Rail makes no sense

[Ryan]

That's why the few of us who like trains for more than A-to-B transit get confused looks from friends when talking about long-distance train trips.

My experience disagrees with this - I just recently took a trip around the US for my honeymoon, when telling people about it, the UNIVERSAL response was an enthusatic "That sounds awesome, I can't wait to hear about it when you get back".

Earn enough money so that paying $220 versus your "estimated" $70 isn't a big deal.

Who are you to judge what other people make?

I don't see anyone judging here, it's just a statement of fact.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

I don't see anyone judging here, blah blah blah...

Yeah, I hear you, it's only a judgement call when it's against Amtrak. Everything pro-Amtrak is simply a fact, even when it's nothing more than openly blasting a fellow poster for not making enough money. I can't wait for the next nugget of wisdom you're about to drop on us.

 

[tp49]

Corridor travel in the US should be brought up to European/Asian standards, and subsidized to the full extent necessary, as it represents a true alternative to freeway or air travel.

I agree with the usefulness of the corridor system based from my own experience. When I was living and working in New York City I had considerable business in Washington, D.C. which required me to travel between at least once a week. Generally I would take the train down because the total time from NYP-DC was within a couple minutes of the total time to take the Delta Shuttle. Our DC office was also a couple of blocks from Union Station which made the train very convenient.

Contrast this to now where I live in Sacramento and have to travel to Los Angeles with some regularity. Since the rail scheduling is atrocious between the two cities I spend a lot of time on the "Southwest Shuttle" because for a 400 mile trip I either can spend seven hours on a train/Ambus combination or fourteen hours on a train/Ambus/train combination. If I have a morning meeting in Los Angeles I have to travel the day before and stay in LA overnight.

I'd love to see California have a true HSR like they do in Japan or in Taiwan (which I've ridden). Even if the HSR went from the Bay Area I'd be inclined to use it because Union Station is only three subway stops from where I need to go in LA ans when combined with getting to the airport, flying to Burbank to connect to Metrolink or the Surfliner then to the subway in LA it would take about the same amount of time for a minimal process.

However, as time is a major commodity for me I need to get between A and B usually same day so for anything long distance I will continue to fly.

Learn math and calculate the real cost of driving versus taking the train.

The "real" cost of driving is NOT just the $60 or $70 of gas.

You have to include

1. Insurance for the car
2. Upkeep for the car
3. Parking for the car

I would consider $220 to be a bargain!

And before you say "The Government does not subsidize roads or air", consider this:

1. Who paid the majority of building I-95, I-81 or even Main Street? (The Government)
2. Who pays the majority to repair the roads? (The Government)
3. Who provides the majority for things like plowing, etc....? (The Government)
4. Who provides most of the money for new airports to be built? (The Government)
5. Who operates the FAA and ATC? (The Government)
6. Who provided airlines with Billions of $$$ after 9/11? (The Government - and BTW - railroads got $-0-)

I for one would not like to pay a $2,000,000 toll to go down to the store to get some milk!

Now be fair insurance and upkeep of a car are costs that would be there whether you drive to your destination or leave the car in the driveway.

(Not to pick on you traveler) I find the "well the government subsidizes roads and air" argument disingenuous. Especially considering that far more people use the roads and air then do Amtrak and for the most part roads and highways are a necessity. Without roads we all would have a hard time getting to the station (except for the_traveler as there is documented evidence he actually resides on a train ).

 

[Big Iron]

I'm making a list of places I would like to go for vacation.

Then I select only those destinations which have good rail service & connections.

By that, I mean destinations you can get to via AMTRAK,

with one or two timely connections - timely meaning same-day connections, not overnight in an expensive city, or 6 - 8 hours in an empty rail station in a bad part of town in the middle of the night.

Even the best (from my home to Richmond, VA) takes 14 hours, requires me to spend a night sleeping in a seat, and costs $220.

Same trip in a car is an easy 7 hour drive, and uses $60 worth of gas.

If I didn't already own a car, and couldn't rent one, maybe I'd take the train (but more likely fly).

Unless they actually let you drive the train, why would anyone want to go through that hassle and expense?

So rail does not "make sense" for any of your ideal vacation sites. Would it work for any business-related trips you might make? (To Washington, Baltimore, Philadelphia, New York, etc.?) Does it "make sense" for any other people living in the Richmond area, for either business or leisure? (Do other Richmond-area residents travel to Washington, New York, Charlotte, Miami, Atlanta, etc.?)

I guess I'm just not sure what sort of a post/question this is. Just an anti-rail/anti-Amtrak rant? An actual question of when/how rail travel works for people?

I live in Richmond and find Amtrak extremely convenient, especially travelling North. We need more info from the OP to be of help. A vacation to Virginia Beach for a week may not make sense given all the crap people usually take to the beach and train bus combo. A trip to Philly, Penns Landing and other sites, extremely convenient and sensible alternative to driving/flying.

 

[Big Iron]

Earn enough money so that paying $220 versus your "estimated" $70 isn't a big deal.

Who are you to judge what other people make?

Obama

 

[John Bobinyec]

Same trip in a car is an easy 7 hour drive, and uses $60 worth of gas.

But there is more expense to running your car than just the gasoline. Recently (it could be more now) the IRS allowed the expense of ownership, insurance, wear and tear and fuel to be $.50 per mile. If you figure it that way, how much would it be?

What about your time? If you had to pay someone to drive you in your own car, how much would that cost? Your time is valuable and should be counted as well. Riding the train is like being on vacation - in fact, it IS vacation. Driving is like being at work.

John Bobinyec

 

[Cristobal]

I guess that I should count my lucky stars that I live where I do. I just booked a trip to go see my sister and BIL in Fresno this weekend and it probably cost me less than the gas alone (I did use 1K AGR points for the most expensive leg ($45) however). Of course my 'home' station is only minutes away and the trip by train to FNO is more than twice as long as driving. But!!! I don't have to drive and stress about holiday traffic and/or road construction. I will have food and restrooms available anytime that I need them. I will bring along a couple movies to watch to help kill the time. Plus, I'm on a friggin' train! An hour layover (each direction) at OKJ is easily filled by nearby restaurants and sights (I have to transfer from the CC to the SJ at OKJ).

For some of us rail really does make sense.

 

[AlanB]

(Not to pick on you traveler) I find the "well the government subsidizes roads and air" argument disingenuous. Especially considering that far more people use the roads and air then do Amtrak and for the most part roads and highways are a necessity. Without roads we all would have a hard time getting to the station (except for the_traveler as there is documented evidence he actually resides on a train ).

With maybe one or two odd exceptions, I never drive to an Amtrak station. In fact the only use that I have for a road to help get to the Amtrak station, is the fact that I have to cross 8 of them to reach the Woodside LIRR station. And if I wanted the extra excercise of hauling my luggage up and down a bunch of steps, I could avoid roads all together by riding the subway. Don't even need to cross any streets to reach the subway; just walk to the other end of the block and right into the station.

Seriously though, my problem isn't providing subsidies to the roads. It's the fact that people believe that their fuel taxes actually fully pay for those roads. Very few are aware that the fuel taxes fall short of what's needed. They then use this as part of their logic as to why Amtrak should pay for itself, without realizing that they are being hypocrites.

And last year was a banner year for not paying for the roads. Just at the Federal level we spent $69.116 Billion on our highways, of which the "users" only paid $34.616B via the Federal fuel tax. The other $34.5 Billion came right out of the treasury. That's about $112 for every man, women, and child without regard to whether or not they even own a car, much less can drive one. That same $34.5B would have run every public bus, train, monorail, ferry, and demand response service in the US in 2008 with money to spare. And again, that's just the Fed. Most cities, counties, and state further subsized the roads & highways.

 

[LA Resident]

I guess that I should count my lucky stars that I live where I do. I just booked a trip to go see my sister and BIL in Fresno this weekend and it probably cost me less than the gas alone (I did use 1K AGR points for the most expensive leg ($45) however). Of course my 'home' station is only minutes away and the trip by train to FNO is more than twice as long as driving. But!!! I don't have to drive and stress about holiday traffic and/or road construction. I will have food and restrooms available anytime that I need them. I will bring along a couple movies to watch to help kill the time. Plus, I'm on a friggin' train! An hour layover (each direction) at OKJ is easily filled by nearby restaurants and sights (I have to transfer from the CC to the SJ at OKJ).

For some of us rail really does make sense.

Yes, but should we be telling the nation as a whole to spend money on trains that exist largely for rail enthusiasts like us, or spend more money on urban transit networks, corridor service and other transit in high-density corridors with more bang for the buck? There are those who point out--correctly--that our tax dollars subsidize the Interstates and related roads. But that money goes for corridors with tremendous amounts of usage, not on rural highways with traffic loads the equivalent of a daily train with 200-plus passengers.

Let's face it: long-distance trains carry a tiny, tiny number of people traveling around the US each day. The NE corridor, the SoCal corridor and a few others have the potential to truly compete against airlines and the car.

And no, I am not advocating the elimination of long-distance rail service. I think, rather, that the bulk of Amtrak funding should not be directed toward these money=losing trains. If that means there is no "national network" then so be it. Others have already pointed out what a misnomer the term "national network" is anyways.

 

[Tony]

There are some aspects of Amtrak that are great, others that just downright stink, imho.

Take for example this scenario...

Just yesterday I rode one of the Amtrak Cascades from Mt Vernon, Wa. down to Seattle.

1) Cost is unbelievably high, almost 30 dollars.(five extra for my bike). This run should be 15 at most.

2) The train doesn't even stop at Mukilteo, where there is now a commuter stop, and this is also a ferry connection to Whidbey Island. I understand the Builder not stopping there, but not the Cascade. Another waste of govt. money not tying rail networks together.

3) I can take my bike onboard the Cascades, even at unstaffed stations; but heck no when it comes to taking my bike on the SW Chief to Raton, or on the Zephyr to Colfax, or the Starlight to Dunsmuir.

What gives with this asinine policy on long distance trains? I can buy a first class ticket on the sleeper, but can't get a simple 30 pound bike onto a 2500 ton passenger train because its to "inconvenient" or some other lazy excuse by Amtrak.

Make no mistake, I will buy tix on Amtrak, but they certainly aren't getting my vote for more funding. If they can't handle reasonable travel accessories like other passenger networks do, they deserve to have their funding cut off, COMPLETELY.

Lets face it, Americans aren't even getting close to getting a solid return vs. how much is spent on their rail network. All one has to do is ride the Chihuahua-Pacifico/Ferromex Chepe Segundo or Primera trains to see employees who work extremely hard, and are willing to help passengers, not hinder them. These runs are bare budget, and do a way better job over a comparable Amtrak run.

 

[RTOlson]

From my reading, Cascades offers the option to ship bikes as baggage or to use the bike racks (costing $5-15). Long-distance trains can ship bikes as baggage, but there are no bike racks aboard at this time.

Where would you propose that Amtrak stow the bikes, if there's no racks for them aboard long-distance trains? The bikes would need to be secured somehow or else they could be a safety hazard. Once, I saw a conductor stow a bike in an outside equipment locker, but I think that's the exception rather than the rule.

I don't think it would hurt asking Amtrak to add racks to its long-distance fleet to let bikers haul bikes without checking them. Perhaps Amtrak could remove one of the restrooms to accommodate a small upright rack for about 5-8 bikes. I'm thinking the smaller bathroom lounge on the left-side of the lower hallway on many Superliner coaches. I like that room, but it's close to the door and you wouldn't give up revenue space.

 

[Eric S]

There are those who point out--correctly--that our tax dollars subsidize the Interstates and related roads. But that money goes for corridors with tremendous amounts of usage, not on rural highways with traffic loads the equivalent of a daily train with 200-plus passengers.

But tax dollars DO pay for rural highways with very, VERY little traffic.

 

[Eric S]

There are some aspects of Amtrak that are great, others that just downright stink, imho.

Take for example this scenario...

Just yesterday I rode one of the Amtrak Cascades from Mt Vernon, Wa. down to Seattle.

1) Cost is unbelievably high, almost 30 dollars.(five extra for my bike). This run should be 15 at most.

2) The train doesn't even stop at Mukilteo, where there is now a commuter stop, and this is also a ferry connection to Whidbey Island. I understand the Builder not stopping there, but not the Cascade. Another waste of govt. money not tying rail networks together.

3) I can take my bike onboard the Cascades, even at unstaffed stations; but heck no when it comes to taking my bike on the SW Chief to Raton, or on the Zephyr to Colfax, or the Starlight to Dunsmuir.

What gives with this asinine policy on long distance trains? I can buy a first class ticket on the sleeper, but can't get a simple 30 pound bike onto a 2500 ton passenger train because its to "inconvenient" or some other lazy excuse by Amtrak.

Make no mistake, I will buy tix on Amtrak, but they certainly aren't getting my vote for more funding. If they can't handle reasonable travel accessories like other passenger networks do, they deserve to have their funding cut off, COMPLETELY.

Lets face it, Americans aren't even getting close to getting a solid return vs. how much is spent on their rail network. All one has to do is ride the Chihuahua-Pacifico/Ferromex Chepe Segundo or Primera trains to see employees who work extremely hard, and are willing to help passengers, not hinder them. These runs are bare budget, and do a way better job over a comparable Amtrak run.

2) That is the nature of the difference between a commuter/suburban train, which makes more frequent stops, and a longer-distance/regional/intercity train, which makes less frequent stops. There are always going to be train stations served by local commuter trains (whether Sounder, Metrolink, Metra, New Jersey Transit, SEPTA, or whatnot) but skipped by regional intercity trains.

3) The "asinine policy" exists on long-distance trains because there is no space to store the bicycle on those trains.

 

[Larry H.]

I guess that I should count my lucky stars that I live where I do. I just booked a trip to go see my sister and BIL in Fresno this weekend and it probably cost me less than the gas alone (I did use 1K AGR points for the most expensive leg ($45) however). Of course my 'home' station is only minutes away and the trip by train to FNO is more than twice as long as driving. But!!! I don't have to drive and stress about holiday traffic and/or road construction. I will have food and restrooms available anytime that I need them. I will bring along a couple movies to watch to help kill the time. Plus, I'm on a friggin' train! An hour layover (each direction) at OKJ is easily filled by nearby restaurants and sights (I have to transfer from the CC to the SJ at OKJ).

For some of us rail really does make sense.

Yes, but should we be telling the nation as a whole to spend money on trains that exist largely for rail enthusiasts like us, or spend more money on urban transit networks, corridor service and other transit in high-density corridors with more bang for the buck? There are those who point out--correctly--that our tax dollars subsidize the Interstates and related roads. But that money goes for corridors with tremendous amounts of usage, not on rural highways with traffic loads the equivalent of a daily train with 200-plus passengers.

Let's face it: long-distance trains carry a tiny, tiny number of people traveling around the US each day. The NE corridor, the SoCal corridor and a few others have the potential to truly compete against airlines and the car.

And no, I am not advocating the elimination of long-distance rail service. I think, rather, that the bulk of Amtrak funding should not be directed toward these money=losing trains. If that means there is no "national network" then so be it. Others have already pointed out what a misnomer the term "national network" is anyways.

Trains that go limited places carry limited passengers. Our problem is not that the public doesn't want or need long distance lines, it is more that they do not go to enough locations with convenience to be able to haul the passengers that are interested in riding. No transportation network, rail, air, road, is going to be 100% filled every day. As retail peaks at holidays or events, transportation demand is higher around holidays, vacations, ect. So to expect that a train will show large loads every day would be unreasonable, not that anyone has suggested that, but I wanted to point out that most long distance trains are running at or near capacity during the periods that the public is needing to travel. That will mean that some points during the year are going to look "slow". That is normal business cycle so pointing out at some point that a certain train is operating with low passenger loads may not be indicative of the actual need. I refer again to our trip to chicago when gas was at a high point recently, it was booming like I have never seen in 50 years. One can only presume that if those people were going to exisiting end points, (which haven't improved much in 30 years), that the same would be true for trains running to and from other locations.

 

[rrdude]

Of course the network makes no sense outside the NE Corridor, the Pacific Surliner corridor and perhaps one or two other short-haul routes. That's why ridership is more of a curiosity than custom nationally. That's why the few of us who like trains for more than A-to-B transit get confused looks from friends when talking about long-distance train trips.

Corridor travel in the US should be brought up to European/Asian standards, and subsidized to the full extent necessary, as it represents a true alternative to freeway or air travel. For the rest of the Amtrak network, those of us wanting train travel should be willing to pay the full freight (no pun intended.

BINGO! Give this poster a Kewpie Doll. As he stated, if you live anywhere outside of a corridor, with frequent departures, Amtrak really does not make sense as a transportation alternative. Although I travel almost exclusively by Amtrak for business (I am a rail fan) for "John Q Public" it makes no sense, other than those who wish to (one time only) sample the "experience" of rail travel. It is sad that it is like this in the USA, but dems da facts.

Unless you are a fan, or live in an area served by multiple frequencies, Amtrak really doesn't "make sense".

ALL of the other reasons given, (Airport hassle, meeting ppl, scenery, etc., etc.) are VALID reasons, and they are the reasons I choose Amtrak. But try to justify Amtrak for business, going from DC to Huntington, WV, and you will see what I mean......(Thrice weekly, gimmie a break!)

 

[rrdude]

Learn math and calculate the real cost of driving versus taking the train.

The "real" cost of driving is NOT just the $60 or $70 of gas.

You have to include

1. The wear and tear on the car
2. The wear and tear on the driver(s)
3. Insurance for the car
4. Upkeep for the car
5. Parking for the car
6. (And don't forget) The THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS that YOU (and others) have paid for the road to be built

I would consider $220 to be a bargain!

And before you say "The Government does not subsidize roads or air", consider this:

1. Who paid the majority of building I-95, I-81 or even Main Street? (The Government)
2. Who pays the majority to repair the roads? (The Government)
3. Who provides the majority for things like plowing, etc....? (The Government)
4. Who provides most of the money for new airports to be built? (The Government)
5. Who operates the FAA and ATC? (The Government)
6. Who provided airlines with Billions of $$$ after 9/11? (The Government - and BTW - railroads got $-0-)

I for one would not like to pay a $2,000,000 toll to go down to the store to get some milk!

Traveler, while *I* agree with your math 100%, let's not forget that most people making a decision on whether to fly (rail) or drive, will only consider "out of pocket" costs. (It's not accurate I know)

If you're like me, you've made that argument probably ONE BILLION TIMES over the years, and most ppl still look at you with that RCA dog look.

But keep trying we must.......

 

[rrdude]

Wow another of those topics where realism is easily thrown out the window so to speak. We just had in another topic the points of view of some that long distance and just about anything except the east coast was a big looser and not worth it more or less. Well consider your self fortunate if your anywhere near one of the few rail hubs or main lines with multi directional services. One of my pet peeves for a long time was the reducing of lines to the point that often it does not make sense to take the train. People throwing out all those glowing defenses of loving the view, relaxing, well the point is fine and as a rail fan I totally understand. But if your just plain looking at travel as a way to get some where, then having to go way out of your way and waste lots of time and money is a big deterrent to building passenger bases.

Point in fact.. We live about an hour and a half from St. Louis. At one point even with amtrak you could get a morning train that connected with St. Louis to catch one of several trains running there. Now amtrak has not run that service in quite a few years. We would like to go to Kansas City via the River Runner or mule service. However to do so by rail would mean paying close to 80.00 or more to go 5 hours north out of our way and then back track after a layover to get to St. Louis. Something we used to do in a couple hours for a few dollars. Needless to say we haven't taken that trip.. I don't think anyone but a rabid rail fan would?

To me the money suggested for HIgh Speed Rail would be much better spent restoring connections for some more places in order to be providing passengers to the high speed rail when that occurs. The real reason people on the east can point to everything else with disdain as money losers is that the convenience of service has nearly been totally removed. If we had cross directional trains with good connections people would be flocking to ride amtrak as the tide is building in that direction. But first you have to be able to step on board to do so..

Amen brother, increase the frequency, and locations server, VHSR can wait.

 

[rrdude]

There are some aspects of Amtrak that are great, others that just downright stink, imho.

Take for example this scenario...

Just yesterday I rode one of the Amtrak Cascades from Mt Vernon, Wa. down to Seattle.

1) Cost is unbelievably high, almost 30 dollars.(five extra for my bike). This run should be 15 at most.

2) The train doesn't even stop at Mukilteo, where there is now a commuter stop, and this is also a ferry connection to Whidbey Island. I understand the Builder not stopping there, but not the Cascade. Another waste of govt. money not tying rail networks together.

3) I can take my bike onboard the Cascades, even at unstaffed stations; but heck no when it comes to taking my bike on the SW Chief to Raton, or on the Zephyr to Colfax, or the Starlight to Dunsmuir.

What gives with this asinine policy on long distance trains? I can buy a first class ticket on the sleeper, but can't get a simple 30 pound bike onto a 2500 ton passenger train because its to "inconvenient" or some other lazy excuse by Amtrak.

Make no mistake, I will buy tix on Amtrak, but they certainly aren't getting my vote for more funding. If they can't handle reasonable travel accessories like other passenger networks do, they deserve to have their funding cut off, COMPLETELY.

Lets face it, Americans aren't even getting close to getting a solid return vs. how much is spent on their rail network. All one has to do is ride the Chihuahua-Pacifico/Ferromex Chepe Segundo or Primera trains to see employees who work extremely hard, and are willing to help passengers, not hinder them. These runs are bare budget, and do a way better job over a comparable Amtrak run.

2) That is the nature of the difference between a commuter/suburban train, which makes more frequent stops, and a longer-distance/regional/intercity train, which makes less frequent stops. There are always going to be train stations served by local commuter trains (whether Sounder, Metrolink, Metra, New Jersey Transit, SEPTA, or whatnot) but skipped by regional intercity trains.

3) The "asinine policy" exists on long-distance trains because there is no space to store the bicycle on those trains.

An image how ridiculously little it would cost to add bike racks to the entire fleet of baggage cars. No checked baggage at this station? Conductor walks into baggage car, hands bike down to pax on platform. You think the unions like this??????

Follow the money.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

I wonder if they could simply put some bicycle hooks in the lower exterior door areas of Superliners. I'd have to check again when I'm actually on a train but it seems like you might be able to hang four of them to a car down there. Might have to remove the front wheel but still doable I would think. Not sure if there would be an issue with dirt and grime on the floor but seems like it would be the easiest part of the car to clean out if you had some dirty bikes come aboard. It does seem kind of odd that Amtrak talks the green talk but then has trouble accepting bikes unless they're checked in a specific way at specific locations. Presumably this would be one of those lower cost and shorter maintenance window upgrades that would really improve the trip for some while having relatively little impact on most pax. Or maybe my dimensions are all messed up. Do we have any accurate Superliner mock-ups on here?

 

[had8ley]

My wife will only fly first class; I don't want to get cut up for fish bait on a Greyhound; driving is aggravating at best so the best solution~ AMTRAK !!!

 

[Ryan]

I wonder if they could simply put some bicycle hooks in the lower exterior door areas of Superliners. I'd have to check again when I'm actually on a train but it seems like you might be able to hang four of them to a car down there.

Bikes hanging in front of the door might make it difficult to get on or off the train.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

Bikes hanging in front of the door might make it difficult to get on or off the train.

True, but maybe one bike against one side of the door wouldn't cause a huge problem. Or how about a hook in the door itself? Just brainstorming here, I'm not sure if any of this would work.

 

[Tony]

Eric, thank you for taking the time to reply, though we may not see "eye to eye". I'd like to address your points, and expound on this issue plus the "national network" as well.

I couldn't disagree more about the difference of commuters/suburbans vs. long distance runs. Take the Cascades, they go all the way from Vancouver, BC to Eugene, that's hardly a short run. And to reiterate my point, the Cascades may come close to making the grade when it boils down to accessibility, they still don't make enough stops in places sorely needed. Plus, the nature of less stops on a long distance run makes it even more imperative to have access to putting bikes and etc. on-board, NOT LESS accessibility! Yeesh!

And yes, I chose the word asinine on purpose, because it fits. Here is why.

Your statement of not having enough room on a long distance run is well, utterly unbelievable. I've heard this mantra over and over now for over TWENTY FIVE years. I don't know how many times I've been on-board a coach-baggage to discover the baggage section is quite often nearly empty. How long have they had to modify regular baggage cars to just accomodate a few bikes? Wayyyyy to long, imho.

Plus, their regular bike policy of accepting bikes in extraordinarily oversize boxes as checked baggage decimates your argument about no space being available on-board. Do you seriously believe that they can't make room in a seventy foot long baggage car for a bicycle, or more? Come on! And the Talgos baggage car is miniscule compared to the Starlate, etc. Yet the train had FOUR bikes on it on Sunday. All one had to do is hand it off to a staffer and they take it to the bag. car.

Then there is the AUTO-TRAIN. Yes, somehow Amtrak manages to not being able take a simple bicycle at an unstaffed/no checked baggage station, yet they built facilities to take your car to Florida!

That's almost laughable, but isn't.

Then there is the issue of time. With a decades old policy of the same ole song and dance, it shows that Amtrak is either purposefully ignoring customer requests, or are that close to being a governmental agency with no clue as to how to run a viable travel service across the nation. Why should I support that?!

I suspect that it is both.

Most disconcerting really is your answer. I can understand that you may be defending your employers policy, but more importantly it shows the continued nature of Amtrak not responding to continued customer concerns, instead all we get are the same old answers, never trying to figure out a solution and pushing the burden onto the traveler.

Do you really think this is a wise policy? Over the past ten years I finally stopped defending Amtrak from the many Europeans who constantly berated Amtrak for its inane behavior and travel unfriendly procedures. I realized they were right, unfortunately.

Most of all, why should a customer have to even explain their position, at all? Its Amtrak that's at fault here, and a lot of the blame goes throughout the whole company. Amtrak should quit giving excuses and start offering solutions, if they want my vote then they should get off their butts and do something about this.

I'm sorry, but your premise just doesn't hold water. If this were a new policy I'd say OK, but we are talking about an govt. agency that is recalcitrant and indifferent to travelers needs and concerns. What are they doing in the long distance business if they willingly refuse to adapt and accommodate? It really may be time to pull the plug on this national fiasco, and just concentrate on the smaller core runs instead.

I hope you now see why a long time supporter of Amtrak is now a non-supporter in the voting arena. I don't mean to be offensive at all to you, but we really have two different perspectives here.

Sincerely, Tony

EricS wrote:

2) That is the nature of the difference between a commuter/suburban train, which makes more frequent stops, and a longer-distance/regional/intercity train, which makes less frequent stops. There are always going to be train stations served by local commuter trains (whether Sounder, Metrolink, Metra, New Jersey Transit, SEPTA, or whatnot) but skipped by regional intercity trains.

3) The "asinine policy" exists on long-distance trains because there is no space to store the bicycle on those trains.

 

[rrdude]

Ya know, I'm damn close to buying into your position of "ditch the LD trains" if they can't run 'em correctly too........

I've been disappointed too many times, and had friends take my advice and "take the train" only to be disappointed, maybe it would be better to open the LD service up to other operators. Subsidize the losses, but make operators fight for the right to give great service, and generate a "profit", at least for the over the rails cost.

Damn the unions and their costs to vacate the positions. Take a one time "hit". The T&E crews are fixed, no sense fighting that. But someone can do better, WAY better when it comes to OBS.

Something has to change.

 

[RTOlson]

Most disconcerting really is your answer. I can understand that you may be defending your employers policy, but more importantly it shows the continued nature of Amtrak not responding to continued customer concerns, instead all we get are the same old answers, never trying to figure out a solution and pushing the burden onto the traveler.

A clarification -- this board isn't affiliated with Amtrak and most of its members aren't Amtrak employees (although a few are). It's a discussion board for people interested in the service and to ask questions.

Your statement of not having enough room on a long distance run is well, utterly unbelievable. I've heard this mantra over and over now for over TWENTY FIVE years. I don't know how many times I've been on-board a coach-baggage to discover the baggage section is quite often nearly empty. How long have they had to modify regular baggage cars to just accomodate a few bikes? Wayyyyy to long, imho.

Have you been in a regular Superliner coach car (not coach-baggage)? I don't necessarily think there's tons of room in the lower level of those cars (bikes probably wouldn't go upstairs). I think there may be a way to reuse some of the lower-level space, but I don't know how feasible it is.

Coach-baggage cars aren't available on most of the fleet. The best solution (and the one most likely to be implemented by Amtrak) would need to be able to be deployed as universally as possible. That said, perhaps they could add racks in coach-baggages for the routes that definitely do have them -- Empire Builder nearly always has a coach-baggage for CHI-PDX.

Baggage cars make sense from a space perspective, but it may take too much time at some stations -- especially those stations where the train already has to move twice to have all the cars reach the platform.

Also, if you're having the conductor got fetch your bike in the baggage car in addition to his duty of overseeing the entire operation and safety of the train, why not have them get your checked baggage too (and make all stations have checked baggage)? More people have baggage on trips than they do bikes. If it were feasible, that change would benefit more people more often than your bike plan.

That brings up another point. Just because Amtrak isn't moving faster on making it easier to haul bicycles, it doesn't mean that it's not trying to improve service that would benefit the most passengers in a cost-efficient manner. Adding power outlets to seats is a change that benefits a lot of passengers (more than just cyclists), but it's still taken some time.

Again, it never hurts to make the request. This would be a good time to do so because Amtrak is developing its next-generation fleet of passenger cars. I would like to see bikes receive some accommodation, but I would also like to see some hard data of how many people would like to see this feature.