Posted on 08/25/2007 1:59:36 PM PDT by Graybeard58
These are boom times for Amtrak. The passenger railway is seeing big increases in ridership on the Northeast Corridor and other routes that provide fast, reliable, comfortable service. Medium-distance commuters are finding it's better to ride a train than sit in an airliner for hours on the tarmac or battle urban traffic jams after landing.
The Bush administration, meanwhile, continues to press its vision for Amtrak, though in a somewhat desultory manner. The president essentially wants to take the money-losing long-distance routes out of the hands of Congress and let more pragmatic state leaders decide their fate. The worst of them would be shut down, freeing Amtrak to develop its high-ridership routes in pursuit of fiscal stability, or even profit.
Amtrak's high-speed Acela train, which passes through southern Connecticut on its route linking Boston with Washington, D.C., has seen ridership increase 20 percent over the past 10 months, reports The Wall Street Journal. The Acela's June on-time rate was 90 percent, compared with about 70 percent for commercial airline flights at LaGuardia Airport in New York between June and Aug. 15.
It would cost Amtrak $625 million to improve its Northeast Corridor system enough to reduce travel times between Washington and New York 15 minutes, to two and a half hours. It would cost billions to deliver European-style high-speed service. David Gunn, former Amtrak president, said, "If you really want a super-zippy train from Washington to New York, you have to build another railroad."
Such goals might not be quite as daunting if Amtrak were not weighed down with slow, little-used, unreliable intercity routes such as the coast-to-coast Sunset Limited, which requires a taxpayer subsidy of $400 per passenger. Congress tried and failed in 2005 to cut the Sunset Limited and 17 other long-distance routes that doom Amtrak to deep deficits year after year.
Amtrak deserves credit for outperforming the airlines on a number of important travel benchmarks this year, and increasing its market share as a result. It also deserves a chance to operate in an atmosphere of fiscal sanity, where it could shed services no business executive in his right mind would continue to provide.
Everyone to their own opinion. Ridiculous? Hardly, government influence and largesse kept railroad passenger service running far beyond when it should and caused the railroads ultimate demise(at least on paper). Freight is still a viable option for trains. Passenger service would have had a revision with fast rail but railroads are so overloaded with subsidies now that they can 't make a profit no matter what. Short distance rail would outshine airplanes, especially the way planes are regulated and cause a person to spend about 5 hours waiting for layovers and departures for every hour spent in the air.
If I were a bidness traveler, going between the larger cities in the Northeast, I’d sure prefer riding the train over going on an airplane. Especially nowadays with all the delays in flights for weather, etc. Also, riding a train gets you right into the heart of the city, not way on the outskirts where you still have to get an expensive cab to get into town.
So I was stuck in Memphis and not looking forward to sleeping in a chair, when I remembered that one of my brothers and his wife had recently moved to Southhaven MS! I called them, and fortunately, they had decided not to go anywhere that week, even though my brother was on vacation. They picked me up and I was able to spend a lovely evening visiting with them, had a nice shower and a comfortable bed, and my brother drove me back to the airport the following morning.
The main thing it can do is suck up tax dollars while providing marginal benefits.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
That's exactly what I LOVE about rail travel. No having to stand in a long security line, walk through a metal detector, get my carry-on x-rayed, and get groped by some government stooge because I forgot to take my keys out of my pocket. If Amtrak really is seeing an increase in passengers, I'd bet the farm that the lack of security is a reason for it.
amtrak is just another pork barrel project.
http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=Amtrak/am2Route/Vertical_Route_Page&c=am2Route&cid=1081256321200&ssid=136
OK, let's be clear. I didn't say it has. This very fact refutes the other argument ("subsidies destroyed the railroad").
I am not an expert, but even I can see that the economics of rail transport are far different today then they were in the 70's and 80's; or the 50's and 60's.
I think you just contradicted yourself. Flying is cheaper over a distance of 50 to 400 miles?
And how long is the NE Corridor? As the crow flies, my atlas makes it look like Boston-to-Georgetown is a shade over 350 miles.
No, I said over 400 miles flying is cheaper and easier.
Unfortunately, we live in a political climate that makes high-speed individual travel an impossibility. It took over a decade to get rid of Jimmy Carter's 55 mph speed limit. Imagine what effort it would take to design and build a highway worthy of 150+ mph travel.
The problem is that you simply can't monitor and screen passengers boarding a train in the same way you can screen passengers boarding an airplane.
You can't "control the space" at the entrances to a train like you can a plane, because a train has so many doors. Have you ever seen a Metro-North commuter train board at a busy stop? A 10-car train has 20 doors, a platform 900 feet long teeming with riders, and when the doors open, a rush to get in and off.
The TSA tried a few passenger-screening tests, using a detector that folks had to walk through. What's informative is that these "tests" were tried ONLY at a few stations that had a very low passenger volume. Of course, they didn't dare attempt to screen hundreds of passengers per minute at any BUSY stations, which would have resulted in frustration and tumult, as riders waited in line to pass through the machine while the trains they were waiting for arrived and then departed without them.
I have noticed a few "sniffer machines" installed at Penn Station, which I believe are there to detect the presence of common explosives. This is the only workable approach, in my opinion: to monitor and [hopefully] to intercept explosive materials as the jihadis enter the station perimeter (or move around BEFORE they get to track level). Once they're in the door of the station, it's too late, because they can do their damage even before they get on a train. If you blow up one train, another will pull in. Blow up the station, and the entire operation is out of business for a while.
Airplanes are the prime target for terrorists, of course. But they are also by far the easiest public transportation mode around which to build a ring of security. You simply can't put the same precautions in effect on trains, subways, or buses.
- John
(disclaimer: 28 years on the railroad this coming Friday)
About 229 miles from Boston to New York.
And 229 more miles from New York to Washington.
- John
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.