quote:

---

Originally posted by polarbearucla:

I believe the purpose of a rail network is not for enjoyment but rather for the purpose of transporting people in an efficent and timely matter. Do you know how much time/money/polluiton could be saved if anyone at Amtrak decided to build a railline from Las Vegas to Los Angeles? I think a lot more people in LA would utilize this than any LD train out of union station.

---

Look at commuter rail. Although it's enjoying a rennaisance, with more riders than ever before, you still get the nagging critics claiming it's a waste, that more people still drive to work, etc. That doesn't mean it's not necessary and useful.

Longer routes are likely more efficient and in terms of passenger revenue, more money-making because they are available to more people.

A passenger paying $800-1000 for a trip in a sleeper from OMAHA to VEGAS or LINCOLN to PROVO brings in more TRAIN MILES/ PER PASSENGER REVENUE than one, say, travelling from KANSAS CITY to STL, which fares are around $50.

Take a look at some of the essays - written by different authors - linked to on this site http://www.trainweb.org/moksrail/

One, the Myth of Passenger Train Profitability, is especially useful.

This writing by NARP shows what the travel market is REALLY like.
http://www.narprail.org/plan.htm

For instance, in the NARP piece, the common assumption that shorter distance trips are more patronized than LD trips is debunked. Rail's share for a 1,000 mile trip v. a 50 mile trip is similar, no matter the distance.

Regards POLARBEAR's contention that travel is for transporting people on business, not pleasure, following that logic, airlines shouldn't be subsidized since a majority of air travel is for PLEASURE, VACATIONS or PERSOAL BUSINESS.

Look up the BUREAU OF TRANSPORTATION STATISTICS' page. Their info shows A MAJORITY OF TRIPS OVER 100 MILES IS FOR PERSONAL, PLEASURE OR VACATION, not business.

Rail share of the "air/rail" market between NYP and WAS is over 50%.

And NOBODY except a railfan is going to take the train from Chicago to LA for $1000 when he can fly (round trip) for less than $200.

Long distance trains carry an infinetesimal share of the air/rail market. Further, Amtrak's share of this market has actually fallen since 1988, from 8% to 5.5%. 60% of Amtrak passengers begin and end their trips on the NEC.

Take out the NEC, West Coast corridor trains, and Chicago corridor trains, and you've got less than 20% of Amtrak ridership left. AND most of that is between major cities served by alternate means of public transportation.

And that's before we even discuss the lack of capacity on the rail network which has resulted in chronic (and laughable) lateness).

Trains are not always the fastest way, of course, but do you really want to maintain the fly/ drive status quo?

Air travel isn't always the most convenient. Believe me, I've traveled many miles by air.

If your focus is solely on speed, you're not likely to be interested in rail travel.

If your focus is on comfort and relaxation, you won't always pick air or driving.

I've never been asked to remove my shoes to board a train or bus.

Similarly if you're interested in hearing both sides of an issue, talk radio generally won't interest you either. Neither may NPR, in some peoples' minds. That's why there are other choices.

Was this country better served by only 3 TV networks? Or would it be with just 2 airlines?

Sure, McDonald's may be the largest restaurant chain. But that doesn't mean it's the best.

Roseanne was long the most watched TV show. But many considered that crap.

Just because airlines carry more people faster than ANY other mode, thanks to generous federal and local indidrect subsidies, that doesn't mean it's the best way to travel.

Consumer choice is an important part of this country. Rail travel is an important and growing part of U.S. travel.

Give me one example why we shouldn't have options in travel.

and in response to rresor, Also I'd just like to add that I've seen many low-income families and individuals on the long distance trains. I saw a woman and her daughter, clearly not railfans, going from Milwaukee, WI to Seattle , WA on the Builder.
Long Distance trains often sellout especially in the Silver Service.

quote:

---

Originally posted by rresor:
And NOBODY except a railfan is going to take the train from Chicago to LA for $1000 when he can fly (round trip) for less than $200.

---

I would like to point out that one can also take a train for less than $200 - for example, I queried the August 5 Southwest Chief from Chicago to LA in coach: $191. The lowest available airline fare from Orbitz is $202 on Spirit Airlines. Oh, and check your numbers - the only way a single person can spend more than $1000 on a single Amtrak trip segment is by buying a Deluxe Bedroom just a few days before departure. Even Standard Bedrooms are far less than $1000.

You know, there are other people in the world besides middle-class Northeastern business people such as yourself. You act like the only people that ride long distance trains are people like yourself who spend big bucks on bedrooms and first-class service. There is such a thing as long-distance coach, which you seem to have ignored entirely.

Oh, and I wouldn't make a sharp a claim as nobody - there are people in this world that cannot fly for medical or other reasons. And there are people that aren't necessarily railfans, but just take a train ride for the comfort and the ability to see America.

It is true that the only serious rail transportation in this country is in the NEC - with the possible exception of California. But how do you think that came to be? By federal investment in airways and highways, and no federal investment in rail transportation.

As I noted over at Mr. Polar Bear's topic (hey, isn't UCLA's mascot a brown bear, or Bruin???), the only purpose served by Amtrak's National System (other than that it is mandated by law) is to ensure a presence in enough legislative districts to ensure funding for what counts - the NE Corridor.

The second principal reason is to ensure that an institution with ready to go know how to operate a passenger train is in place nationwide, so that when there is a local initiative to operate an intercity train, the means to do so is readily "on tap". Obviously Calfornia, and to much lesser extent, a handful of other jursidictions, have put these provisions (namely Sec 403-B of the Act) to some degree of use.

Fortunately, the LD trains, have sufficient public acceptance to ensure, at least at peak travel periods, they are "full". As a result, any Senator Windbag "who gets up there" and hollers about "empty trains rolling about at taxpayer expense" can justly have a few holes 'pricked in the pipes". However, with the "skeleton" of service offered regarding both routes and frequency, it would be pretty hard for them NOT to be full.

But the fact remains, the LD's are not "everyman's everyday travel", They serve a minority of people who have leisure time, choose to use that time traveling, and further consider getting there a part of the travel experience (fans, case in point) rather than just a chore like "packing up", shutting off the newspapers, and making arrangements for pets.

For the very minority (even though you would swear they are a majority when some reporter does a "piece" on the Empire Builder) who have medical reasons (ears, pregnancy, and I think certain post-operative conditions), phobias, as well as those who recognize it is best to avoid driving if possible, even if only during periods of adverse weather, then I guess, within that universe, the LD becomes "everyman's everyday travel".

Regarding fare levels cited at several posts, LD travel is expensive if your standard of travel, such as it is for Mr. Resor, myself and many others around here, is Sleeper. But then, if the Sleepers are essentially full throughout the year, why should the fares be any less? With Coach, Amtrak fares are quite "cheap", especially for one in an "I must leave NOW' situation where the alternative is a "walk up' (unrestricted) air fare.

But then, speaking for the record only for myself, but somehow I think for others around here as well, overnight Coach travel is worth only about what you paid for it.

So, if you like the LD's (as do I), be thankful they are there by government fiat, for I am hard pressed to find much economic justification for them. Fortunately, the Class One roads, in exchange for the loose service standards in place, essentially "give 'em a free ride' over their right of way. If the Class Ones were to receive the full value of the dispatchment slots the LD's represent on a busy railroad, then the cost of operating them would "go through the roof'.

College students, retirees, and many others ride trains.

Plus, most travel in the U.S. is LEISURE, PLEASURE or PERSONAL BUSINESS.

Most trips over 100 miles are not business related. THey are for personal reasons, as stated by the Bureau of Transportation Statistics.

So therefore, LD trains are of value and in that light may be more important than other modes, since business travel isn't the dominant reason for travel - surprising as it may seem to many.

And as I have often noted, the LD's are the catalyst for getting Federal-level funding for what counts - the Corridor.

On the other hand, I was supposed to go to Chicago from St.Paul on business once, and my employer purchased me an airline ticket for $650! It became so complicated to arrange for transportation to and from the airport at each end of the trip that I returned the airline ticket and used Amtrak at the last minute for $99 (on an LD train). It also ended up being less total transit time from home to destination.

All of my train travel is "serious", far from the NEC and on LD trains, and it is more convenient and far cheaper than air. The additional time needed to get where I am going is far more enjoyable than the ridiculous amount of time spent in line at airports. For 2 years I could fly for free and I still took the train.

You are indeed fortunate that you have both bodily "constitution' as well as tempermeant that allows you to say "Coach is OK". You'll be able to travel many more miles for same $$$$$ than others.

Frankly, I don't give a hoot about the NEC. Sure it is a vital transportation link, but I have no use for it, and I resent the fact that most of our tax dollars for rail transportation go to about half of the original thirteen colonies (who pay almost nothing themselves), while the rest of us get squat. If my tax dollars are good enough to fund the NEC, why aren't their tax dollars good enough to fund practical, dependable service out west and everywhere in between?????

I ride long distance trains, because that is all I have access to. I've ridden coach, and I've ridden sleepers, and one thing is certain. The majority of overnight passengers on long distance trains are in coach, using it for "everyman's everyday" travel. These people aren't railfans. Most of them have never even heard the term. They're families, individuals, seniors and youth, a pretty even cross section of regular people. They don't know a Superliner from an F40. Most of them don't even realize that Amtrak has been a political football for 33 years. They're just trying to get somewhere cheaply, safely, and in reasonable comfort. They're always complaining that their trains are late (they invariably blame Amtrak, not realizing that UP et al, are the cause of their delays), but they keep riding anyway, because it is their best available option.

You are correct that LD trains provide a foundation for emerging corridors (aha, you found a second reason for their existence! ), but I take issue with your assertion that only corridors are important. All trains are important, but they can't do much for many people unless they are treated by the government AS important and funded accordingly.

There are so many LD routes that are needed, such as Kansas City - Denver, Dallas-Denver,
CHI-Atlanta, Salt Lake City - Portland, Atlanta-Miami.

Think how many more riders - and how much more important and LD network would be - if we had the capital to run such routes.

I do have a few questions for the various folks who disputed my post.

1) How can a shrinking share of the air/rail market be characterized as "growth"?

2) Are you SURE "most of the [Federal] dollars" go to the NEC?

3) Are you SURE the Northeastern states contribute nothing?

If you are, you'll be interested in a five-year old GAO document that found that about half the capital dollars spent on the NEC came from the states, or via state agencies from the Federal Transit Administration, and not from Amtrak.

As I have pointed out various times, Amtrak is the minority user of its own track in the NEC. Commuter agencies run many more trains, and carry many more passengers, than does Amtrak.

And notwithstanding this, 60% of Amtrak's riders start or end their trips on the NEC.

The NEC is not going anywhere, so it's not a matter of taking away the money that is now spent there and spending it on the LD trains. Ain't gonna happen.

In fact, I predict the NEC will survive the eventual demise of Amtrak LD service and continue to operate much as it does today. It's just too important.

No single form of transportation can meet all the needs of all the people all the time.

Efficient rail transport needs to be a COMPONENT of a well balanced, EQUIVALENTLY FUNDED, comprehensive tranportation system.

quote:

---

Originally posted by rresor:
This has gotten to be quite a discussion!

...

The NEC is not going anywhere, so it's not a matter of taking away the money that is now spent there and spending it on the LD trains. Ain't gonna happen.

In fact, I predict the NEC will survive the eventual demise of Amtrak LD service and continue to operate much as it does today. It's just too important.

---

No kidding, this HAS gotten to be quite an argument. Quite the interesting argument, if I do say so myself. I am surprised that polarbear's comments ignited such a flame, although I suppose I really shouldn't be.

Anyway, I just want to say that I don't think anyone is arguing that the NEC isn't important (at least, I'm not) - the NEC is essential, and you're right - the NEC will undoubtedly survive any Amtrak demise. With 50% of the air/rail market, it's not going anywhere. And nor should money be taken away from the NEC for the ling-distance network.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheBriz09:
I don't think I ever made the assertion that the NEC doesn't deserve the funding it gets. It most certainly does.

---

What irked me was the "us vs. them" tone of the comments in this thread. Governments in the Northeast were the first, in the 1960s, to start putting money into preserving public transportation, long before FTA or even USDOT existed. That was local money, and it was used to buy the LIRR (IIRC in 1965). Subsidies to CNJ, E-L, PRR and RDG commuter service started around the same time.

By contrast, the San Francisco Bay Area dismantled its public transportation network in 1958, and LA abandoned the last PE route in 1963. Chicago let CA&E fold in 1958, and CNS&M in 1963. Now you guys want Federal money to put back the service that NY, NJ, and PA had the brains to preserve 40 years ago?