matthews wrote:

David Benton wrote:You guys have been ordering the adios drumheads since these forums began. That must be coming up to 20 years.

The US is the only major industrial power that has such an undeveloped rail system.

George, I love your platitudes, but the numbers never agree with you and they sure don't today. The USA has the biggest economy, the largest rail system, the most revenue from railroads, and the most ton-miles of freight carried. See a connection? We have the most developed rail system.

JoeBas wrote:

Tadman wrote: Imagine if these people were in charge of our healthcare, too!

Because profit-motivated insurance companies making decisions on approving or denying procedures are yielding so much better results than the rest of the western world now, right?... (not to take this "political", just walking through the door that was opened for me).

We have a very good life expectancy, up there with the paragons of national health. Also, we have a very bad track record of healthcare at federal institutions like the VA. The concept does not always equal the execution, and this appears to be the same.

Tadman wrote:

george matthews wrote:

David Benton wrote:You guys have been ordering the adios drumheads since these forums began. That must be coming up to 20 years.

The US is the only major industrial power that has such an undeveloped rail system.

George, I love your platitudes, but the numbers never agree with you and they sure don't today. The USA has the biggest economy, the largest rail system, the most revenue from railroads, and the most ton-miles of freight carried. See a connection? We have the most developed rail system.

.

The UsA freight railroads excel at competing with road , moving containers over 1000 miles. But it would be hard not to be competitive in that market. They can't compete under 500 miles , whilst most "foreign " railways can and do.

Gilbert B Norman wrote:

JoeBas wrote:It comes down to this, AFAIAC - No National Network, No National Dollars.

At one time, Mr. Bas, the position you and Mr. Stephens note was sacrosanct.

But I think there has been a "backaway" from that position.

I disagree. I simply think enough ideologues on the other end have come into power to try to "call the bluff".

If it works, and the pro-transit folks agree to their hostage taking, they kill off the long distance now, and are a long first step toward killing things off completely down the line.

If it doesn't, and Congress sticks with "National or Nothing"? Well, they just kill things off completely now.

Either way is fine with them. And those of you laying down for them should be ashamed.

David Benton wrote: The UsA freight railroads excel at competing with road , moving containers over 1000 miles. But it would be hard not to be competitive in that market. They can't compete under 500 miles , whilst most "foreign " railways can and do.

Right, but why should they compete under 500 miles? (a) the europeans don't make money at it; (b) the American railroads own their entire infrastructure and make very good money in their niche. Why would they want to change? In fact, lets assume we re-regulate and require the American railroads to carry money-losing sub-500 mile freight. Currently, the largest owners of shares in American freight railroads are pension funds, money managers, and insurance companies. Those shareholdings provide security, healthcare, and retirements for millions of people. Put the railroad issues aside.

Do you want to disenfranchise those needing healthcare and pensions for retirement?

JoeBas wrote:
I disagree. I simply think enough ideologues on the other end have come into power to try to "call the bluff".

If it works, and the pro-transit folks agree to their hostage taking, they kill off the long distance now, and are a long first step toward killing things off completely down the line.

If it doesn't, and Congress sticks with "National or Nothing"? Well, they just kill things off completely now.

Either way is fine with them. And those of you laying down for them should be ashamed.

You have to spare the dramatics. Our economy, any economy, is predicated on scarcity. Scarcity of goods, time, and money. We trade money for goods and time to create a better standard of living for both the person with money and the person with goods.

Right now, Amtrak long distance does little in the way of providing anything. Every dollar diverted to a long distance train is a dollar that won't fund a regional or commuter train. Why anybody would want to keep throwing good money after bad on a train that literally provides no utility when that money could go to the Detroit, Cascade, or Virginia corridors is beyond me. We can't figure out how to keep the prime asset of the system (Hudson tunnels) funded, but we're happy as a clam in Pasco and Raton because the 1/day visiting a tiny town and carrying less than 1% of intercity travelers still runs.

I'm not ashamed. I'm fighting for scarce funds to run something that matters so my kids can ride a viable train to Detroit or Richmond.

Regional Rail can and should be funded regionally, to benefit the region in a way that the region benefits from.

It's not a zero-sum game, or at least it doesn't have to be.

There's no damn reason our country has to struggle with LD like we have, and where NO OTHER COUNTRY HAS, other than lack of political will.

JoeBas wrote:Regional Rail can and should be funded regionally, to benefit the region in a way that the region benefits from.

It's not a zero-sum game, or at least it doesn't have to be.

But it is. Once entitlements, defense, interest on the national debt, etc. are taken care of, there isn't much of the federal pie left to be divided. And lots of worthy (and unworthy) programs clamoring for it.

JoeBas wrote:There's no damn reason our country has to struggle with LD like we have, and where NO OTHER COUNTRY HAS, other than lack of political will.

Yes there is a reason. It no longer serves enough of a function to be worth keeping. And if you think we are the only country facing this, look at what has happened to LD in Australia, Canada, and New Zealand, as examples of other places with low population density.

JoeBas wrote:It's not a zero-sum game, or at least it doesn't have to be.

This is indeed a zero sum game and we are losing big time right now. As I said earlier, economies are predicated on scarcity. We have a finite budget and we are not only outspending it, but our trade balance is absurdly out of balance.

JoeBas wrote:Regional Rail can and should be funded regionally, to benefit the region in a way that the region benefits from.

The assertion that regional rail should be regionally funded has also met heavy resistance at regional levels, with the resounding reply that "anything that touches two states is a national problem" (see: Hudson tunnels).

JoeBas wrote:There's no damn reason our country has to struggle with LD like we have, and where NO OTHER COUNTRY HAS, other than lack of political will.

Finally, the assertion that no other country struggles with long distance trains is just patently false. Canada is down to two sleeper trains, run 2x/week. Most EU nations have dumped conventional and night trains in favor of HST (sub four hours) and DMU/EMU regional trains. Australia offers something like three sleeper trains, two of which are weekly Canadian-esque trains for tourists. Argentina is struggling to keep four weekly sleeper routes open, with rumors two are toast this year. Brazil has two long distance day trains required by the government of the mining companies that own the tracks.

Chile, Mexico, Brazil, and many other countries have simply dropped any sort of passenger network.

China, India, and Russia have a vibrant long distance and sleeper network.