Posted on 07/12/2008 9:11:25 AM PDT by Graybeard58
One of the many good ideas that powered President Bush to the White House, only to die on Capitol Hill, was the plan to tear down Amtrak and start from scratch. He believed privately owned railroads, which are doing splendidly these days on the freight side of the business, could do a better job on passenger rail. Congress, beholden to Big Labor and firmly in the grip of logrolling agreements to preserve money-hemorrhaging routes even Amtrak doesn't want, never got past grumbling about Amtrak's many deficiencies.
Last week, the House passed a five-year, $14.9 billion proposal to help Amtrak rebuild its sagging infrastructure and aging equipment. The Senate is expected to follow suit.
This is taking place as Americans increasingly clamor for access to commuter rail, not the slow, inconvenient and expensive cross-country service that is Amtrak's dubious specialty, but for trains that serve urban employment centers. Would-be successors to Amtrak also would have a chance to break free of the crippling work rules and featherbedding practices dating to the steam era, and operate more efficiently than government-subsidized Amtrak ever could.
A poignant example of what's wrong with Amtrak was provided last month by columnist John M. Crisp of Corpus Christi, Texas, who wanted to travel to Wichita, Kan. Mr. Crisp carefully estimated the costs of travel by car, bus, air and rail, and found that even with $4-a-gallon gasoline, driving was still the most inexpensive way to make the 23.5-hour, 1,538-mile round trip, at $240.
Amtrak's offering was less inviting on every level. The best it could do was a round trip of 3,574 miles that would take nearly 98 hours and cost $510, plus parking and gasoline for 370 miles to and from train stations.
"Dream with me for a moment," Mr. Crisp wrote. "I'd like to catch the 8:32 a.m. out of Corpus Christi, a comfortable, fast, electricity-driven train. At 140 mph and with one stop, it would be in San Antonio in a little over an hour. On the way I drink coffee and finish the newspaper.
"Changing trains in San Antonio, I head north in a spacious coach — no need to check baggage. The ride is smooth and the seat is comfortable and has Internet access and movies-on-demand. ... The train stops briefly in Austin, Waco, Dallas and Oklahoma City, but with a speed of 170 mph, it pulls into downtown Wichita at 2:21 p.m.
"Round-trip: 1,538 miles. Time: 12 hours and 22 minutes. Cost: Priceless."
It could happen, but only in a post-Amtrak world Congress refuses to contemplate.
Ping to a Republican-American Editorial.
If you want on or off this list, let me know.
I remember passenger trains in the 50s: they were too hot or too cold, filthy, stopped in the middle of nowhere for extended periods of time and arrived late at dirty stations. All this long before Amtrak.
The fact is, either a passenger car full of paying customers paid less than a freight car full of cargo or didn’t pay enough more to be worth the trouble of dealing with so many people. The privately-owned railroads made a determined effort to discourage passenger traffic and succeeded.
I recently checked to see about a Memphis/Denver trip, and learned that it would take 36 hours. What a shame.
Interesting that you posted this today. My wife just got off the Amtrak Auto Train, 2 hours ago, that runs from Orlando to Washington D.C. On the train 3pm yesterday with her car and baggage and off this morning at 9am. She said the service was first class bordering on luxurious and the round trip ticket there and back is $900. She could not have driven with hotels and meals for that same amount, anyway, she was thrilled.
I’m not trying to cheerlead for Amtrac, this is just my personal anecdote.
That being said, it doesn't mean it isn't useful. Expanded commuter rail and transit would help to ease traffic congestion in some parts of the country. However, the idea that we should be paying for cross-country or other long-distance rail trips, when airliners are far more economical for such purposes, is silly.
Railroad accountants generally knew that - with the exception of some heavily travelled commuter routes - passenger service was a loser, but it took a long time for the brass to let go, whether for PR reasons or just plain pride.
My relatives abandoned trains the minute that they got automobiles, preferring the vicissitudes of unimproved roads and mechanical troubles to the thought of sharing the shabbiness of a coach with the average stranger. Nostalgia for the train only showed up after they knew they would never return to the rails.
My mother used to ride the Milwaukee and the WCF&N while a college student, so nearly forty years later, she decided that Amtrak from Chicago to New Orleans would be a fun trip down memory lane. Suffice it to say that two strikes was enough to end that particular inning.
Mr. niteowl77
Your argument is amusing. Passenger rail went bust due to the economy and speed of air travel. A developer never had the chance to build or operate newer, speedy high speed rail as the existing infrastructure is heavily subsidized.A DC to Boston line would be profitable as would a Sandiego to Seattle line. One thing that never disaapoints around here: Freepers hate rail.
Amtrak is expensive however you look at it. Washington to Orlando is about 850 miles; at 25/Mpg, the round trip would cost around $275 in fuel. Add in a couple of gas-up/stretch legs/chow down stops, and the trip takes from 11 to 12 hours - no need for an overnight motel. But even with an overnight, there are plenty of decent places to stay for +/- $60/night. Total round trip @ $275 gas, $120 for two nights at a motel, and $50 for food comes to $445 - less than half the cost of the Auto-Train (1/3 the cost without the motel stay). Plus you’re on your own schedule, so a detour to visit a Civil War battlefield, or do some shopping at the outlet stores, can easily be shoe-horned in; an “unscheduled stop” on a train is anything but pleasant.
Airfare is even cheaper - lots of round trip flights for under $300, and way shorter - even if the lane is delayed - than an 18 hour train ride. Round trip of 36(!) hours on a train, versus +/- 4 hours on a plane - no comparison. Car rentals are relatively cheap in the Orlando area (one of the perks of being a major tourist destination) - the stay would have to be pretty long for air fare + rental charges to come close to equalling Amtrak’s cost.
The problem is that the government can't change it. I'd like to see Amtrak's biggest money losing routes die off, but as long as you need votes from senators and congressmen in the states "served" by such routes, they can never be cut.
"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
I love rail travel. However, I *hate* having the government pay for it! If it can be made profitable, let the private sector do it. If not, let it die.
The government also subsidizes the airlines, city buses,and the interstate highway. Should they be all private as well?
Yes.
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.