Damn! That's a pretty impressive systemwide increase. With revenues above budget, I wonder if Amtrak will plow that back into acquiring new rail cars and/or refurbishing old cars to increase passenger handling capacity. They desperately need some new equipment on their Chicago-East Coast trains, but many short-distance routes need additional equipment to alleviate sold-old conditions.

It would be especially good if the House & Senate can agree on the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development (THUD) Bill, which contains the increased budget reauthorization $$$$ for Amtrak and $100-million in additional funds for state grants.  Combined with the increased revenues coming in this year, Amtrak could really begin to make those much-needed new equipment purchases you mention and rehab some of their existing fleet.

 

Amtrak's success is making it harder for it's historic critics to justify their opposition to increased funding and easier for more moderate politicians to starting backing better policies to develop and fund more and better passenger rail.

I'm sure the recent flight troubles have something to do with all of this. Unfortunately, since Amtrak isn't much cheaper than flying, it's not really yet a viable alternative, in my opinion. :(

 

At least it was the last time I checked.

I'm sure the recent flight troubles have something to do with all of this. Unfortunately, since Amtrak isn't much cheaper than flying, it's not really yet a viable alternative, in my opinion. :(

 

At least it was the last time I checked.

ask a business person traveling between BOS and DC.

I'm sure the recent flight troubles have something to do with all of this. Unfortunately, since Amtrak isn't much cheaper than flying, it's not really yet a viable alternative, in my opinion. :(

 

At least it was the last time I checked.

 

Check again...

 

Here's a few city pairs and fares for a same-day business trip on Oct. 31....

 

Take Continental from Cleveland to Syracuse NY for $736 round trip. Or consider Amtrak for $90 instead.

 

Take Southwest from Cleveland to Chicago Midway and back for $190.80 or Amtrak to Union Station for $94.

 

Take Southwest from Cleveland to Baltimore-Washington International for $224.80 round trip or Amtrak to Washington Union Station for $114.

 

In other words, check again.

^It's too bad we don't have a more modern rail system with more frequencies and faster speeds.  A heck of a lot more people would be choosing the train...

 

 

A couple of things to keep in mind: There are something like 30,000 possible trip combinations between the 580 odd places Amtrak serves. Many of them do not have discount air service. Some have no other form of transportation available other than the car.

 

At the same time, the discount air carriers tend to serve big markets at long distances (think Chicago-Florida, etc). They do not, as a rule, serve intermediate markets, like that Syracuse-Cleveland route KJP quotes and that means you pay very high airfares.

 

Keep in mind also that Amtrak has broken ridership records five years in a row, despite having a less than skeletal system and not nearly enough equipment. In fact, it set an all-time record, going all the way back to 1971, the year it was formed. Amtrak trains frequently sell out during peak periods and they use a pricing system that results in higher fares during those times. Airlines do that, too.

 

If Amtrak isn't an alternative, it's because it does not serve many markets and of those it does serve, a lot of them only rate one train a day. Not very competitive, but that's mostly because the government has been so tightfisted when it comes to funding. If  they had the equipment to add cars to the trains they now have they'd carry many more passengers and if they added trains, the demand would skyrocket, just as it has in case after case already.

 

 

^It's too bad we don't have a more modern rail system with more frequencies and faster speeds.  A heck of a lot more people would be choosing the train...

 

Exactly.  If I need to go to Washington, DC, I can take the train from Cleveland to Union Station.  No problem, only about $60 each way.  I just have to catch the train in Cleveland at 2:15am and I will arrive at Union Station at 1:30pm.  The return trip that day leaves at 4:05pm, so I better be able to get to my meeting, have the meeting, and get back to the train within 2 1/2 hours.  All so I can get home again after 2am.  If I need to have a meeting in the morning or a longer meeting than I can fit into the 2 1/2 hour time, I have to stay overnight.  Unless you can do a lot of work on the train, it doesn't make any sense at all.  And anyone who has to be going to and from the Cleveland terminal at 2am isn't going to be happy. 

 

 

Rather than stay overnight, I can fly into Baltimore and take the train into DC for about the same price, only I can leave Cleveland at 7am and be back at 8pm after a full day of meetings.      Even as annoying as the new security screening is, it's still better than leaving and returning at 2am.

 

 

Cost isn't the issue.  Convenient scheduling is the problem.  Until Amtrak has a regular and convenient schedule, we'll have no idea how many business travelers would choose taking the train over flying.

 

Which of course brings us to Cleveland-Chicago, for which Amtrak now does have a more convenient schedule, 2am Cleveland to 8:40am Chicago, and 7pm Chicago returning to Cleveland at 2am.  (Still could be better.) 

 

Does anyone know how many riders Amtrak picks up in Cleveland for travel to Chicago vs. riders to NYC or DC?

Actually, one of the eastbound trains leaves Chicago at 10:30 p.m., arriving Cleveland at 6:22 a.m. If you want to fly and avoid the hotel cost yet make an early meeting in downtown Cleveland, you can't do it. The time change is to blame. So the train is the best option to Cleveland from Chicago. Then you can fly home. Amtrak hasn't sought a marketing agreement with one of the airlines that flies Cleveland-Chicago to take advantage of this opportunity. It's their loss.

 

I posted my earlier reply to refute the post that taking the train didn't save people much money compared to flying. The train schedule wasn't the issue raised with the poster, though clearly that's the real problem with taking the train -- not cost.

I was watching the CSPAN coverage of the Senate floor debate on Amtrak/passenger rail funding last night – yea it was a slow TV night.  One of the amendments being proposed by the New Hampshire Senator was to cut the long distance routes that are poor performing – the Senator gave the criteria for poor performance and tied it into the amount of subsidy required. 

 

While I do not wish to have rail service of any kind diminished, it seemed to me that these long distance routes do not really fit in with what Amtrak has for its long term plan or what the individual states are planning.  I guess my thought is why not focus solely on the corridor-only services like what is proposed in the Ohio Hub, Keystone Corridor, California High Speed Rail plan, etc.  These plans focus on connecting cities within that 300 – 600 mile range that high speed rail is competitive.  While I don’t agree with everything the NH Senator said last night, I think he has a valid point in that we should look at trimming these long distance routes for more corridor-focused routes – i.e. put more resources into the Ohio Hub/MWRRI plans as opposed to the Chicago to Bismarck or Houston to LA routes. 

 

We've fought that battle so many times in the past. The stats that Sen. Sununu used are bogus, and aren't used by any other mode of transportation as a measure of cost-effectiveness. But rather than repeat what's been said before, I refer you to this post of mine:

 

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php?topic=2068.msg21002#msg21002

 

I referenced Amtrak's "Empire Builder" in that post. It carried more than 600,000 riders in FFY2007 (Oct 1, 2006 to Sept. 30, 2007), with just one round trip per day. Illinois' highly touted (and rightly so) Chicago-St. Louis corridor, with five daily round trips, carried less than 500,000 riders in FY2007. In fact, only a few short-distance corridors carried more people than the Empire Builder (Northeast Corridor, Santa Barbara-LA-San Diego, Bay Area-Sacramento, and Bay Area-Bakersfield). Even Amtrak's Lake Shore Limited, from Chicago to New York City via Cleveland, carried more than 300,000 people last year. That's about middle of the pack for the short-distance corridors.

 

Even on a financial basis, the short-haul corridors don't do very well. What tips the scales for them is state operating support, which deceptive people like Sununu are all too eager to omit. The short-haul corridors receive state financial support, long-distance trains don't. And the reason they don't is because it's very difficult to get multiple states to agree on a fair sharing of operating subsidies. That's why our founding fathers, in their infinite wisdom, argued that the federal government and not states have the responsibility for promoting and overseeing interstate commerce. Too bad the NEOcons in our federal government are only too eager to abdicate that responsibility to the states in the interest of their short-sighted goals.

From NARP....

 

The Amtrak reauthorization bill came up on the Senate floor late yesterday. It will be on

the floor today (Thursday) and possibly tomorrow and beyond. Debate today begins at 10:

30 AM and a vote is planned for 12:30 PM on a Sununu amendment which could be the

first of many nasty ones (including, apparently, one by Coburn, R-OK).

 

Sununu, as I understand it, would kill all trains that lose over $200 a passenger after a

certain number of years. So this kills the long-distance network and doesn't even use a

rational basis (like revenue-to-cost ratio or loss per passenger-mile) to do it. Of course,

the network is so skeletal that removing just about any individual route would have

significant harmful network impacts. In other words, the domino theory applies here,

whether or not you believe it in foreign policy!!

 

Phone calls this morning to Senate offices should urge votes against this and any other

anti-train amendments. Most senators probably know an anti-train amendment when they

see one. However,  they can assume that an amendment is anti-train if Senators

Lautenberg and Lott do not both accept said amendment as friendly.

 

Remember, when you phone and ask for the staff person, you may be offered voice-mail.

Accept that offer and be sure to leave a substantive message. Do not rely on the staffer's

ability to return your call in a timely manner.

 

Your message could go like this: "Please support S. 294 and please vote against the

Sununu per passenger subsidy cap amendmenta wolf in sheep's clothingand any other

anti-train amendment that is offered."

 

You can reach any Senate office by calling the Capitol Hill switchboard 202-224-3121. If

you are on-line, your senators' direct-dial number and web site are at http://

www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

 

Thanks for your efforts!

Both of Sununu's amendments were defeated by a wide margin.  Just found that out from a contact in DC.

KJP - thanks for the link to the other thread - some very good information on it.  Maybe this is due to my own lack of knowledge on the issue, but as I see it investment in regional plans (what I think of as short-haul routes) are more beneficial in terms of increasing ridership, promoting urban developments, promoting increased investments commuter rail options.  Another reason I would vote for regional rail plans as opposed to long distance rail is that issue of state support for the regional rail as opposed to no support for long distance rail.  Again my thoughts are that states and even local MPOs and cities are more apt to support a service that is fast and frequent as opposed to trains that service a location 1 to 3 times a day.

Hi tt342998..

 

Don't be snookered by these long distance vs. corridor arguments. As KJP points out, these have been going on for years and are really an effort to kill Amtrak by balkanizing it and dividing its supporters. Support for passenger rail would be much more difficult for a series of isolated, balkanized corridors here and there. A national system is the glue that holds the issue of rail passenger service together.

 

An interesting insight to Sen. Sununu's sincerity (or lack thereof) is that all he proposes is to cut service. He does not offer to expand corridor or regional service and that's because he's an arch-conservative opposed to government involvement in anything other than defense (IMHO).

 

So here we have an Amtrak breaking ridership records and still we see these attacks from the far right. Why? Aside from their mindset concerning rail, I'd bet that they see rail as an easy target, since it has no powerful lobby to push its interests.

The stats that Sen. Sununu used are bogus, and aren't used by any other mode of transportation as a measure of cost-effectiveness. But rather than repeat what's been said before, I refer you to this post of mine:

 

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php?topic=2068.msg21002#msg21002

 

 

 

Read the entire page. There is LOT of good information there.

I don't agree with much of what Sununu was saying - in fact I don't see how anyone can put up the argument that investing in any mode of transportation has to be profitable.  In my mind transportation (whatever mode that it may be) will not be profitable itself, but the opportunities that are afforded by it should be the measure of its success. 

 

What my thoughts were geared towards was is the current system of Amtrak the most efficient and does it serve the taxpayers the best - not the amendments that Sununu was proposing.  And to carry it out further, how does Amtrak (or revamped version of Amtrak) fit into a truly integrated multi-modal transportation system?

 

I admit that I am still learning about rail and how to measure its effectiveness, but what I see is that the regional routes have a higher growth in ridership - St Louis to Chicago, the Downeaster, Acela, Capitol Corridor, etc.  Whenever success stories are brought up about higher ridership, higher growth in ridership, increased urban development it is centered around these regional routes.  Again, this is my biased opinion, but my thought is implementing a Pittsburgh-Columbus-Chicago route or a Columbus-Indianapolis-St Louis route does more to improve mobility, encourage urban redevelopment, improve chances for commuter rail options than improving the on-time performance of the Lake Shore Limited.  However, I would be elated to have any train service that came through Columbus....

I think you need to understand why these corridors and regional routes have had  success. It's because the states---not the do-nothing feds---have put up the money that allowed the added frequencies which led to higher ridership. Many of these same routes bumped along for years with low frequencies and flat ridership, Chicago-St. Louis being one example. When the state was pushed into adding two more frequencies (for a total of five daily round trips), the ridership soared. Add trains when people want to travel and they'll ride...DUH!

 

Long distance ridership has been rising as well, but it will only go up so much since we still have only one round trip on many routes. This leaves many key markets underserved and at the same time Amtrak has such an equipment shortage it can't add cars to trains to meet current demand. Sold out conditions are the norm for many trains during peak periods.

 

Let's turn this discussion around: Imagine what could happen if we had several trains running on each long distance route every day? Ridership would boom just as it has for corridors! I submit that we have not yet had a fair test of what the long distance train is capable of, so we should not rush to judge them by what we have today.

 

And what is a long distance route but a series of end-to-end corridors? LDT's can serve markets that conventional corridors can't, such as overnight business and discretionary travel between large cities up to 1,000 miles apart. Likewise, since mid and long distance trains cover more than one corridor, passengers can have one-seat rides from places like Syracuse NY to Erie PA without forced transfers.

 

The real key is to build a rail system that can serve the needs of all travelers. That means building a system that weaves together long distance, corridor short haul and regional services. We need it all.

 

 

Just to add a few points:

 

--The average trip length on the current LD trains is about 700 miles.  So it's not end-to-end distances that most passengers are traveling. 

-- If you have only one round-trip in the middle of the night, you're not as likely to use it.  --However, with several trips per day, you will be because you'll be able to not only board a train at reasonable hours, but arrive in many more places at reasonable hours. 

 

Besides, the way things are unfolding with peak oil, we're going to need all the trains we can get-- and sooner than we think.

Fast, frequent and convenient service increases ridership.  It's been more than amply proven in regional corridors in California, Illinois, Maine and the Northeast Corridor.  Why is it so difficult for the twits in DC who supposedly represent us to grasp that this concept also applies to long-distance trains.  It's just a matter of reconfiguring trains on these routes; essentially redefining "corridors" to apply to routes West of the Mississippi.

The twits in Washington don't seem to grasp corridors any better than long haul service. It's the states which have pushed the agenda, not the feds, as I said before. Another reason is that no one has advocated for LDT's outside of a few statements and sporadic leafleting campaigns by advocacy groups.

 

One thing that came out of the All Aboard Ohio meeting on the 20th is the idea of establishing a Lake Shore route congressional caucus. This would be a focusing of legislators on the route to work for specific requests to improve service. Up to this point there have been no specific requests to do anything, so it isn't all the fault of those inside the beltway...even tho there are indeed some twits! :lol:

I mentioned to BuckeyeB a few nights ago that a good model for New York-Cleveland-Chicago would be the New York-Florida service. Here's a route that has two daily Silver Service round trips over the entire route, plus a daytime run (the Palmetto) that goes as far south as Savannah, GA (it used to go into Florida). And, there's the nightly Auto Train.

 

Combined, all four trains carry about 1 million per year. That puts it in the category of the Empire Corridor, Keystone Corridor, Pacific Surfliner (Santa Barbara-LA-San Diego) and Capitol Corridor (San Jose-Oakland-Sacramento). All of those corridors have three times as many daily trains as Amtrak's New York-Southeast service.

 

I would imagine a similar service level operating New York-Chicago would do much the same if:

 

> train departures were spread in three- or four-hour increments to serve a variety of travel needs, including those of enroute cities;

> equipment was refurbished or replaced with rail cars that designed to celebrate train travel rather than imitate the bland, utilitarian aspects of buses and planes;

> railroad capacity was enhanced to not only reduce delays but to increase average operating speed;

> stations were rebuilt, replaced, moved, expanded etc. to accommodate more passengers, more trains, more amenities (snack bars, newsstands, car rental, local transit kiosk, first-class waiting areas in larger cities), and serve as an attractive gateway for cities.

> effective marketing to the public.

 

I think that would make a big difference to the traveling public in this market.

Even the New York-Florida service isn't ideal, since the Auto-Train really has little to do with the other services. But it offers as close an example of what might be possible.

 

One thing we have to do is focus on the route that has the best chance of success and that, to my mind, is Chicago-Cleveland-Buffalo-New York, the route of the current Lake Shore Limited. Here we have what should be the trunk from which other improvements will flow and we also have state involvement in passenger rail in both Illinois and New York. The latter is especially important, since the eastern half of the route already has several daily trains.

 

As KJP mentions, we would have four daily round trips, spaced about three or four hours apart in each direction. How would this look? Here's a loose schedule I put together that shows how the service could operate and what markets would be served:

 

Eastbound: read left to right

 

CHI->->->-TOL->->->-CLE->->-BUF->->-ALB->->-NYP

 

1200n------530p------800p----1100p-----400a-----630a 

300p------830p------1100p----200a------700a-----930a

800p-----1130p------ 400a----700a-----1200n---- 230p

1100p----- 230a------ 700a---1000a-----  200p---- 530p

 

Westbound: read left to right

 

NYP->->-ALB->->->-BUF->->->-CLE->->->-TOL->->->-CHI

 

130p-----400p--------900p-----1200m-----230a-------630a

330p-----600p-------1100p-----200a------430a-------830a

730p----1000p--------300a-----600a------930a------1230p

1130p----200a--------700a----1000a------130p-------430p

 

Every part of the route would feature at least two daytime schedules in each direction. In addition, New York-Buffalo, New York-Cleveland, New York-Chicago, Buffalo-Chicago and Cleveland-Chicago would have overnight service. The late-afternoon trains from each endpoint would be aimed at the overhead Chicago-New York business/discretionary market and could be a test bed for overnight mail service.

 

By corridor, Chicago-Cleveland would see two day trains in each direction, plus an overnight train. The same would apply to the Buffalo-New York corridor and that would be in addition to what service already exists on the latter route.

 

Personally speaking, I'd like to see Amtrak run the trains, but have the cars owned and operated by someone else, in order to provide service that would be a cut above the "bus-on-rails" level of on-board "service" we see now.

 

 

I like the general outline of schedules you've proposed. Its offers good connections at Chicago, provides enroute cities with decent services, provides intra-route/short-distance/corridor-type travel and gets travelers to/from New York at the times they probably want.

 

But I do feel the Auto Train is a very important element of Northeast-to-Florida rail travel. It provides a real alternative to driving long-distances and might have East Coast-Chicago applications (as well as Chicago-West Coast applications as well -- but that's another thread).

Yes, I can see obvious applications of Auto-train services in other parts of the country, especially in a peak oil situation. You could drive your plug-in hybrid to the train for an overnight rip to another city and that would be good for a lot of areas which do not have good public transportation. It gives travelers another option.

 

Glad you like the schedules. I was scratching my head trying to visualize what that service would look like and finally put it in the form you see for a better idea of how it would work.

I've been taking the AutoTrain to Florida every other year for over a decade now.  We started when the kids were babies and we had a ton of extra stuff to haul along.  Just load up the van and unload at our destination.  Much easier than air travel with a baby.  Now the kids love the train and insist on it over flying.  Which now means I can throw in several sets of golf clubs for a single day of golf that I would otherwise skip if I were flying with the family.

 

For those of you who have no idea how the AutoTrain works for us, here's a brief description.  There are only two terminals, a northern terminal at Lorton, Virginia, just south of DC, and a southern terminal at Sanford, Florida, just northeast of Orlando.  There are no intermediate stations.  Basically you load your car, the train leaves around 4pm, and you arrive the next morning around 9am, regardless of the direction you are traveling.  The cars seem to be old, particularly the lounge/dining cars, but they are well cared for.

 

We typically get up early and drive to the northern station in about six hours.  Without kids and stops it might be faster.  We need to arrive before 2pm to line up and get the van loaded into a car carrier.  We carry on a piece of luggage and each kid brings a backpack with books/toys/games/DVD player.  The train boards around 3 or 3:30pm.    We get a family bedroom -- which is a bit cramped now that the kids are growing, but it still works well enough.  The cost is about the same as flying in our case.  You can also get a regular reclining seat (similar to business class on a plane perhaps) or smaller rooms that are less expensive.  We hang out and play games or read, go up to the lounge car, have dinner, watch a movie, and the kids are asleep at their usual hour. 

 

Waking up in the morning, I take a shower, we eat breakfast and pull into the station around 9am.  The van rolls off and we get in and go.  Much easier than driving all the way to Florida, and although it takes a day and a half of travel time, it's much less stressful than flying, which seems to take up an entire day anyway even though the actual travel time is shorter.

 

I highly recommend it.  And I'd be glad to answer any questions about our experiences. 

:wave:

We still need to call to ask our senators to support SB 294.  Here's the latest from NARP.  If you have not yet done so, please call either by 5 pm today or tomorrow morning:

 

To narprail.org users, October 29, 2007--

 

NARP Executive Director Ross Capon will be a guest on the Diane Rehm Show on

National Public Radio tomorrow, October 30 to discuss Amtrak and passenger

rail issues.  Topics will include Senate Bill S. 294, the Passenger Rail

Investment and Improvement Act.  For most NPR stations, the program will air

at 10 AM Eastern time.  Check your local NPR listings at

http://www.npr.org/stations/ .

 

After the show airs, you may listen to Capon's segment at

http://www.wamu.org/programs/dr .

 

The Senate should move to a final vote on S.294 by tomorrow, Wednesday

morning at the latest.  As was the case last week, the message to your

Senators continues to be: Please support S. 294 and please vote against any

other anti-passenger rail amendment that is offered, especially amendments

to cut funding or add micromanaging language to the bill.  Press reports

today indicate that Senator Wayne Allard (R-CO) may offer an amendment to

reinstate the disastrous "Self-Sufficiency" language from the 1997 Amtrak

reauthorization.  (S.294 specifically eliminates this requirement.)

 

Given the timeliness of this issue, E-mails and letters are not relevant. 

Phone calls are needed.

 

You can reach any Senate office by calling use our toll-free Congressional

Action Hotline.  The number is 1-800-679-1581.  When prompted, enter our

access code: 1189.  Please make this call during normal Senate business

hours which are generally 9am to 5:30pm eastern time.  Please do not make

any calls today after 5:30pm eastern (4:30pm central, 3:30pm mountain,

2:30pm pacific), but start calling in the morning (9:00am eastern, 8:00am

central, 7:00am mountain, 6:00am pacific)

 

If you are on-line, your senators’ direct-dial number and web site are at

http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

 

So is there a house companion to this bill or not? If not, then what does it matter if the Senate passes S.294?

While an East-West auto train would be interesting, I wonder if a train that parallels I-75 wouldn't be more successful. Snow-birds always seemed to be among the primary users of which Ohio, Michigan, and Indiana has plenty.

There used to be an Auto Train from Louisville, KY to Sanford but it ended in the late 1970s due to bad track. Several ideas to revive it have come and gone over the years.

A North-South Auto-Train would be a good idea and as KJP says, there have been several proposals over the years. Probably the best northern terminus would be near Cincinnati, since it would draw from a wide area.

 

The problem is that you would need millions of $$$ for new equipment. Where the money comes from for that is a major question.

There is supposed to be companion or "placeholder" legislation on the House side, but unfortunately, we never hear any news of that from Ross Capon at NARP.  It seems everything revolves around NARP's version of crisis management in the U.S. Senate.  Not that what the Senate decides isn't important, but it is the House that ultimately decides how and by how much it will be funded... or if something is funded at all.

 

I'm told by some Washington sources that Cong. Oberstar (a long-time passenger rail and transit supporter) wants to revive the legislation formerly known as Ride-21, which had some of the same elements as Senate Bill 294.

 

It is still important to get S-294 passed, but it is equally important that the advocacy effort be as strong on the House side, especially since we have several key Ohioans as members of the House Appropriations Committee (Kaptur (D), Ryan (D), Hobson ® and Regula ®... as well as Ohioans on the House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee (Space (D), LaTourette ®, Tubbs-Jones (D).

 

 

I think the lack of information about what, if anything, is happening on the House side is making a lot of us a bit nervous. Keep in mind also, that we will need a veto-proof majority and not just a simple majority to overcome King George and his new-found penchant for fiscal responsibility via the veto.

 

 

I'm being told by my sources in DC that Senate Bill 294 will pass by a big margin.  I'm also being told that it may be early next year (January-February) before a companion bill emerges from the House of Reps.  That's actually good, as it gives advocates time to begin contacting their House members both in their local offices and in DC.

 

Again, Ohio has some big-time clout in the House (Kaptur, Regula, Hobson, Ryan, LaTourette Tubbs-Jones and Space), so let them hear from you and let them know what you want isn't just funding for Amtrak, but a strong and well-funded bill that helps states develop and build more and better passenger rail services like the Ohio Hub and the West Shore Corridor, etc.

Diane Rehm had a good discussion about these issues this morning. The Heritage dude was annoying and the NARP guy was defensive at moments when he should have been more assertive. Rail just makes sense.

Diane Rehm needs to start talking to someone other than the list of "usual suspects" and start talking to people beyond the Washington Beltway about passenger rail (and I mean something more than just Amtrak).... like Wisconsin DOT Secetary Frank Busalacchi (who is Chairman of States for Passenger Rail), or Rick Harnish (of the Midwest High Speed Rail Association), or Gene Skoropowski (Managing Director of California's "Capital Corridor" System), or Patricia Quinn (Executive Director of the Northern News England Passenger Rail Authority, which runs the "Downeaster" service), or Patrick Simmons (Executive Director of the North Carolina DOT's Rail Division) and (yes) to the Ohio Rail Development Commission's new Chair.... former Federal Railroad Administrator Jolene Molitoris.

 

I listened to part of the same program and had the same impressions:  the same old tired critics saying "Kill Amtrak" and defenders saying "Save Amtrak".... but no one talking pro-actively about what states are doing or even the fact that Senate Bill 294 establishes a first-ever matching funds prgram for the states to build rail corridors for fast, frequent passenger trains.

 

Even NPR carried a story about yesterday's landmark passage of S-294, but framed the entire story as an Amtrak funding bill for the "money-losing passenger railroad".

as opposed to the money losing interstate highway system.

Senate votes to increase funding for Amtrak service

Goal of profit called unrealistic

By Alan Wirzbicki, Boston Globe Correspondent  |  October 31, 2007

 

WASHINGTON - Ten years after Amtrak vowed to end its reliance on government subsidies and become self-sufficient and four years after it failed to meet that goal, the Senate voted yesterday to increase the beleaguered passenger railroad's government funding and release it from a mandate that it turn a profit.

 

 

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/10/31/senate_votes_to_increase_funding_for_amtrak_service/

I've long thought that one way to move some capital in the rail direction would be craft some tax code or some such that encourages the airlines to become multi-modal transportation companies. Maybe global warming/high oil prices will push them to diversify. Anyway, it seems to as an example that it would be cheaper for Delta to invest in a regional rail system (or even a bus system) that feeds CVG instead of flying planes from Dayton or Lexington. Without very high speed rail, more than 500 miles should be the specialty of aircraft, under that decent speed rail seems most valuable.

Not a bad thought, especially since the airlines are backing away more and more from short-haul routes and small market airports. In fact there is a major aspect of the Ohio Hub Plan that calls for direct rail connections with major international airports.

Significant here that the WSJ is connecting passenger rail with energy use and oil prices. It's about time!

 

For Amtrak, the Climate Changes

With Oil Soaring,Senate Approves Big Spending Boost

 

By CHRISTOPHER CONKEY and DANIEL MACHALABA

Wall Street Journal

October 31, 2007; Page A8

 

Momentum is growing in Congress to bolster Amtrak and help states expand rail service as lawmakers grow concerned over global warming, transportation gridlock and high oil prices.

 

In what may signal a reversal of fortune for the nation's intercity passenger-rail network, the Senate yesterday approved a six-year, $11.4 billion bill that would authorize nearly $2 billion a year in Amtrak funding, up from roughly $1.3 billion now. The measure passed by a 70-22 vote.

 

 

 

        URL for this article:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119379172012276995.html <http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119379172012276995.html>

"Now, with oil prices at record highs, environmental concerns surging and congestion worsening on highways and in the air, passenger rail is looking to many lawmakers like a viable alternative that deserves federal support."

 

Like the interstate highway system?

 

--

 

(oops, duplicate post!)

^ *sigh* such a shame they have to knee-jerk react to oil prices.

 

i wonder is ohio ready to grab some of that $1.4b if it materializes? or will colorado and washington states get it? you know, those states that already value new rail services. *sighs again*

i wonder is ohio ready to grab some of that $1.4b if it materializes?

Ohio has the best government it has had in years.  Better write to the governor and your reps!

 

And a nod to David -- hell has frozen over.

Well, I won't be taking Amtrak to Ohio for Christmas, unfortunately. :( The trip is longer than a bus ride, and I would arrive in Cleveland at 2:30 in the AM??

 

No thanks.

^I actually had a pretty swell train ride home from NYC a few years ago, but that schedule doesn't exist anymore.  It was an early morning train from Philly (had to take an even earlier train from NYPenn to get to Philly)- the whole thing was daylight and was almost on time.  At 13 hours, it's not something I need to do again anytime soon. 

13 hours is long perhaps.... but (to me) far better than the same or even a little less time behind the wheel of a car in holiday traffic or hassling with the torturous process of flying these days. But StrapHanger's point is well taken and a reason why we need to be pushing for more, better and faster trains.

^Yes, more better and faster!  NYC-CLE flights are almost always delayed thanks to NYC's absurdly congested airspace (itself a byproduct of our nation's crap RR system), but even as a train guy, I'm not sure I'd switch from flying to Amtrak for ordinary travel unless the travel time could come down to something more like 5 or 6 hours.

I don't mind a 13-hour train ride if it's at night. I'd be sleeping anyway, and if I flew, I'd have to pay for a hotel too. I kill two birds with one stone for much less money. The train may be slower than driving, but since I'm sleeping I'm again saving time by doing two things at once.

 

By the way, the train from New York City to Cleveland via Albany and Buffalo takes 11.5 hours. It could take much less time than that if some stops were skipped. Each stop adds about five minutes to the schedule. But you would only be skipping some stops if there were more trains available so local and express services could be offered.

 

I long for the old Lake Shore Limited schedule and a roomette bed: depart New York City at about 7:30 p.m.; arrive in Cleveland at 7 a.m. No other mode of travel can beat that for convenience and comfort.

I've found this site to be a great resource to see what's going on in Congress... http://www.opencongress.org/

 

Here's the direct link to S. 294 (lots of fun stuff to click)... http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-s294/show

 

It passed by a bi-partisan landslide even though Voinovich voted against it.  :x