View Full Version : The War On Amtrak
carless
06-26-06, 12:28 PM
THE WAR ON AMTRAK
Original Article
http://www.prorev.com/2005/05/war-on-amtrak.htm
Amtrak
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amtrak
Large (biased) Tech article
http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:xmFXJQOhv94J:home.mn.rr.com/gatonegro/INFO_BULL2.doc+amtrak+ontime+union+pacific+oregon&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=13
Passenger Minutiae
http://www.accentontravelusa.com/landsea2002_2.html
I recently spent 6 hrs on Amtrak between the 2 largest cities in Oregon. A little over 100 miles. I understand that Eastern U.S. cities have better service, but outdated equipment.
Maybe we should stop subsidizing highways and start investing in rail?
Maybe we should stop subsidizing highways and start investing in rail?
I agree that we need to stop subsidizing highways and roads and start investing in rail. I live 50 miles from Madison, Wisconsin, and the only way I can get there is drive, take an O'hare airport shuttle bus that stops near me, ride my bike, or walk. I'd love to hope on a train wirh my bicycle and get there. When I lived in Sunnyvale, California, I'd take my bike on CalTrain to San Francisco, 50 miles away. I'd love to hop a train with my bike to Chicago, or to Milwaukee. But, in this country, rail travel is essentially useless.
powerhouse
06-26-06, 06:00 PM
I think Amtrak is cool. Right now, the end of the line in the Northeast is Portland, ME and there are plans of them going further on using routes that were abandoned by Guilford Transportation. Perhaps something good could come of it.
-=Łem in Pa=-
06-26-06, 06:05 PM
I like AMTRAK too, but damn are they expnsive !!
give it time, its temporary
we might have an embarrassing railroad now, but energy scarcity will fix that in short order
railroads are already overcapacity in many places now due to the small blip in energy prices we've had, wait till it jumps another 40 % in the next year or two
World Tour
06-26-06, 07:50 PM
I will be laughing heartily at all the morons in the giant suvs when gas is $4/gal.!
carless
06-26-06, 11:04 PM
I like AMTRAK too, but damn are they expnsive !!
Get a student advantage card and buy on the web in advance.
carless
06-26-06, 11:12 PM
Thanks, for the comments, I'll be back when the site's functioning (2 server timeouts, 10 minute post's).
carless
06-26-06, 11:12 PM
Thanks, for the comments, I'll be back when the site's functioning (2 server timeouts, 10 minute post's).
carless
06-26-06, 11:13 PM
Thanks, for the comments, I'll be back when the site's functioning (2 server timeouts, 10 minute post's).
Nightshade
06-27-06, 08:59 AM
give it time, its temporary
we might have an embarrassing railroad now, but energy scarcity will fix that in short order
railroads are already overcapacity in many places now due to the small blip in energy prices we've had, wait till it jumps another 40 % in the next year or two
Rail will happen only when big oil can profit from them. That's when they will pay their Politicians to
"suddenly rediscover" how valuable rail is.
This thread ties in with this discussion...........
http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=204965
big oil does profit from them, so does GE and all the other parts makers for rolling stock and track
I will be laughing heartily at all the morons in the giant suvs when gas is $4/gal.!At current rate of increase, won't that be next year? (Gas is still above $3 here). I had thought that the turning point in people's thinking would come at $5/gallon. Now I'm not so sure it wouldn't be $10.
You would think somewhere in a country this size there would be at least one high-speed rail system.
jimmuter
06-27-06, 09:58 AM
I will be laughing heartily at all the morons in the giant suvs when gas is $4/gal.!
Schadenfreude isn't very attractive.
Schadenfreude isn't very attractive.Its not Schadenfreude, its mudita that soon others may be discovering the joy of cycling.
According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, interurban rail travel isn't much better for the environment than car travel. This is due mainly to two factors. First, ridership is too low, with an average of less than 20 passengers per car. Second, emmision regulations are too lax, and those big diesels put out a hell of a lot of particulates, carbon monoxide and other pollutants.
pakinmd
06-27-06, 11:28 AM
I wanted to buy a bike in NYC and bring it home to Maryland. Since I was not SURE I would buy it, I thought I'd take Amtrak. Imagine my surprise finding out that they have NO WAY to move a bike. You can't travel with it, and they no longer take "BAGGAGE" (security, I suppose). So I am forced to use my car to maybe buy a bike. Hmm?
Dahon.Steve
06-27-06, 11:30 AM
THE WAR ON AMTRAK
Original Article
http://www.prorev.com/2005/05/war-on-amtrak.htm
Amtrak
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amtrak
Large (biased) Tech article
http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:xmFXJQOhv94J:home.mn.rr.com/gatonegro/INFO_BULL2.doc+amtrak+ontime+union+pacific+oregon&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=13
Passenger Minutiae
http://www.accentontravelusa.com/landsea2002_2.html
I recently spent 6 hrs on Amtrak between the 2 largest cities in Oregon. A little over 100 miles. I understand that Eastern U.S. cities have better service, but outdated equipment.
Maybe we should stop subsidizing highways and start investing in rail?
Not all trains in the Eastern U.S re outdated equiptment. In fact, Amtrak spends the most money on it's Acela Express which I consider top of the line. It's unfortunate Amtrak does not own it's rails on the West coast. You should see those Acela Express trains fly! It's scary and an incredible rush at the same time seeing those trains rocket to Boston! It seems so incredible that Amtrak provides such horrible service out west. Waiting 6 hours for a late train is unbelievable. I would be angry if the tain was 5 minutes late!
I love all trains including those with outdated cars. My trips on the weekends usually involve subways, commuter rail and lightrail giving me the ability to travel 75 miles away for under 10 dollars! You should really see how it works here in the East coast and the how FAST and prompt the service is would give you a totally different opinion of how rail travel really works in this country.
Dahon.Steve
06-27-06, 11:32 AM
I like AMTRAK too, but damn are they expnsive !!
Agreed.
A trip to Amtrak from New York to Phili would set you back about $100.00 dollars! That same trip using NJ transit and Septa is about $40.00 dollars. Still. You are still better off because renting a car is even more expensive.
I wanted to buy a bike in NYC and bring it home to Maryland. Since I was not SURE I would buy it, I thought I'd take Amtrak. Imagine my surprise finding out that they have NO WAY to move a bike. You can't travel with it, and they no longer take "BAGGAGE" (security, I suppose). So I am forced to use my car to maybe buy a bike. Hmm?
Greyhound will take crated bikes as freight (not baggage). You can ride with, or not, as you prefer.
Dahon.Steve
06-27-06, 11:40 AM
give it time, its temporary
we might have an embarrassing railroad now, but energy scarcity will fix that in short order
railroads are already overcapacity in many places now due to the small blip in energy prices we've had, wait till it jumps another 40 % in the next year or two
I don't know about this...
The current political climate in Washington last year was to bankrupt Amtrak and sell the NEC to private investors and eliminate all other sevice. According to Trains magazine, Washington is holding back $400 million to be released as "Efficiency Incentive Grants" to encourge "reforms" on the railroads service. In other words, Amtrak gets money if they start discontinuing service out West. We are nearing the end of national passenger rail service as we know it.
again, its temporary, have some patience, give it some YEARS
passenger service may very well go out of business for awhile, but the advantages per seat mile and pound mile of rail versus ANY other form of travel will undoubtedly win out in a fuel scarce scenario, you cant ignore efficiency advantages of that magnitude for long
rail travel and rail business is already finding themselves in a crunch just due to the extra coal deliveries now that natural gas has gotten more expensive and fuel prices in general have gone up quite a bit
oil is going to contnue its path of depletion, we are in the plateau phase at the moment, I doubt world production will go up much from here, and demand will outpace supply----
blue steal
06-27-06, 02:54 PM
I really enjoy riding the train. During the summer months I take my bike on Amtrak every week from downtown union station in Los Angeles to Solana Beach, (just north of San Diego). From there ride around the coast route, then on the return trip........seat back, legs strecthed out with a bottle of Becks and some nuts.......bike secured on the rack. Next thing I hear is the conductor waking me up at my stop, man I love it.
Another vote here for more/better passenger train service.
carless
06-27-06, 09:45 PM
Not all trains in the Eastern U.S re outdated equiptment. In fact, Amtrak spends the most money on it's Acela Express which I consider top of the line. It's unfortunate Amtrak does not own it's rails on the West coast. You should see those Acela Express trains fly! It's scary and an incredible rush at the same time seeing those trains rocket to Boston! It seems so incredible that Amtrak provides such horrible service out west. Waiting 6 hours for a late train is unbelievable. I would be angry if the tain was 5 minutes late!
I love all trains including those with outdated cars. My trips on the weekends usually involve subways, commuter rail and lightrail giving me the ability to travel 75 miles away for under 10 dollars! You should really see how it works here in the East coast and the how FAST and prompt the service is would give you a totally different opinion of how rail travel really works in this country.
Ah, I knew there was an expert/frequent user out there- Mr Dahon.Steve. If you feel inclined to give some thoughts, start a thread or use this one.
I am interested in the politics of rail in the U.S. - it seems very strange:
What country sells it's rails? Can I buy a couple of atrerials near NJ and an option for a 1/2 mile of US 1? The east owns it's own rails?
I was told California trains can't handle unboxed bikes. In Oregon they charge $5 for the "modified" baggage car transport. The "mod" is....a $1.50 orange hook, 4 of them, ("we can only take 4!). How do you handle bikes on trains, I'm assuming you use a folder.
I have waited for 2 hrs after rolling 10' in Portland, OR. The signal is controlled in Omaha, and it was malfunctioning. No trains, danger, or anything else. "We have to wait for the light to change" This type of stuff happen to you?
The ontime rate for the Coast Starlite is 2.4%. Plus you pay a premium (20%) over the Cascades to ride the same route 3hrs earlier. Your trains are on time?
You can buy a Europass-like pass, but you can't go anyplace twice. A sleeper car is "Add $485.00 per bedroom to seat fare**"
Ever been to Europe?
I'll check in later when the site is smoother...
chicbicyclist
06-28-06, 01:47 AM
According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, interurban rail travel isn't much better for the environment than car travel. This is due mainly to two factors. First, ridership is too low, with an average of less than 20 passengers per car. Second, emmision regulations are too lax, and those big diesels put out a hell of a lot of particulates, carbon monoxide and other pollutants.
It's a catch 22 though. Once you start cutting off service, even less people will use them.
Your own example of how long it took to travel short distances (presumably between Portland and Eugene) is exactly why people don't like taking the train. It's not particularly cost effective either in most cases. I can almost certainly fly from Seattle to Los Angeles for less than it would cost to take the train, and it would only take 10% of the time even accounting for airport delays. I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, but it seems to me that medium to long distance rail travel is nearly worthless in the American West.
folder fanatic
07-03-06, 12:02 PM
Rail will come back when the planes are no longer flying.
Rail will come back when the planes are no longer flying.
People boarding planes today are stripped of their private possessions, cigarette lighters, nail clippers, etc. some of which have never been used in any kind of assault. Grandmothers and others are subject to random, pointless strip searches. Others are prevented from ever getting on the plane due to computer errors which due to "security" can never be explained or corrected. And now people boarding planes are asked to strip out of their shoes, exposing themselves to countless diseases (Taking Off Shoes At Airport Could Be Health Hazard (http://news.yahoo.com/s/kgtv/20060703/lo_kgtv/9463455). Meanwhile seating gets more and more cramped as amenities (peanuts?) are denied.
If these trends continue, in the near future everyone boarding a plane will be stripped, gagged, and put in a small box the size of a dog-carrier. They will then be "tipped" into the plane's fuselage. This will be known as the "tipping" point, at which even Amtrak begins to look darn attractive.
It's a catch 22 though. Once you start cutting off service, even less people will use them.
I can't believe that's true. If you have a train with 5 cars, and only 20 people are in each car, that's still 100 people. I have a hard time believing that one diesel train engine puts out more particulates and CO2 than, say, 80 cars. (assuming some of the people would car-pool if no train were available...) And if the train were electric, the power plant that produces the electricity to run the train would almost certainly not pollute significantly more than if the train were not part of the power grid's consumption. Certainly not enough to equal 80 cars. (Yes, I love math, and I make no apologies for it...)
ken cummings
07-03-06, 08:50 PM
politics - money - votes More people drive than take trains. Next.
Dahon.Steve
07-04-06, 05:50 AM
>>>I am interested in the politics of rail in the U.S. - it seems very strange:
What country sells its rails? Can I buy a couple of arterials near NJ and an option for a 1/2 mile of US 1? The east owns its own rails?<<<<<<
The rail lines on the NEC (North East Corridor) are owned by Amtrak and were once part of the great Pennsylvania Railroad. It's a spectacle to see six lanes of railroads along the NEC like a highway with the tracks laid out on ballast making high speed rail travel possible. It's breath taking to see this two story building blast past you at 100 mph on a train station.
Out west, the passenger lines were bought out by freight rail roads (like Northfork Southern) and Amtrak has no operating capital to build new private tracks so you're stuck with poor service.
>>>>>>>
I was told California trains can't handle unboxed bikes. In Oregon they charge $5 for the "modified" baggage car transport. The "mod" is....a $1.50 orange hook, 4 of them, ("we can only take 4!). How do you handle bikes on trains, I'm assuming you use a folder.
<<<<<<
I took my folder on Amtrak so there was no problem.
>>>>>>>I have waited for 2 hrs after rolling 10' in Portland, OR. The signal is controlled in Omaha, and it was malfunctioning. No trains, danger, or anything else. "We have to wait for the light to change" This type of stuff happen to you?<<<<<<<
When it rains or snows the trains tend to have problems but this is to be expected during bad weather. But in general, they run on time the majority of the time. I hardly see any of the issues you experience. It takes major bucks to run these rail lines and they are always men repairing the tracks every day of the year without disrupting service.
>>>The on time rate for the Coast Starlite is 2.4%. Plus you pay a premium (20%) over the Cascades to ride the same route 3hrs earlier. Your trains are on time?<<<<<<
I'll say that long distance Amtrak trains that enter New York City are generally late. However, its NEC line from Boston to Philly is generally on time. I'm kind of spoiled because there's MetroNorth, Long Island Rail road and NJ Transit to keep me occupied besides Amtrak. Hundreds of miles of trains at my disposal for weekend excursions.
>>>>Ever been to Europe?
Not yet. But I love that rail pass. It's crazy that an American can't buy a rail pass on Amtrak
filtersweep
07-04-06, 06:07 AM
Funny how us "asshats" in europe can take trains almost anywhere. I rarely travel out of town without ending up on a train for some reason. Just as I left the US, they finally finished a light rail line. Like one line! A lot of good that will do... but it was a start.
Amtrak operates trains in almost every state and that has helped it to survive. (What congressperson wants to be the one that let the trains go away?)
While Amtrak is denied subsistence level funding from our government, airlines which have screwed their employees out of pensions and benefits and pay their executives obscene salaries, continue receiving government subsidies even in bankruptcy. (Google "airline subsidies" for more than I ever need to know.)
The recent power problems in the Northeast Corridor that caused delays and trapped some passengers in trains for hours could have been avoided if capital improvements were not always delayed from one year to the next due to lack of funding. The Pennsylvania Railroad was able to electrify lines between Harrisburg and Philadelphia and from Washington to New York at the height of the economic depression of the 1930's. It's a scandal that during these prosperous times we are unwilling (though not unable) to do the routine maintenance that will keep the system running reliably.
The bigger issue is that Congress represents not the people but those who can afford the best lobbyists. It's good to consider campaign finance reform but I doubt it will get us much if we can't get our legislators to refuse the gifts that come to them under so many disguises.
chicbicyclist
07-04-06, 04:05 PM
Your own example of how long it took to travel short distances (presumably between Portland and Eugene) is exactly why people don't like taking the train. It's not particularly cost effective either in most cases. I can almost certainly fly from Seattle to Los Angeles for less than it would cost to take the train, and it would only take 10% of the time even accounting for airport delays. I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, but it seems to me that medium to long distance rail travel is nearly worthless in the American West.
Amtrak is nowhere near as efficient as the European and Japanese trains. We could have them here, but, a very big but, our own safety regulations prevents us from doing so(or is conveniently left as it is by the powerful automotive lobby and politicians who view mass transit as communism). Basically, our safety regulations state that our trains need designed to withstand about twice as much impact force for any given speed at the event of a crash. Problem is, once you start going faster, you need a heavier system, and heavy stuff cannot exactly go as fast. So basically, Japanese and European high speed trains is considered illegal in this country. They aren't as concerned with a crash, they just obsess not letting it happen in the first place.
0_emissions :=)
07-04-06, 07:19 PM
Has anyone thought about wind or solar for lines? Our city is 100% wind powered(but I find it hard to believe anything politicos say), and it's light-rail with 3 lines. Why not a wind/solar combo? You could have a wind farm, with solar panels! Too far out there? I forgot though, wind power lowers property values. :rolleyes:
i am a big train supporter, but it should be remembered that the germans and japanese subsidize their trains as much as we subsidize our highways, and that fares are not exactly cheap in either place. still, we need to step up and join them. trains aren't particularly cheap or even efficient (except, i'd imagine, pollution-wise). but they are a damn sight better than cars, especially for shorter interurban trips. long distance train travel is an anachronism and a luxury at this point, and there will always be private companies running luxury trains around the west for anybody willing to pay for 'em. think cruise line and you won't be far off.
There are more environmental benefits to rail transit than lower fuel consumption per passenger mile.
Consider a three track mainline, in which two tracks are carrying passengers in the rush hour direction both morning and evening. This requires about thirty meters of right of way without the ramps and shoulders needed for highways. Rail passenger cars are always carrying people and they are parked at the shops or barns, so acres of parking can be eliminated from city centres. Three tracks efficiently used can carry 75,000 passengers per hour in the peak travel direction. How many highway lanes would it take to handle this volume--I don't think the NJTurnpike comes close--and where would all the cars go after they leave the highway?
Tight curves and narrow clearances do not create a hazard for railroads because the operators do not try to bust the speed limits or circumvent the rules. Because tracks can be routed thus, new lines do not require the massive conversion of lands to transit use as highways do.
A passenger is at least six times safer in a railroad car than on the highway. Some studies say a passenger is a dozen or more times safer.
In an area that is far more difficult to present statistically, rail commuters are, in my experience, a happier lot. If you want to have something to eat or drink, fix your hair, inspect your make-up, read a book or the newspaper--all the sorts of things some people do in their cars--you can do so safely. You can even talk on your cellphone if you find nobody among your fellow commuters worthy of your attention. Driving alone in rush hour traffic can even turn a nice guy like me into a sumunabeach and it makes some people downright dangerous.
I'm sorry train lovers. Trains are romantic, but interurban busses are much more practical in the US. Busses are more efficient, faster*, safer, cheaper, and pollute MUCH less Even more important, the infrastructure they need is already in place.
*Faster in the US currently. Busses move at 70 mph, most rails are in bad shape and have speed limits of 65 mph or less until enormously expensive upgrades are done. Rather than putting the money into heavy rail improvements, let's think about developing maglev and other truly high speed rail systems to compete with air travel.
more efficient? doubt it, steel on steel electrified rail should beat it
the infrastructure for road traffic is in fact part of its biggest problem
Coefficient of rolling resistance of steel train wheel on rail .001 to .0025
" " " " " car/bus tire on asphalt .03 - conservatively twelve times higher.
In terms of fuel efficiency it's a ratio about 7:1 in favor of rail.
Buses have their place in a transportation scheme, particularly when they are integrated into a master plan that includes all forms of transit.
I'm sorry train lovers. Trains are romantic, but interurban busses are much more practical in the US. Busses are more efficient, faster*, safer, cheaper, and pollute MUCH less Even more important, the infrastructure they need is already in place.
*Faster in the US currently. Busses move at 70 mph, most rails are in bad shape and have speed limits of 65 mph or less until enormously expensive upgrades are done. Rather than putting the money into heavy rail improvements, let's think about developing maglev and other truly high speed rail systems to compete with air travel.Most roads would be in bad shape if they weren't constantly repaired by subsidized public maintenance. For a fraction of what we're doing just to keep roads going, we could restore thousands of miles of rail. As long as roads are heavily subsidized, there won't be enough money for rail. And as long as roads are kept in good order, people are going to be tempted to drive their SUVs between urban areas. A fairer system would be to stop subsidizing roadways and turn most of our freeways into toll roads. Once people had to see up front what the actual cost of "free"-ways are, rail would look more attractive.
wahoonc
07-05-06, 04:17 PM
I know what;) we have hundreds of thousands of mile of interstate (at least is seems that way) So we convert have the interstate to rail, with busses connecting from the towns to the rail stations at the various exits...the other half of the interstate can become a 2 lane highway/work access for the railway..Problem solved!:D
Aaron:)
I'm sorry train lovers. Trains are romantic, but interurban busses are much more practical in the US. Busses are more efficient, faster*, safer, cheaper, and pollute MUCH less Even more important, the infrastructure they need is already in place.
*Faster in the US currently. Busses move at 70 mph, most rails are in bad shape and have speed limits of 65 mph or less until enormously expensive upgrades are done. Rather than putting the money into heavy rail improvements, let's think about developing maglev and other truly high speed rail systems to compete with air travel.
That's actually part of the problem - the 'infrastructure' is the same pathways used by general traffic. Even with transit only lanes, busses are still frequently delayed by traffic, accidents, and other obstacles, just like regular traffic.
Rail systems, when well designed, are more efficient because they operate on separate pathways from auto traffic, and thus are much less likely to be delayed.
I agree that traveling by rail is really pleasant over short distances, but more problematic when traveling over 300 miles. If you have to travel more than about 8 hours (ie you have to sleep), traveling via trains becomes tedious.
For intra-urban and shortern inter-urban travels, rail is ideal.
I still vote for ultra-high speed trains (like maglev) for long distances between major cities, although actually newer airliners are quite efficient and clean, compared to diesel trains. And we should have busses for shorter hauls--and for people who can't afford the trains, which will probably cost quite a bit. The heavy rail we have now is best suited for freight, not passengers. Interurban train fare is already twice as high as bus fare in most areas, and even more than commercial air fare for many trips. According to the to the Union of Concerned Scientists, trains as they currently exist are less efficient and pollute much more than busses. We will always need roads for travelling, no matter how many rails you put in. We'll need them for busses, for freight, emergency vehicles, and of course for bicycles!
the thing about comparing trains to planes is volume of usage, trains barely use any fuel at all versus air travel which has been allowed to get way way out of control
as energy gets scarcer and more expensive and its density lower per unit volume of fuel, the differences in magnitude of efficiency of all the different modes of transport will seen and felt profoundly, and air travel will get hurt quite badly all else being equal, the cost will be time, it will just take longer to get somewhere, no biggie, man lived w/o air travel before, we can deal with it
Man lived without air travel, but large scale commerce never did.
that will decrease too, or just happen a little bit slower, that too is part of "powering down" so to speak
that will decrease too, or just happen a little bit slower, that too is part of "powering down" so to speak
Good point. It makes sens to use the remaining gas more for commerce and less for personal transportation.
Man lived without air travel, but large scale commerce never did.Huh? The trains pulling out El Centro look to be 2 miles long. Each train car as large as or bigger than the boxes on the back of mack trucks. The car-carriers carry multiple cars (can't count them anymore since they're now screened in). If you eat meat, vegetables, or drive a car west of the Mississippi its likely it made the major leg of its journey by rail. If you own any merchandise from Asia, it almost certainly made at least one leg and possibly two by rail. Maybe you mean something else by large scale commerce?
No way can I believe that air travel is more efficient for transport than rail. If it was so efficient, why have so many airlines gone into bankruptcy and the ones that are remaining are always on a knife's edge?
Regarding bus versus rail, it may be that city busses are better run in MI than here. Here their service is atrocious, unreliable, and uncomfortable. No wonder that only 3% of the local population makes use of mass transit. But we also have light rail (trolleys) that is slowly making a come-back. The trolleys run on schedule, are reasonably comfortable, and don't get stuck in traffic. Best of all, you don't have to deal with bus drivers.
Where is that report from the UOCS? Comparing busses vs. trains as they currently exist isn't a fair match up in any event because the bussess are running in an artifically subsidized environment in which a part of the true cost of transport is being footed by the government. For all the talk about the "free market", there sure is a lot of resistance to making interstates into tollways that pay for their own usage.
vBulletin® v3.7.3, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.