URPA Newsletter

Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum

Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Status
Not open for further replies.
JIS

That basically was what I was attempting to say. That the loss of those jobs was due to moving our factories from within to external sources, mainly for cheaper labor.

The Idea as well that were part of a global economy now so we are trapped in a new dimension is not totally unchangeable in my mind. If the public were purchasing our products and they could be made for reasonable prices, not highly inflated prices from a labor stand point, we might be able afford our own things and create lots of jobs once again. That is perhaps unlikely but its part of the problem to me.
 
Volume 7, Number 18

July 31st, 2010



First off, some unfinished business: Amtrak leadership. We hear from the UTU that the contract of Amtrak's President Joseph Boardman has been extended to 2013, leaving only the Amtrak Board incomplete for the upcoming year.

The Board is now more populated than at any time since the Clinton administration, but one opening remains. Representation of the West has been less than sparse in recent decades, and somewhat surprisingly comes news that both Senators from the State of California, and 24 of her United States Representatives, noticed this fact and sent a letter to President B. H. Obama, calling for the lone open seat to be filled by a Californian:

CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES
 
July 7, 2010
 
President Barack H. Obama
 
Dear Mr. President:
 
We write you today to urge you to consider a qualified individual from California with a clear understanding of the unique California Amtrak system as you make nominations for the remaining vacancy to the Amtrak Board of Directors. Currently, no states west of Texas are represented on the board.
 
The Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 states that the President shall "try to provide adequate and balanced representation of the major geographic regions of the United States served by Amtrak" when nominating members to the board. As it stands, no such balanced representation exists. The lack of geographical diversity on the board is contrary to Amtrak's authorizing language.
 
California has the highest Amtrak usage of any state in the country. In 2009, one in five of Amtrak's 27 million passengers rode in California. Three of the top six most traveled routes in Amtrak's system are in our state. In addition, California's Amtrak system has a unique and highly successful partnership with the State, and California is likely to be the first to integrate the needs of high speed rail and Amtrak. We believe that with seven voting members appointed by the President, at least one individual with expertise in California's passenger rail system is warranted.
 
The role of passenger rail is as vital to the West as it is historic. We urge you to consider Amtrak's significant presence in California by nominating a qualified Californian to the Board of Directors. Thank you for your consideration of this request.
 
Sincerely,
 
(signatures by the following)
 
U.S.
Senators
: Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer
 
Members of Congress
: Jane Harman, George Miller, John Garamendi, Henry Waxman, Linda Sanchez, Jackie Speier, Zoe Lofgren, Mike Honda, Adam Schiff, Lois Capps, Jim Costa, Judy Chu, Laura Richardson, Bob Filner, Diane Watson, Brian Bilbray, Ken Calvert, Jerry McNerney, Grace Napolitano, Mike Thompson, Gary Miller, Dennis Cardoza, Lucille Roybal-Allard, and Loretta Sanchez
 
It is a testament to the many who have created the California rail renaissance that members of Congress from both sides of the aisle are increasingly taking notice.

Looking eastward, the anticipated Sunset Limited service changes have neither proceeded, nor failed to proceed. The town of Maricopa (in Pinal County, not Maricopa County which contains Phoenix) has protested against a schedule change, on the not unreasonable grounds of public safety. The poorly designed depot there has a platform far too short for the Sunset to stop, so the train will stop once to change crews, move a hundred feet or so, stop for the first sleeper, move again, stop for the coaches, and so on. This can take ten or even twenty minutes, during which time the train blocks the state highway and bisects the town, isolating new homes from the fire department and causing large traffic jams.

The Arizona Rail Passenger Association passed a resolution in support of daily service, but something needs to be done about Maricopa. Something like finding a way for the train to directly serve America's fifth largest city of Phoenix, perhaps.

Now to the eastern seaboard, where there is excitement in Virginia over a new train which has received state funding. The Commonwealth seeks to create an entirely new route between Norfolk, and Petersburg, just south of Richmond, and on into the Northeast Corridor to Boston. You can read the Executive Summary at the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation site.

Norfolk, the huge military and industrial hub, is part of southeast Virginia's sprawling Hampton Roads region, which includes major population centers on two sides of the James River and the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay. Included are Norfolk, Chesapeake, Suffolk, Hampton, Portsmouth, Virginia Beach, and Newport News. Any of these cities by themselves are larger than most stops in the Amtrak system. Newport News has always had Amtrak service, including two daily trains today. But, it takes an Amtrak Thruway bus connection to make it across the bridge into Norfolk.

John Lee writes us,

There is much to like about this proposal, but one key flaw.
 
A piece of railroad track owned by Norfolk Southern, which hasn't seen passenger service since the 1950s when it was the Norfolk & Western Railway, will again be hosting a daily passenger train. The train will originate in the City of Norfolk, which itself by any passenger rail carrier has not seen service since well before Amtrak.
 
Norfolk at one time was a major passenger rail hub, especially during World War II when the Navy and other military were the predominant force in the Hampton Roads area. Norfolk had a large, grand station, which included an office tower above the head house. Sadly, that structure, when only about 50 years old, was destroyed in the name of urban renewal for downtown Norfolk in the destructive years of the 1960s, as was the fate of the Pennsylvania Station in New York City.
 
In the 21st Century, Norfolk is building a new station for new service. But, the flaw in the service being commenced by Virginia and Amtrak is the train will begin in Norfolk, and after stopping about 10 miles out at Bower's Hill, travel non-stop, first west and then north -- right through the highly populated city of Suffolk -- to Richmond, the state capital.
 
Suffolk, a city of 67,000, is eleven miles west of Bower's Hill but (according to Google Maps) a twenty-five minute drive away. The train also will pass through Windsor (population 3,000), Wakefield (a town of about a thousand, the "Peanut Capital of the World" and home of the famous Virginia Diner), and Waverly (population 2,300) without stopping.
 
There is an incorrect expectation that potential Suffolk passengers will drive east to take a train west and north. Under the current plan, all the population in the five farm counties - about 100 miles worth - between Suffolk and Richmond which have no other means of transportation other than surface road transportation and a couple small airfields, are ignored.
 
The two trains to Newport News will continue to operate, and enjoy intermediate stop business at the tourism mecca of Colonial Williamsburg. Petersburg will continue to have service for the Silver Meteor, Silver Star, Palmetto, and Carolinean. But, it is again going to be a classic example of "you can't get there from here" for Norfolk and the surrounding countryside.
 
Virginia officials are enthusiastic about spending $93 million of state monies to start this service, and it's a good start. They proclaim a second frequency will soon come, after the first frequency shows its chops, as the new service on the westerly Norfolk Southern line between Lynchburg and the Northeast Corridor has shown. But, the Lynchburg service, which is showing a profit (no state subsidies required since ridership and revenue is much above projections), also has the second frequency provided by the Crescent. The new Norfolk service is only one frequency in the beginning.
 
As this plan goes forward, and, so far, most of the plan has been sound, will Virginia and Amtrak entertain modifying their plan to allow other areas to provide local stations? Suffolk certainly is large enough to warrant a station, and at least one of the other towns along the route should be considered for a truly regional service.
 
For decades, people serious about passenger rail have clamored for more than one station stop in major metropolitan areas. In Florida, the Central Florida/Orlando area has four Amtrak stops in less of the geographic area than the new Virginia service, and all of those stops produce good ridership. Yet, just down the track, in Tampa, that huge area, comparable to Hampton Roads, only has two stops, and the rest are serviced by Amtrak Thruway busses. Tampa could easily support at least one more metropolitan area stop in Plant City.
 
"Build it and they will come" is true to a certain extent. The new Norfolk to Richmond to Boston service is a good start, and it should enjoy decent ridership. But, what is being left on the table? If at least two more stops were added, which would only add to operating costs in a minuscule way (It does cost diesel fuel to stop and restart a train), how much more ridership and revenue would be gained?
 
This is a state subsidized train, which means Other People's Money is being used to start the service and maintain the service. When using OPM, it is always best to look at all possible scenarios to make every dollar spent work as hard as possible to create revenue to repay that dollar as quickly as possible.
 
 
Next time, we intend to look at Republican U.S. Representative Mac Thornberry's call to allegedly save $1.2 billion over a decade by axing Amtrak's first class service.

William Lindley
 
This Week at Amtrak; 2010-09-13



September 10th, 2010



After a slow August in the world of passenger rail, we return to a busy soon-to-be autumn.According to Fred Frailey in TRAINS magazine,

Union Pacific has told Amtrak that changing the
Sunset Limited
's frequency from tri-weekly to daily will cost the government-supported company about $750 million in capital improvements.
 
That's almost as much as Phoenix spent building an entirely new 20-mile "light rail" system — including two large bridges and a complete modern maintenance facility and fifty computer-controlled trolley cars. We eagerly await U.P.'s wish-list. One wonders, once you spend some millions to restore a missing connection at San Antonio to eliminate back-up moves, add a couple formerly removed station tracks at places like Tucson, add a bridge here and some signals there … how do you come up with three-quarters of a billion dollars to run one train once a day?

Meanwhile, Berkshire's BNSF issued a two-part $750 million bond, $250 million for a 10-year period at 3.616% and a 30-year $500 million part at 5.074%, both paying a premium over Treasury bonds.

In his annual letter to shareholders, Berkshire chief Warren Buffett wrote: "Overall, we expect this regulated sector to deliver significantly increased earnings over time, albeit at the cost of our investing many tens — yes, tens — of billions of dollars of incremental equity capital…" So the same dollar figure that U.P. wants for one passenger train, it seems, is the same as BNSF's first installment in sprucing up its entire system. Does one of those numbers seem a bit off?

Next, to Ohio, where Republican gubernatorial candidate John Kasich has "vowed to kill the 3C plan if elected." This train, which would connect Cincinnati, Dayton, Columbus and Cleveland, is in line for a $25 million for a preliminary study. Kasich and his advisors apparently are fretting over the $400 million starting price tag, and continuing state outlays. One does wonder, where is one penny of income from Ohio's libraries? From Ohio's fire departments? From Ohio's superhighways? Oh, you say they result in increased education, decreased property losses, and increased economic and social activity, right? So why do we not frame trains in the same way? What is the cost of a trip not taken…

Yet we rail advocates find ourselves in a nasty predicament. Every time good work gets done, as in Ohio, toward a new train… or in Boise… or anywhere across the country where cities and states who want better transportation, and the social and economic benefits that stem from trains… Every time new Amtrak service is proposed, the price is so high and the service to be so slim that nothing ever happens. A year ago we looked at Amtrak's Ohio report, one of three wrong-think reports issued around that time. We saw how "Amtrak really doesn't want to be in the passenger railroad business" and, although there were some hopeful signs in subsequent months, we seem still stuck in the same doldrums as for the past 40 years.

One correspondent writes,

Amtrak's complaints are so ingrained in politicians' and voters' minds that when some good public relations is needed, the cupboard is not only bare, but snarling back at those seeking relief.
 
Another writes that Amtrak,

has spent most of the last forty years not only saying, but proving, that passenger rail is a fiscal sinkhole. Needless to say the green eye-shade brigade in state capitals that must produce a
balanced
state budget every year takes on massive new obligations only with trepidation.
 
Add to this carriers like Union Pacific pulling massive numbers, some might think out of a hat, but perhaps out of reasonable expectations based on past dismal performance of a government-run passenger railroad, and here we sit, stalled again.

Perhaps the most excellent description of the conundrum is Steve Forbes' recent commentary on high-speed rail. Forbes, logically unconvinced by what trains might be able to do, looks at projects like the Acela so-called high speed train which have failed to deliver on practically any of their promises, and at the cost of billions including a hidden billion-dollar loan from Canada… and rightly asks, Where is the benefit? Forbes doesn't see any. And without benefit, what is the point of pouring billions more dollars into it? At some point, there have to be results. Call it return on investment.

To succeed in business, to succeed in the real world, you have to become indispensable. Apple has done that. Google has done that. Some might say Amtrak seems to have concentrated on becoming irrelevant.

Perhaps the renaissance of passenger trains will have to occur from the bottom up. USA Today reports that Denver has broken ground for its commuter train to the International Airport that replaced Stapleton Field. This is to be the long-anticipated first of four commuter lines radiating from Union Station which will complement Denver's light-rail system. The article continues,

Denver joins a growing list of U.S. airports that are trying to promote public rail transportation. Others that will be connected directly via rail in the coming years include Dallas Love Field, Salt Lake City, Phoenix, Miami, Dallas/Fort Worth, Oakland, Washington Dulles and Los Angeles.
 
An AP newswire story tells how even Arizona is planning on a commuter and regional train system:

"It will not be possible to accommodate growth and avoid traffic congestion by improving roadways alone, so passenger rail should become a key component of the Sun Corridor transportation system," the draft plan stated, referring to a planning area that stretches from Prescott on the north to Nogales on the south and includes both Phoenix and Tucson.
 
Phoenix is seeing results with its Metro trains, with monthly averages up to 44,000 daily riders, far above the projected 26,500, and continuing year-over-year increases. With few exceptions, every city that has built a rail system in the past decades has met or exceeded expectations, and brought new development and a renewed sense of place and community pride. The cost has shown its benefit. Why should there be any different standard for intercity trains?

Finally, as promised, this on first-class accomodations.

AMTRAK SLEEPING CARS ARE THE BEST VALUE AMTRAK OWNS

Commentary by Andrew C. Selden and Randy Schlotthauer, URPA

Note: This item was on (Congressman) Eric Cantor's list of budget cuts he wants people to vote on. Only 48% of respondents to the poll favored the idea, but on Thursday, July 22, Mr. Cantor and some of his followers appeared on the floor of the U.S. House to extol the desirability of this cut. An amendment to a pending bill was introduced to implement the idea, but was rejected 234-179. We asked Mr. Selden and Mr. Schlotthauer to comment on the reasons this idea was not a good one. – Russ Jackson

Eric Cantor: "Prohibit 'First-Class' Subsidies on Amtrak; Potential savings of $1.2 billion over ten years. While only 16 percent of Amtrak long-distance passengers opt for "sleeper class" travel, as opposed to coach class, federal taxpayers provide substantial extra subsidies for this first class travel. Passengers in long-distance first class travel are provided a sleeping room, many with a private toilet and shower, turn-down service, and complimentary entertainment and pre-paid food. Yet, Amtrak loses more than twice as much per passenger (an average of $396) for first class service as compared to coach class service. These losses are made up by taxpayers. This proposal would eliminate subsidies for first-class service and require Amtrak to provide any first class service at cost."

Andrew C. Selden: The issue is the corrupt Amtrak RPS-based internal MIS/cost accounting system. Large subsidies to western sleepers are an artifact, if not an intentional distortion, caused by the system, not the business activity. We can show (and have often done so) that these sleepers are substantial net contributors of free cash flow to Amtrak, failing only to cover arbitrarily allocated shares of other system, not operating, costs, only some of which are even indirectly related to the operation of these services.

The Superliner sleeping car, measured by business economic factors like return on capital investment, load factor, revenue per dollar invested, etc., is the best thing Amtrak owns. These members of Congress should look closely at actual sleeping car fares out west, where many passengers are paying thousands of dollars for a single trip. There is NO POSSIBILITY that these fares are losing money on a direct cost basis. The catch is always to audit deeply what costs Amtrak is charging against the sleeping car revenues to determine that a loss exists in the first place. That is where the members of Congress were being conned.

The collateral issue is the subsidy that these sleepers provide to the dining cars. FIRST, diners are indispensable to all travelers on LD trains, where the AVERAGE trip runs 15-20 hours in duration (varying by route). These people therefore (including every coach passenger) are on board over two to four meal periods (and of course some for even more). Lose the diner, and you'll lose ALL the passengers, not just the "fat cat" families and retirees in the sleepers. The sleeper fare transfer to the diner is what keeps the diner on at all—by including meals in the sleeper fare, Amtrak guarantees a predictable base of revenue to the diner. Take away the sleepers and that fare transfer, and with the loss of sleeping car passengers (most of whom wouldn't be caught dead making a two or three day trip in coach) and their fare transfers to the diner, the diner would have to charge obscene prices that would drive out the remaining coach passengers, and without meals over two to three day trips, no one will ride and the trains would be empty.

If Congress wants to look for subsidies to first class riders, have them divide the Acela first class revenue by its proportionate share of the annual two-thirds of a billion dollars of subsidy "invested" each year into the NEC. Those numbers are real and staggering, even though Amtrak never reports them as such.

Randy Schlotthauer: Were it not for the frightening lack of concern by our government about the concerns of citizens, not to mention their misplacing of the Constitution (I have several copies of my own that I would be happy to donate to them), this entire debate over "first class" subsidies would be so tiresome that I would not be drawn to the laptop to respond to it. Those of us that have been involved with Amtrak since THE BEGINNING (that would be before many supporters and opponents were born) have seen this windmill tilted at every year. I remember when we were desperately phoning and writing politicians, interest groups, and anybody else that would listen over a $246M TOTAL SUBSIDY that promised that the pin would be pulled on October 1, (fill in the year). This was in the good old days when there were just two types of cars: Amfleet and everything else, which wasn't much. Though few of us at the time would have granted it, Amtrak President Graham Claytor managed to "modernize" the fleet with new equipment which in retrospect probably saved the LD trains, which we were convinced he was conspiring with THEM to eliminate.

Though designed with the promise and physical capability to deliver a high quality LD experience, through active sabotage by some crew members and a benign neglect (read: stupidity) on the part of management. None of the LD trains ever made full use of the features designed into the cars, and did not repair equipment that was damaged or stolen by passengers, crew, and the denizens of 16th St, 8th Street, and other "maintenance facilities". As a result, even the best attempts by individual route managers to ended up flowering and then all too soon downgraded due to budget cuts that often were the disguised jealousies of other route managers. Despite the efforts of the original RailPAC-URPA group to introduce market economic laws and theories to Amtrak and it's 485 owners, every year it was a battle for survival, with Amtrak management's RPS accounting system proving that they could be profitable if not for those nasty LD trains.

Never was enough capacity provided to even approach break even, which was all any serious advocate discussed. If every seat in every car on every train on every day were filled at the highest tariff fare, there would still be a loss. Even Herb Kelleher (Southwest Airlines) couldn't do anything with one triweekly plane to its largest potential markets. He recognized that planes (and trains too!) make money only if they are moving and filled with people. In fact Herb was one of Amtrak's greatest opponents, because he knew what a well run passenger railroad could do.

So today we are discussing the proposed elimination of the First Class Subsidy, in order to "save" the railroad. First of all, the last trip I took in a Deluxe Bedroom on #3 and #4 could not be called luxury by any stretch of the imagination. Indeed, Denny's offers superior food, service, and even entertainment (if you are at the right one at the right time of night). When you kill the sleepers you kill the diner and lounge. When you kill those, you are the Southern Pacific in the 1960′s, although this time there are not enough people that buy the line that America NEEDS Amtrak. I can build you a great case for a quality passenger rail service, including multiple classes of service. I can even build you a case of how you make it break even in 10 years. RailPAC-URPA's Dr. Adrian Herzog did the math a long time ago, and it still works. What I cannot do is build a case to justify an Amtrak First Class Subsidy for LD trains. There is corporate culture at Amtrak that would fight any attempts to a really make things work.
 
This Week at Amtrak; 2010-09-20



The Cheese Sandwich Bill

The absurd myth of the First Class Subsidy just won't die. Thanks to Amtrak-o-nomics, formerly known as the Route Profitability System, in which you add up every expense and divide by every income to create meaningless numbers, Amtrak's figures seem to suggest that coach passengers are subsidizing first class passengers, when in reality the opposite is true.

Nevertheless, Rep. Mac Thornberry of Texas, presumably taking Amtrak at its word, has introduced the Cheese Sandwich Bill, H.R. 4801 (link on Thomas) [1] which, taking the complaint taxpayers are subsidizing linen turn-down service! toward its logical extreme, surely leads to the complaint that taxpayers are subsidizing steak in the diner! and the demand that only government cheese sandwiches be served even on three-day long journeys. (And you had better not want mustard on your cheese sandwich.) Here is the text of the bill in question:

  • (a) Amendment- Chapter 243 of title 49, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new section:


Sec. 24317. Sleeper class service
  • `(a) Pricing- Amtrak shall ensure that the fares charged for sleeper class service on all long-distance routes are priced to equal all of the operating costs for providing such service.

  • `(b) Discontinuance- Amtrak shall discontinue sleeper class service on any long distance route with respect to which total costs of such service exceed total revenue for such service for the first full fiscal year beginning after the date of enactment of this section.

  • `© Funding Limitation- Amtrak may not use any funds provided by the Federal Government to subsidize sleeper class service.'.
David Carleton writes,

It's useful to look at the quantity of inventory in a sleeper as compared to a coach. A Viewliner sleeper has fifteen rooms, each with two bunks, so call that space for thirty passengers. An Amfleet 2 coach has 59 seats. So the sleeper has only half the inventory of the coach.
 
Based on the above, in order to keep the sleeping car passengers from receiving a higher subsidy in comparison to the coach passengers, then the sleeping car passengers would have to be paying more than twice what the coach passengers are. By every measure they are paying even more than that. Not only are the fares higher, but the average length of trip is much longer for sleeping car passengers causing the sleepers to enjoy a much more favorable load factor compared to the coaches.
 
Not to mention that one sleeping-car passenger needs less time with reservations agents than the equivalent two or three coach passengers. True, each sleeping car has one attendant, versus one per every two or three coaches, but the fact remains that sleeping car passengers are paying far more than their fair share.

The myth of the first-class subsidy is a direct result of dividing revenues by ridership — never mind the potential revenues and economies of scale which might be possible from system expansion. Andrew Selden explained in this column last October [2]:

The most glaring example is Amtrak's endless blathering about "ridership." Ridership is only a measure of a sale transaction. It does not differentiate among the size of the sales. One "rider" from New Haven to Boston is, by this yardstick, exactly equal to one rider from Washington, D.C. to Boston, or even Los Angeles to Boston. Amtrak makes this worse by blurring useful sales data (ticket prices) into averages by which they measure (actually, it's just arithmetic, not really "measuring" anything) "yield," which is the average revenue per passenger mile on a train or route. This tends to reinforce the false belief any one passenger is pretty much the same as any other.
 
In an urban transit system where every passenger pays the same fare, that might be okay.
 
But on Amtrak, where a typical "corridor" customer might pay $10 to $30, but a family in a sleeper to the west coast could be paying $1,000 or more, these "riders" are decidedly unequal. Fifty of the former are less than two of the latter. But Amtrak is obsessively focused on "ridership."
 
A yardstick Amtrak tries to hide, and apparently never uses to make important resource allocation decisions, is load factor. Load factor is the percentage of your inventory you are able to sell. Airlines live and breathe load factor.
 
Load factor is available seat miles (total inventory) divided by revenue passenger miles (seat-miles sold to paying passengers)… The Northeast Corridor's low load factors show Amtrak is already over-invested there: it offers much more inventory than it can sell for $30, or even give away. Long distance trains, with high load factors, show where Amtrak is under-invested, turning away potential $1,000 customers by the hundreds.
 
Simple "ridership," without consideration of load factor, is classic "Amtrak accounting" that disregards the cost and utilization of capital…
 
Meanwhile, it is only the sleeping car passenger under fire, a nearly entirely Outside-the-Beltway phenomenon. When is there mention of cutting back the first-class service for those well-heeled intelligentsia who partake of the heavily-subsidized Acela First-Class service to Washington?

Bottom line: None of Amtrak's accounting systems were ever designed to predict what might happen if routes or services (like sleeper cars) were expanded or cut. None of Amtrak's figures are meaningful in that regard.

The lack of a holistic approach is endemic in the rail and transit industry. A perfect local example is in Phoenix, Arizona, where Metro is continuing to plan an LRT line in the middle of a superhighway, despite the fact that plans for commuter rail — which were not on the table in 2000 when the LRT plan was originally approved — now appear to be ready to precede light rail expansion. It is not just the competition between to separately funded transit modes (LRT and commuter rail) that parallels Amtrak's internal competition (Northeast versus the rest of the country), but the failure to consider the Matrix Theory, the failure to consider urban form, the failure to consider how our cities feel and work, that are frustrating.

Light Rail in Freeway Medians? Not Really a Good Idea

By John J. Gale, Arizona Rail Passenger Association

Imagine standing in the middle of a freeway as cars, trucks and motorcycles rush by on either side. Maybe you have experienced this if you have waited for a train at an in-median station. I have in Los Angeles, on the Metro Green Line which is located in the median of Interstate 105 (Century Freeway), and certainly there are such stations in other locations around the country such as Chicago and the Bay Area. It is not particularly fun to wait for a train at these types of station. Now imagine doing that in Phoenix when it's 110 degrees!

One of the proposed extensions to the popular new Metro Light Rail in Phoenix is a line heading west in the median of I-10, from generally the State Capital area to the Desert Sky Mall area. Stations would be located at the overpasses of the arterial streets that cross the Interstate. Station access would be in the middle of the interchange. Several ARPA members think this is a bad idea, and have expressed that opinion at public hearings related to this proposed line. It is unpleasant, and in fact unhealthy, to wait for a train in a freeway median, and further that the land uses adjacent to interchanges are not conducive to generating transit trips.

Unfortunately it seems that Metro Rail has made up its mind that because the right-of-way is available, they should use it. They also seem to be infatuated with the thought of their trains speeding past stopped traffic on I-10 during rush hours, not that that isn't a nice thought to have. Often, public input is dismissed as not coming from "experts" but from "fans." So let's consult an expert and see what he has to say about locating transit lines with stations in freeway medians. Vukan R. Vuchic, Professor of transportation and transit planning at the University of Pennsylvania, widely acknowledged "Dean of Transit Planners" and author of the "Transit Trilogy" (Urban Transit: Systems and Technologies; Transportation for Livable Cities; and, Urban Transit: Operations, Planning and Economics) has this to say about transit in freeway medians (all quotes are from the last named book):

"First and basic, no freeway in North America was planned with considerations for the optimum alignment for a transit line."
 
While I-10 was designed with a 50-foot median for "future transit purposes," that in and of itself does not mean it is a good alignment for transit. The same holds true for the Century Freeway/Green Line facility in the Los Angeles area. The Century Freeway/Green Line was hyped as a "model" of intermodal transportation when it was planned, designed and built. It included extensive high-occupancy vehicle facilities and a light rail line with the freeway from the inception. But the simple fact of the matter is that traffic engineers determined the route of the freeway, and a light rail line was simply added to it. It is in no way optimal as a transit line.

The same holds true for I-10 here: traffic engineers determined the route. A reservation for future transit was made, but the adjacent land use is related to the Interstate, not a transit line.

Of course I-10 is already used for transit, for express buses running from suburban park-and-ride facilities to downtown Phoenix. And that's just fine; in fact Vuchic states that freeways are perfect for establishing "line haul" operations such as express bus services, especially when priority measures such as a reserved lane and ramps are available for them, as they are on I-10.

But as far as lines with stations along freeways, Vuchic goes on to say this:

"The second problem is that stations in freeway medians are by definition remote from any trip-generating objects."
 
This is certainly true. Around any of the I-10 interchanges you will find truck stops, gas stations, convenience stores, and fast-food restaurants. Hardly big trip generators. Apartment complexes and houses are generally several blocks away. Most employment centers are large transshipment warehouses. Because of their large "footprint" they spread out the jobs (lower the density), meaning only a few jobs are within a reasonable walking distance. And can you imagine crossing the Interstate ramps as a pedestrian to get to and from the station access in the middle of the overpass?

Vuchic further states:

"Finally, stations in freeway medians are in an extremely nonhuman- friendly environment: intensive noise and air pollution are constantly produced by high-speed vehicular traffic on both sides…"
 
As I pointed out in the opening, it's just not a pleasant place to be!

So we can conclude that the best practices established by Professor Vuchic in his textbook would seem to indicate that professional planners should be avoiding use of a freeway median to establish a transit line with stations. But the "fans" already knew that.

Not to simply be negative, and always supportive of the expansion of well planned rail service, this author and several others in ARPA believing that locating a light rail line in the median of I-10 would result in a line which does not meet the ridership potential that other routes would provide, do have ideas for alternate routes for light rail, and also believe that to take trips off of I-10 to the west, commuter rail service on the Union Pacific line is the best bet. In the interim express buses are doing a fine job of the line haul service from suburban park-and- rides to downtown, and need to be expanded.

The most likely candidate for an alternate route for light rail is Thomas Road. Bus Route 29 on Thomas is currently the busiest bus line in the Valley, which would indicate it should be looked at for introduction of high-capacity transit. Further even if a route on Thomas were chosen, there is no reason it would preclude an additional route to the west located further north, such as a route to and through downtown Glendale, possibly on Glendale Avenue.

Article printed from United Rail Passenger Alliance: http://www.unitedrail.org

URL to article: http://www.unitedrai...rak-2010-09-20/

URLs in this post: [1] H.R. 4801 (link on Thomas): http://thomas.loc.go...?d111:H.R.5801:

[2] explained in this column last October: http://www.unitedrai...rak-2009-10-22/
 
Volume 7, Number 21

October 7th, 2010

A weekly digest of events, opinions, and forecasts from

United Rail Passenger Alliance, Inc.

America's foremost passenger rail policy institute

Jacksonville, Florida USA

Telephone 904-636-7739, Electronic Mail [email protected]http://www.unitedrail.org

The President and CEO of VIA Rail Canada offers these thoughts on the future of passenger rail in Canada. Some of the thoughts apply outside of Canada, too.

This speech was delivered in Vancouver, British Columbia on Tuesday, October 5, 2010.

Speech for Mr. Marc Laliberté,

President and Chief Executive Officer, VIA Rail Canada

Gaining Ground Conference – Vancouver

October 5 2010

Thank you Mark.

Bonjour. Ladies and Gentlemen, Good morning.

I would first like to thank the conference organizers for inviting me to share with you VIA's thoughts on a topic of concern for many of us, especially those here today - the environment. I would also like to recognize three members of VIA Rail Canada's Board of Directors who have joined me this morning, Wendy King, David Hoff and Dr. Anthony Perl.

I know that this conference was inspired by a commitment to make Vancouver the leading ecological city in North America. This is an ambitious goal, but one I believe is attainable for a number of reasons.

First is the geographical setting and the exceptional climate that surround you. British Columbia, and more specifically the Vancouver area, boasts a healthy environment compared to other Canadian, US and even global cities.

But its not just about geography, it's also about a vision.

We must dare to dream, and that's precisely what you are doing. Vancouver is seeking to become a leading ecological city. It's evident to me that you are achieving this, not only by concrete gestures in the city, but also by taking the time to delve more deeply into discussions and to consult experts. The conference which is taking shape today is clear proof of this and I offer you my congratulations.

As the subject of my speech suggests, making the right choices today is key to securing a sustainable tomorrow, and I would like to speak to you about choices we are making at VIA Rail to ensure sustainable development of passenger rail in Canada.

Secondly, and on a more global scale, I will venture with all modesty to address the broad underlying question behind one of the reasons why this conference was held, namely how cities can share their vision of a sustainable city with the various stakeholders making up a community. But before I begin, allow me to provide you with a brief overview of VIA Rail, so that you know who you are dealing with this morning!

1. VIA in a Nutshell

This country was founded upon the construction of the railway and our railway system has always played a vital role in major development issues in our country and the cities comprising it.

VIA's history, of course, is more recent, having only existed for 33 years. In fact, it was back in 1977 that the Government of Canada created an independent Crown corporation responsible for providing Canadians with a national passenger rail service. And we continue to operate a passenger rail transportation service from coast to coast.

Every week, close to 500 of our trains travel across 12,500 kilometres of track. Just to give you a hint as to the magnitude of the network, 12,500 kilometres of track is close to three times the distance between Vancouver and Honolulu!(4357 kilometres) We provide service to some 450 Canadian communities and, every year, over 4 million passengers take the train, for business, for pleasure and of course to see the country itself.

Our revenues cover more than 50% of our operating costs and federal subsidies cover the rest. To better illustrate what this all means, consider the following facts: we have certain routes that cover nearly 100% of their direct costs, as is the case in the very busy Ontario-Quebec corridor. In contrast, other trips, particularly those serving remote regions and in which we have a specific mandate to operate, cover only a small fraction of their direct costs.

Last year, our trains logged over 1.5 billion seat-miles and achieved an on-time performance of 83%. Much to the chagrin of my Chief Operating Officer, I fully plan on moving this to over 90% in the coming years!

VIA's Three Mandates

The other key fact behind fully understanding VIA is knowing that we carry out a number of different mandates.

For example, here in the West, we contribute a great deal to tourism.

You are no doubt all familiar with the legendary transcontinental train, The Canadian, which embarks on its expedition three times a week from Vancouver to Toronto. This train passes through the majestic Rockies on a path like no other in the world and we operate this service 365 days a year, in all manner of weather conditions.

We also operate other routes that contribute to tourism growth in Western Canada, including our services between Victoria and Courtenay and our fully daylight service from Jasper to Prince Rupert. VIA's Ocean service between Montréal and Halifax contributes to tourism in Eastern Canada.

VIA's presence across the country, but particularly here in the West, allows several hundreds of communities to benefit from a reliable, safe transportation service. VIA's presence in these tourist markets also fosters several partnerships with government and municipal tourism development agencies, not to mention the numerous businesses operating in this market, such as hotel operators, maritime and airline carriers, plus many more.

VIA also ensures downtown-to-downtown services between the major business centres in Canada. In the Eastern part of the country, this is accomplished through what we refer to as the Ontario-Quebec corridor.

As I mentioned earlier, these various mandates are not all cost effective. As a public service, we have a duty to serve certain remote communities. Moreover, when it comes to our business operations, we must perform along the same vein as a private enterprise. And I must tell you that, for the past few years, we have made substantial achievements in this area.

Over the past 10 years, with respect to VIA's operating costs, we have reduced our financial dependence on the government by 44%, while managing to increase our sales by 85%!

As you can see, we are on the right track – to coin an expression you hear quite often at VIA.

There is no need to clarify that this performance is a direct result of the dedication and experience of our employees. There are some 3,000 people employed at VIA who work on board our trains, in our stations, call centres as well as our maintenance facilities in Vancouver, Winnipeg, Toronto and Montréal.

And our employees are critical to our success. They are knowledgeable, dedicated and passionate, not only about the job they do, but also to our customers and the future of passenger rail in Canada. And yes, it would be fair to say there are a few "rail buffs" in the ranks. I salute their efforts.

Let us look now at the choices we make at VIA to ensure the sustainable development of passenger rail in Canada.

2. VIA's Choices for Sustainable Development of the Passenger Rail in Canada Let's start by placing passenger rail in the perspective of one of Canada's most environmental challenging areas.

To begin, it is important to mention that the entire transportation sector in Canada generates 27% of all the greenhouse gas emissions emitted in the country. In real terms, this represents 200,000 kilotonnes per year, one of the highest per capita levels in the world.

84% of the emissions stem from road transport. In fact, only 3% of greenhouse gases in Canada can be attributed to railways, freight and passenger services combined. As you can see, passenger rail is not the biggest transportation contributor to pollution in the country! However, just because passenger rail's "environmental footprint" is minimal, this is no reason for us to be complacent. That is why we are taking action!

At VIA, we have serious concerns about the environment, which is why we have incorporated an environmental approach into the very core of our business strategy.

The fact that the environment is an integral component of our business strategy is quite significant in my view. This means that, to VIA, the environment is not something to be taken lightly. It is one of the company's six priorities, in the same capacity as the financial results or our human resource development; it is a true commitment for which I am accountable to the Board of Directors.

VIA's Environmental Strategy

VIA carries out its environmental strategy in four key areas. Firstly, we extend a great deal of effort towards reducing the environmental effects of our operations. Secondly, we invest in several green technologies. Thirdly, we promote green practices and, lastly, we have a very strict environmental risk management program. Allow me to briefly elaborate on these four defining priorities.

As mentioned earlier, we are not the biggest polluter in town. In fact, passenger rail is widely recognized as one of the most environmentally responsible transportation modes. When it comes to transportation, many of our customers see us as a real "green choice".

Why?

Since 1990, we have reduced our fuel consumption by more than 25% per passenger kilometre, and we have reduced our greenhouse gas emissions by nearly 19%. As well, our entire fleet of rebuilt equipment now includes far more fuel-efficient heating, cooling, ventilation and lighting systems than ever before.

Additionally, for several years we have encouraged the creation of "VIA green teams", comprised of employee volunteers who promote safe environmental practices among employees on a national scale.

These teams have contributed to the creation and launch of useful initiatives, such as waste reduction in VIA's offices and facilities, not to mention a metal recycling program that has benefitted a local school. These green teams also coordinate VIA's participation in events aimed at raising awareness among the public of environmental issues, through events such as Waste Reduction Week, Car Free Day and Earth Day. Additionally, these teams publish a "Green Bulletin" for employees, a publication that provides information and updates on environmental events, issues and projects.

Fourthly, in 2004, we implemented an Environmental Management System, which provides a follow-up, assessment and environmental performance communication system. This system is updated on a continual basis and is subject to annual internal audit procedures.

I hope that this gives you a general overview of what we are currently doing at VIA to ensure the sustainable development of passenger rail in Canada.

3. Conveying the Sustainable City Vision to all Community Stakeholders

I now come to the more global issue behind your conference: how cities can convey their vision of a sustainable city to all the stakeholders of a community.

Clearly, I do not have all the answers.

I began this morning by saying that we must dare to dream. As a delegation of leaders participating at this conference you need to inspire, to challenge, and to continue to raise awareness of these issues among political and social stakeholders. It is vital that you continue making plans, establishing policies and laying the foundation for new solutions, because the future of our societies lies largely in our cities.

Last May Canada chaired the 2010 International Transport Forum, in Germany. A meeting focussed on innovation in transportation. Two common, universal facts emerged.

One - throughout the world, the need for populations to travel more efficiently is on the rise. Understandably, we might add, so is the need to find an alternative to the automobile, to traffic build-up in several major cities, and the list goes on.

Secondly, increasingly more people are worried about the health of our planet. When it comes to transportation, people want to make the right choice, a "green choice"! We are well aware of these two areas of concern at VIA. We know that, in the future, more people will take the train due to efficiency and environmentally safe reasons. There is a reason why passenger rail occupancy indicators are on the rise throughout the world, and this is also the case in Canada.

Last year, the Canadian Urban Transit Association conducted a study known as Transit Vision 2040 among 275 Canadian companies, all of which are linked to the transportation community. This study is opening up avenues for us. Among other things, we have learned that:

- by 2040, the Canadian population is expected to grow from 33 million to over 40 million;

- our society will have become quite different, with more densely populated cities, an aging population, growing immigration, as well as changing lifestyles;

- the small cities and rural areas will see a further decline in their populations;

- people's mobility will become a major issue;

- traffic congestion will continue to increase;

- uncertainty around the future of energy will be greater than today;

- we will have made significant progress with respect to environmental protection, but several significant challenges will still need to be overcome;

- support from the population for sustainable policies and practices will increase; and all of this will guide us to a society that will favour public transportation.

From this perspective, the train is poised to become a hot alternative commodity in the 21st Century. In fact, this vision for 2040 paves the way for a more vibrant society that is in tune with community values, more focussed on sustainable development, more open to community life and more open to public transportation.

I need not even mention to you that projections of this nature inspire me each and every morning when I arrive at my office. And just as the Canadian Rockies bring inspiration no matter how many times you have seen them, creating and maintaining a vibrant passenger rail system for years to come energizes not only me but the entire VIA team.

Of course we need to do this without loosing focus on our customers of today. And we've already taken a number of steps to make it easier for customers to travel..and to make public transportation options more appealing, a real win-win for the environment from both a gridlock and an emissions perspective.

Let's take a minute and look at how we might make it even easier though, or more seamless. For example, today, intermodality, or the way that different modes of intercity transportation compliment each other and provide travellers with relatively seamless transfers from one mode to another, is still not very far advanced in North America compared to Europe and Asia.

We're moving in the right direction though.

For instance, in some cases, the transportation providers share the same facility such as in the Vancouver and Québec City train stations, but have no agreement between them for selling each others' tickets. We are working to make that better, a lot better!

In other cases, the infrastructure is separate, the operators have no agreement, yet consumers still use them in an intermodal fashion doing much of the scheduling and ticketing on their own with or without the knowledge of the respective carriers.

I can think of Vancouver station where customers regularly arrive by train and catch a bus to get them to a ferry to take them to Vancouver Island. A prime example of intermodality in North America can be seen right here in Vancouver with your own new Canada Line of the Sky Train from the airport to downtown, with I might add, a connection to your Expo Line that stops right in front of our Vancouver train Station.

Vancouver and BC are to be congratulated for this great advance in intermodality. You are leading by example.

So what are the barriers that prevent collaboration between carriers and how do we get by them? Ticketing, accounting and schedule integration are a few we can name.

As I mentioned earlier, at VIA, we are breaking through these kinds of barriers. How are we doing that? By leveraging the power of electronic technology. By establishing partnerships with foreign and domestic airlines that will allow us to offer integrated ticketing, making the transfer from one carrier to another seamless.

Many of you here today are frequent travellers. I am sure that you have your own ideas of how companies like VIA could make your total travel experience more efficient and simpler. If so, I'd love to hear from you later.

The Government of Canada's Response to Transportation Challenges of the Future: Capital Investments

The Government of Canada is well aware of the need to invest today to ensure a solid foundation for future generations of travellers, and the passenger rail sector is no exception. In fact, since 2007, this government has invested almost a billion dollars in the passenger rail network in Canada. This is the largest single infusion of capital we have received since VIA was created in the 70's.

Moreover, I want to emphasize the active role that Canada's Department of Transport has played in these issues, especially the interest shown by Minister of State for Transport Rob Merrifield. I would also take this opportunity to acknowledge the support of the Honourable Chuck Strahl, our new Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, who took on this position last month.

Thanks to these dollars, we can now rely on more rapid, efficient, reliable, fuel-efficient locomotives. We will also be able to provide more appealing, comfortable, passenger cars.

Regarding traffic, we will be able to reconfigure certain infrastructures, to allow us to avoid bottlenecks in the Montréal-Ottawa-Toronto triangle.

In short, these investments will allow us to increase our capacity to better serve the public, with faster trip times and more departures. We are also working on breathing new life into our stations to make them more appealing and efficient.

We will soon embark on the implementation of a new wireless Internet sytem…or WIFI… in the Ontario-Québec corridor which will be the highest-performing of any wi-fi system offered on a passenger rail service in the world today.

As you can see, we are going full steam ahead in preparing the future of passenger rail! And we are not alone. Even President Obama is investing billions of dollars in railway infrastructure in the United States, including the construction of some lines reserved for high-speed trains.

This conference is about envisioning … daring to dream about the future. I would be remiss if I left without mentioning High-Speed Rail a file that many Canadian are talking about and looking at more seriously, both in central Canada as well as here in the West. I would just like to make a couple of points on this topic.

Firstly, it is important to keep in mind that, when we talk about High-Speed Rail, we're referring to a secondary dedicated rail line.

In all countries operating this type of train, the two networks coexist, each with a very specific vocation. This means that any high-speed trains would run in tandem alongside the current network, not replace it.

Secondly, as the head of a federal Crown Corporation, I would be overstepping my boundaries by providing you with my own opinion on whether Canada should move ahead with High-Speed Rail or not. Those decisions will be taken at a higher level, and we are ready to continue offering our advice as part of that process. Let's be clear though. We are also ready willing and able to operate such a system if the project were to come to life.

Conclusion

In closing, I believe that an effective forward-looking transportation policy should possess two major characteristics. Global and local. It must be in tune with the needs of cities, while not losing sight of the crucial need for planning on a global scale.

One thing is for sure: any community that seeks to become a leading ecological city in the Americas should count the passenger rail among its partners.

We look forward to collaborating with Canadians from across the country including our partners here in Western Canada to help our society become greener and more sustainable.

I will be available during the break to answer any questions you may have.

Merci.

I thank you for listening and I wish you a productive conference.
 
Volume 7, Number 22

October 18th, 2010

A weekly digest of events, opinions, and forecasts from

United Rail Passenger Alliance, Inc.

America's foremost passenger rail policy institute

Jacksonville, Florida USA




Changes, new directions for This Week at Amtrak

 

By J. Bruce Richardson

There is nothing more inevitable than change, and change is again occurring at This Week at Amtrak.

Since early this year, TWA has been fortunate to have William Lindley of Scottsdale, Arizona producing the publication, handling all of the chores from writing and editing to all of the publishing functions, including mailing list maintenance.

Mr. Lindley's burgeoning business interests are preventing him from publishing as often as he would like.

As a result, at Mr. Lindley's request, the mantle of writing and editing This Week at Amtrak has moved to the Brothers Carleton; David and Daniel by chronological order. Scions of the D. Carleton Railbooks publishing enterprise, M'sieurs Carleton bring a wealth of current and historical knowledge of the passenger and freight railroad industry, and a wonderful ability to offer concise, pertinent analysis. We will all look forward to their upcoming editions of TWA.

Mr. Lindley will continue to handle the various mechanical aspects of producing This Week at Amtrak, and he will also be an occasional contributor to the TWA under the Brothers Carleton.

We thank Mr. Lindley for all of his excellent efforts, and his continuing work on behalf of TWA and United Rail Passenger Alliance, Inc. in general. Mr. Lindley provides URPA with our website, mail list hosting, and a number of other facets of our work.

We look forward with great anticipation of the work of the Brothers Carleton, carrying on a great family tradition of superb publishing in the railroad industry.

Amtrak, passenger rail, and the elections which are upon us

By John Lee

NORFOLK, VIRGINIA - There is an excitement in Virginia about passenger rail service. The state government is growing passenger rail in Virginia, and, so far, the efforts have been successful - so successful that one of the newest lines is operating free of state subsidy.

All across America, political candidates are promising if they are elected, they are going to be fiscal conservatives, and eliminate wasteful government programs and unnecessary expenditures of tax dollars which belong to the public. One of the main targets is a cluster of passenger rail projects which have begun under current administrations, but may be doomed under new administrations after the elections just two short weeks away.

Indeed, in many states, the elections have already begun with early voting.

Many in the passenger rail advocacy community fear long fought for rail programs, such as the Three C program in Ohio, will become just another project stopped in its tracks, just like Robert R. Young's C&O stillborn post-war Chessie streamliner. Similar thoughts are coming to the surface in Wisconsin and elsewhere. Perhaps as many as half a dozen passenger rail projects, particularly those tied to the proposed high speed rail projects, may be canceled by new state government administrations who wish to spend the state portion of the monies elsewhere, even when the federal government has promised to fund much of the initial costs to get services up and running.

No matter than Amtrak announced last week it had set another record for ridership and revenue, even though no real numbers were published, such as load factors or revenue passenger miles. The many bright spots in passenger rail, such as here in Virginia, the Piedmont expansion in North Carolina, the Illinois regional trains, and a few others are not bright enough lights on their own to convince budget conscious state lawmakers to take a chance on passenger rail. Here in Virginia, we have a new train planned from Norfolk to the northeast, via Richmond and Washington. We're excited about this new route, and our state administrators are carefully planning for this route to be a success from the beginning. There is a spirited fight among various small towns along the route, such as Windsor, Virginia, to grab a station stop along the way.

The important question is, should passenger rail advocacy voters vote against candidates because they are against rail projects as they now stand?

The resounding answer is no. Too much is at stake in this watershed election to vote for candidates merely based on the subject of passenger rail.

The hardest thing in the world to kill is a government program. Just ask New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, who is trying to kill the new passenger rail tunnel between New Jersey and New York City under the Hudson River. While this is a project with a bad location on the New York side, and it doesn't connect to anything, making it a bad project for decades to come (the existing tunnel it is supposed to augment just celebrated its 100th birthday this month, and is still going strong), the project won't die.

Federal Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood, upon hearing of the cancellation of the project, flew the next day to Trenton, New Jersey's capital, to try and work something out with Governor Christie to keep the project alive. Even though the feds are writing a $3 billion check for the tunnel work, Governor Christie says the State of New Jersey will be on the hook for billions more, perhaps more than $10 billion more, and his state can't afford that.

So, Secretary LaHood convinced Governor Christie to at least take a look at a new deal, and to never say never.

Dollars to doughnuts, the tunnel is going to be built, just not with New Jersey money, and, maybe, if everyone is fortunate, with a better terminal location in Manhattan. There will most likely be some gnashing of teeth, grinding of molars, and posturing before news cameras before this is all over. In the end, there will be a tunnel.

If the same thing happens in Ohio with a new governor, then probably the same scenario is going to happen there. Lots of gnashing of teeth, grandstanding before cameras, and utterances about fiscal responsibility.

But, in the end, the Three C corridor will probably go forward. The best case scenario, as has already begun to happen in Ohio, is a much closer look will be taken at the operating numbers and project forecasts. Maybe some comparisons will be made to Virginia and North Carolina and Illinois, and perhaps California. Maybe someone, somewhere, will cut through all of the obfuscation of reality and take a look at the real economics of passenger rail, not the worst case scenarios we have been treated to in the past.

When that happens, all of the proposed projects will have a chance at redemption. Those projects which are truly bad projects, such as the proposed high speed rail project down in Florida running between Orlando and Tampa, hopefully will go the way of the nearly forgotten Chessie streamliner. The good projects, such as Virginia's new train from Norfolk to the northeast, will flourish, no matter who is in charge at the capital in Richmond.

Don't throw away your precious vote on a single issue which can be addressed more positively elsewhere. Vote as if your life depended on it, because it does, for your future, and the future of your children and grandchildren, no matter what your political persuasion. If a rail project is good, it will survive. If it's not good, it deserves to die, and something more productive needs to take its place.

If you are reading someone else's copy of This Week at Amtrak, you can receive your own free copy each edition by sending your e-mail address to

[email protected]

You MUST include your name, preferred e-mail address, and city and state where you live. If you have filters or firewalls placed on your Internet connection, set your e-mail to receive incoming mail from [email protected]; we are unable to go through any approvals processes for individuals. This mailing list is kept strictly confidential and is not shared or used for any purposes other than distribution of This Week at Amtrak or related URPA materials.

All other correspondence, including requests to unsubscribe should be addressed to

[email protected]

Copies of This Week at Amtrak are archived on URPA's web site, www.unitedrail.org

URPA leadership members are available for speaking engagements.
 


Note from MrFSS - there are two editions below. They were both recieved at the same time from URPA


Volume 7, Number 24



December 12, 2010

A weekly digest of events, opinions, and forecasts from

United Rail Passenger Alliance, Inc.

America's foremost passenger rail policy institute

Jacksonville, Florida USA

Telephone 904-636-7739, Electronic Mail [email protected] Website http://www.unitedrail.org


Editors: D & D Carleton Proofreading: Black Bear Wordsmiths ([email protected])



From the Editors…

With this edition, we conclude the coverage of this year's Passenger Trains on Freight Railroads conference presented by Railway Age magazine.

How does one brake a high-speed rail?

By Daniel Carleton

For many years, two prominent gentlemen have always been a presence at these soirées to act as guiding lights and voices of reason: Gene Skoropowski of California's Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority, and Thomas Mulligan of Union Pacific. Today, both have retired from their long, distinguished careers; therefore, it was a real treat when they took the stage, engaging in a simulated freight/passenger negotiation session with a twist -- reversed roles. Skoropowski represented the railroad, and Mulligan the local municipality seeking to start a commuter rail service. Assisted by Kevin Sheys (Partner, K&L Gates LLP) and his two hats, the hour-long simulation was both humorous and sobering.

Many times railroads learn about plans of starting passenger service by reading about it in the newspaper. By the time they are invited to discuss the plan, the governing municipality has garnered numerous ideas about the railroad and its operations, most of which are completely erroneous. The railroad is left to quell these preconceived notions before the real discussion may begin. Any excess capacity on the railroad is owned by the shareholders. Liability costs must be borne by the new commuter entity.

The current Amtrak rates for track access to preexisting routes do not apply, and actual access fees will be some $7-10/train mile. Non-railroad capacity studies are "not worth the paper they're printed on." Railroads are receptive to incentive payments for service, but not penalties. Ultimately, the right business deal is needed to make such service a reality.

Martin Schroeder of American Public Train Association (APTA) addressed the gathering on safety standards development. Currently, APTA has over 200 standards in publication, and they are recognized by numerous professional and government agencies. The result of this proactive effort has been minimization of government regulation and an educated influence on the final outcome of said regulation. Fixed standards equal reduced liability for those adhering to them.

Alan Zarembski, President of Zeta-Tech Associates, spoke to us about engineering hurdles required for higher-speed corridors. Anyone looking to build or upgrade track for high- or higher-speed trains needs to enlist Zarembski's expertise. Through numerous charts and graphs, he illustrated requirements for making a higher-speed corridor, as well as conflicts between the needs of freight and passenger trains.

Simply put, passenger track is expensive. For instance, a #20 turnout (a broad track switch) costs about $100-120K. A #30 turnout (an even broader switch) costs over $250K. In the U.S., track maintenance dollars are spent on rails and ties; in Europe, the resources go into right-of-way surfacing. When asked about the failures of concrete ties in the U.S., he stated that since the 1970s over 300 million concrete ties have been installed, and about 5-10% of these have suffered chemical degradation.

Rodney Case presented an outsider's view of European freight and passenger operations. Europe does, indeed, have a mixed-operation network, and private investors are showing up in the European Union. He concluded by asking aloud if projects such as Access to the Region's Core and East Side Access would not be fundamentally more attractive if jointly constructed to accommodate freight across Manhattan. He also asked, Why does the U.S. rail industry approach the government and stakeholders in such a fragmented approach?

Thomas Mulligan graciously received this year's Graham Claytor Award for Distinguished Service to Passenger Transportation. A self-effacing man, he humbly summarized his railroad carrier. Early on, one of his superiors once declared him ambidextrous; he could not take shorthand with either hand! The ovation Mulligan received was well deserved, and we wish him the best that retirement can offer.

Over lunch, casual conversation turned to some quite shocking and virtually unmentioned facts about Positive Train Control (PTC). Overall PTC will make transit times longer. How can this be? Was not one of the touted benefits of PTC higher speeds? It was explained this way: Suppose a train is entering a 40 mph curve. Currently, the engineer may enter the curve at 41-42 mph with no discernable difference in train operation. This will not be possible with PTC. The train will have to be at 40 mph (or less) entering the curve, or there will be a penalty. That conversation ended with, "We're still working on the algorithms." It would appear Casey Jones truly is dead.

There was a panel discussion on U.S. high-speed rail initiatives. The panel Chair was Al Swift, former Representative from Washington State, who started the discussion with the admonition, "Advisory committees are there to be ignored." He later made the salient point that we use the term "High-Speed Rail" indiscriminately, and we need to make some agreement on what it means. Art Guzzetti of APTA made the point that ARRA was a "jobs bill" and not a rail program. Currently, most intercity rail work is building back to a state of good repair and capacity expansion. Of note, one of the scheduled panelists, Drew Galloway of Amtrak, could not attend (as he was attempting to save the ARC program).

During the question/answer period, this author inadvertently kicked the hornet's nest. The point was made that all true High-Speed Rail programs around the world began as augmentations or replacements of existing conventional rail systems. The two true HSR programs proposed in this country, Florida and California, are not replacing existing conventional corridors. Without a pre-existing rider base to naturally migrate from an existing service to an improved service, any new-start HSR service may not meet preconceived notions for ridership.

Would not such a failure on the national stage have long-lasting negative impact on operation/expansion of passenger rail in the U.S.?

There was a pregnant pause. A stunned backlash followed. One of the panelists responded, "I'm just a consultant." The sternly-worded formal answer, from someone actively working on the Florida project, defended his efforts with the standard line, pointing to existing state-owned right-of-way and choice of station location as being surrounded by nothing but parking lots. The existing renovated station in downtown Tampa is purportedly unsuitable, as there is currently nothing near it.

The final presentation was an update on the higher-speed initiatives in Illinois. This primarily focused on the upgrade between Chicago and St. Louis, where speeds of 110 mph will be recognized. By that time, the majority of attendees had vacated, starting their way back from whence they came. How many traveled by train?

Epilogue

It has been less than two months since the conference, and yet it seems everything has changed. In the elections of last month many candidates ran, at least in part, on a platform of 'stopping the train.' Higher-speed plans in Wisconsin and Ohio may be cancelled. Even the true HSR project in Florida is in question. It would appear at least at this early date that passenger railroading in America has had yet another false start.

The first exposure this author experienced with passenger rail and politics was the High-Speed Ground Transportation Association convention of 1996. The crowd was huge. The air was electric. We were going to set the world on fire. Amtrak had officially signed to buy the American Flyer (later Acela) trainsets for the Northeast, and Florida was to get the Florida Overland eXpress (FOX). Before the end of the decade, the FOX was cancelled and Acela suffered setback after infamous setback.

Yet it is the same people from back in 1996 who have been coming again and again to Washington, and to similar meetings around the country. Now, with a probable payout for the first time in 14 years, they were practically tripping over one another to sell their wares. After 14 years, their angst is entirely understandable; so when the long-awaited call for "shovel ready" HSR projects came, about the best Florida could come up with was a dust-covered plan for the FOX.

But this is not 1996. The paradigm has most definitely changed. Is this really the best idea for denizens of the Sunshine State? The new anti-rail sentiment now threatens the future of SunRail, the Orlando area commuter rail system. Is the audacity of HSR such that it may endanger all potential rail projects in Florida? Instead of asking these and other questions, those would-be builders of HSR are running ahead full throttle. Their actions border on malicious compliance. High-Speed Rail is not the devil incarnate, as some politicians would contend; however, all successful HSR programs follow successful conventional passenger rail programs. This is something this country has not enjoyed for almost a half century.

Just as a baby learns to crawl before walking, we the people must learn (or re-learn) the basics of passenger railroading before contemplating moving forward. It is a generational arrogance that believes elementary steps may be skipped, yet viable results still be achieved. Seldom does arrogance go without receiving its due reward.

If you are reading someone else's copy of This Week at Amtrak, you can received your own free copy each edition by sending your e-mail address to

[email protected]

You MUST include your name, preferred e-mail address, and city and state where you reside. If you have filters or firewalls placed on your Internet connection, set your e-mail to receive incoming mail from [email protected]; we are unable to go through any approvals processes for individuals. This mailing list is kept strictly confidential and is not shared or used for any purposes other than distribution of This Week at Amtrak or related URPA materials.


Volume 7, Number 23

December 12, 2010 for November 10, 2010

A weekly digest of events, opinions, and forecasts from

United Rail Passenger Alliance, Inc.

America's foremost passenger rail policy institute

Jacksonville, Florida USA

Telephone 904-636-7739, Electronic Mail [email protected] Website http://www.unitedrail.org



NOTE: This edition of This Week at Amtrak was originally published to the United Rail Passenger Alliance, Inc. web site on November 10, 2010, but, through an administrative error, was not distributed to the general subscriber list. Therefore, the edition is being generally distributed now, immediately followed by a second distribution, which will be the original distribution for edition Number 24. We apologize for any inconvenience to readers of TWA.

Editors: D & D Carleton Proofreading: Black Bear Wordsmiths ([email protected])

From the Editors…

As with all journeys, this one begins with an itinerary. There are points of interest. There are schedules to be met. And, there is, of course, the occasional missed connection. As the new editors of this on-line publication, we shall attempt to keep this interesting and do so in a timely manner. We do not bring an agenda with us, but do believe in the free flow of news and ideas to that which unites us all together: the realistic belief in and rational expansion of passenger railroading in the United States. Therefore, without further ado, we would like to take a moment to introduce ourselves.

David Carleton has been in the engineering field for over thirty years; more than twenty of those years with an ENR top 500 civil engineering firm in Central Florida. Along the way, he has worked in railroad civil engineering and railroad electrification, as well as landmark preservation and intelligent mixed-use land development. He also has an extensive background in publishing railroad books for historians and enthusiasts, alike, by virtue of the fact that his family founded and operated the publishing house of D. Carleton Rail Books. David has made himself available here in the role of researcher and historian, so that all the lessons learned along the way can be put to their best use.

Daniel Carleton is a twenty-year veteran of the electrical power industry, with eighteen of those years spent in the nuclear field. He is now semi-retired, having attained the position of Supervisor of Mechanical Maintenance. Like his brother, he grew up around and in the world of railroading, and continues to draw parallels between these two branches of industry: railroads and power generation. Combining the context of railroading's nearly two-century-old history with the strict attention to detail necessary in today's environment, Daniel intends to be the vigilant eye on the ever-shifting landscape of passenger railroading.

We would also like to thank Jean Sopko, of Black Bear Wordsmiths ([email protected]), for graciously accepting the task of proofreading our musings and ramblings. Jean has a B.A. in English. She has been a newspaper proofreader, newspaper archivist, and medical transcriptionist. She has also held several highly-technical positions in the electronics industry.

Many have been convinced, looking at the "modern" high speed trains of faraway lands, that history has nothing to teach us regarding the future of passenger railroading; however, as the old saying goes, "He who fails to learn his history is destined to repeat the seventh grade." Sadly there are more seventh graders who are more prescient about the future of transportation than most adults. Another wise man once said, "Good ideas never go bad, they just sometimes are put on a shelf." Shall we return to the days of steam, steel, and limiteds? No, that is not our vision; however, unless rational decisions based on proven formulas are made, the future of transportation, all transportation, is in jeopardy.

Our journey has just begun. When and where it will end is still unknown. So for now let us sit back, relax, and gaze out the large window as the scenery whisks by.

Waiter, there's a High Speed Rail in my soup.

By Daniel Carleton

You know the party has only started when Charles "Wick" Moorman, Chairman, President, and CEO of Norfolk Southern Corporation, begins his statements in regard to passenger trains with, "Get the damn things off my railroad."

After the roar of laughter settled down, day one of this year's Passenger Trains on Freight Railroads conference, presented by Railway Age magazine, was underway. Afterward, Moorman acknowledged his appreciation for passenger trains, having ridden them to school every day in Great Britain. Hardly a stuffy or stodgy individual, Moorman proved to be quite congenial and self-effacing. He sees his company's relationship with Amtrak as "strong," a position this gathering of railroad professionals would not deny. He made one fact quite clear: passenger trains on his freight railroad means 79 mph, maybe 90 mph in certain circumstances, but definitely not "High Speed Rail." He also made it very clear that the increased track maintenance will not be borne by his railroad or stockholders.

Moorman was quite concise that every corridor and potential corridor for passenger trains is different; they are "not all the same." He pointed to three areas where current and future services are welcome: (1) Virginia — the increase of service by extension of a Richmond train to Lynchburg is seen as a success. Norfolk to Petersburg makes a lot of sense, but a connection will have to be built between the former N&W and SCL at Petersburg, after which one would "bounce your way to Washington" (a good-natured jab at his primary competition, CSX). The Commonwealth of Virginia is shouldering the cost of these services and upgrades. (2) Chicago — the grade separation at Englewood, which will raise a Metra commuter line over a busy NS freight line (also shared by numerous Amtrak trains), is one of many great projects in that area, improving freight and passenger service. (3) North Carolina — work continues in this state to continuously improve passenger service, and NS is committed to this work.

Then Moorman addressed two areas that have caused great concern to the industry, those being the now reconsidered Federal guidelines for high-speed rail, and Positive Train Control. He described the Federal guidelines as "surprising to us" and "frightening to us." The reward of passenger trains is slight, to the freight railroads. Then a call to any seeking to run a new passenger service: "Keep the word `risk' in mind." Whereas many may see the benefits of running passenger trains, it is the freight railroads who weigh the risk. As for PTC, it is a well-intentioned but bad piece of legislation, with an estimated price tag of $10 billion for the industry. This is going to be a big distraction to the railroads for the next five years. NS has estimated two-thirds to three-quarters of its track will require PTC.

Following that was a panel discussion on the National Rail Plan, chaired by Al Engel on his first day as Amtrak's new Vice President for High Speed Rail. The Plan is a project by the FRA. As it is limited to 120 pages, the Plan is a strategic vision for the future, and an answer to Congress when it asks, "Show us your High Speed Rail plan?" FRA replies, "We don't have an HSR plan, we have a National Rail Plan." Even so, there were many useful tidbits of information brought out in this two-hour segment. The freight hauling system in the United States currently moves 40 tons of freight per person, per year. The goal of the Plan is to realize an increase of intermodal (trailers or containers moving greater than 500 miles) on the railroads from about 23% today, to 50%. The largest roadblock to building new intermodal terminals is not NIMBYs, but the environmental permitting process; this is a critical issue for the Plan. The expected cost of applying PTC to a single locomotive is $60,000-70,000.

Don Itzkoff, who will be moving to GE Transportation, then gave us an update on how things stand in Washington, DC. Simply put, HSR is now a higher political target. Everyone is feeling his way around this new scheme of transportation with the mindset of "play the game, then write the rules." Of the more than $10 billion (soon to be over $11 billion) set aside for HSR, only $1 billion has been spent; however, rail is now very visible on Capitol Hill. Rail is now very much part of the surface transportation discussion, and rail is now speaking with one voice.

Our luncheon speaker was none other than Joseph Boardman, President and CEO of Amtrak. He started off by joking that his education in Agriculture Management at Cornell qualified him for Amtrak's top spot. Despite his wit and spry manner, he looked tired and concerned, as though the weight of the whole world was on his shoulders. Even so, he did attend the entire morning, and most of the afternoon sessions. He was quick to point out that despite the conference title of Passenger Trains on Freight Railroads, talk of High Speed Rail kept "sneaking" in. Unlike most of the participants who stuck to the 'where and when', Boardman seemed compelled to answer 'how and why' he is, where he is, and what he intends to do about it. His appreciation for public transit came with the gas lines of 1973 and a national lack of desire to fix the problem. Even now it is already too late to provide balanced transportation for the nation. Amtrak needs a fundamental change in its culture — it has visibly lost support due to its arrogance – and to this end, Boardman seeks to instill the three parts of humility into those in his charge: inclusion of all, being collegial, and pursuing continuity. He said later on that he wants the people in key positions to be able to make those decisions on their own with the proper input. Is this perhaps a move away from the micromanagement so prevalent in state agencies? Time will tell.

Boardman acknowledged that his work is cut out for him. He noted that in the 1930s the number of passenger cars in the United States was around 65,000. By the late 1940s the number was down to about 30,000. Today, Amtrak stables less than 1400 passenger cars. As regards the latest order for rolling stock from CAF USA, everything except the stainless steel will be domestic, since they could not find a domestic source.

After lunch, representatives from Veolia Transportation delivered an interesting discussion on Cognitive Distraction and Attentional Error, which included actual cab video of a commuter Railroad Engineer verbally acknowledging a restrictive signal, yet still throttling up his train as though it was clear. Fortunately, he and the oncoming train did stop prior to an impact. Much research has been done to study the mind and mental health of those operating our trains nationwide, and there is still much to learn. It should be noted that the Chatsworth wreck was not discussed outright due to the ongoing investigation in which the panel is involved.

Next, a representative discussed what has been done and what is proposed in the Pacific Northwest. Like NS, Burlington Northern Santa Fe has been a cooperative partner in passenger rail, but has also made it clear that the maximum speed it will allow on its railroad will be 90 mph.

Then Al Fazio of Bombardier Transportation North America, who has overseen the build and start-up of NJ Transit's River Line interurban in southern New Jersey, spoke on Extended Temporal Separation. For years, the River Line has been running non-compliant (crash standard) vehicles on the same tracks used by heavy freight trains protected by positive separation and lockout of one service or the other. He pointed out that the FRA defines systems as either `rail transit systems' or 'short haul passenger railways'. The decision is based on the `purpose of the trip'. If it is a rail transit system, then they may use non- or near-compliant equipment with temporal separation. If it is a short haul passenger railway, then the equipment must be compliant. This will be important going forward, as Fazio pointed out there are no more abandoned rail lines left to convert to light rail. The next step will be shared use.

The day closed with a sobering panel discussion, "Safety and Security: the Basics of Counterterrorism." The panelists were quite dismayed over the cancellation of the second set of tunnels under the Hudson River; not because of the money lost in contracts, but due to lack of redundancy that presently exists in a heightened security environment. After a review of worldwide terrorist actions prior to 9-11, it was obvious that threats and sabotage against railroads is nothing new. Even so, the 'Homeland Security Model' developed and adopted after 9-11 does not fit all. There are five steps for counterterrorism on the railroad: (1) integrate thoroughly, ( 2) evaluate constantly, (3) know the threat, (4) foster vigilance — employees and rail fans, and (5) shift the balance.

If you are reading someone else's copy of This Week at Amtrak, you can received your own free copy each edition by sending your e-mail address to

[email protected]

You MUST include your name, preferred e-mail address, and city and state where you reside. If you have filters or firewalls placed on your Internet connection, set your e-mail to receive incoming mail from [email protected]; we are unable to go through any approvals processes for individuals. This mailing list is kept strictly confidential and is not shared or used for any purposes other than distribution of This Week at Amtrak or related URPA materials.

All other correspondence, including requests to unsubscribe should be addressed to

[email protected]

Copes of This Week at Amtrak are archived on URPA's web site, www.unitedrail.org

 
Volume 7, Number 25



December 20, 2010

A weekly digest of events, opinions, and forecasts from

United Rail Passenger Alliance, Inc.

America's foremost passenger rail policy institute

Jacksonville, Florida USA

Telephone 904-636-7739, Electronic Mail [email protected] Website http://www.unitedrail.org


Editors: D & D Carleton Proofreading: Black Bear Wordsmiths ([email protected])


From the Editors…

We are privileged to present the following commentary by Russ Jackson. Russ is a decades-long URPA vice president. He is also a founding member and Secretary of the Rail Passenger Association of California (RailPAC); the largest, most active rail passenger advocacy group in that state. Russ regularly attends and reports on state rail meetings of the San Joaquin, Coast Rail, and Capitol Corridors.

The passenger trains operated by the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway between Chicago and the West Coast are the stuff of legend. Their post-war fleets of stainless steel trains were, and are, considered the gold standard for American passenger railroading. Everybody knows the Super Chief ran over Raton Pass. They forget that the El Capitan was a separate train for most of its existence, but they vaguely remember that there was a different train called the Chief that also ran over Raton Pass. They remember that the San Francisco Chief ran through Amarillo, but they forget that the line through Amarillo also saw half of a train called the Grand Canyon; the other half of the Grand Canyon ran over Raton Pass!

Something else that apparently few people remember is that right up until Amtrak, the Santa Fe served Denver directly, with service between Denver and La Junta. In fact, there were two round trips per day until 1967. There were two trains a day through Amarillo before the Postal cuts in 1967, and there was one train daily right up until Amtrak.

It has been proposed that the one remnant of this once-proud lineage, Amtrak's Southwest Chief, be rerouted some 790 miles off its current route through Raton Pass to the prominent BNSF Railway transcontinental mainline through Amarillo. This week, Mr. Jackson examines this proposition.

What Happens if the Southwest Chief is Rerouted?

Commentary by Russ Jackson, RailPAC

Every once in a while, the rerouting of Amtrak Trains 3 and 4, the Southwest Chief, off the traditional line from Albuquerque, New Mexico to Hutchinson, Kansas arises, because the line has virtually no BNSF freight traffic in Colorado and New Mexico any longer. That is a true statement. The railroad no longer uses the Chief, and has diverted through freights to the soon-to-be fully double-tracked "Transcon" line, farther south. This was the historic route of Santa Fe's San Francisco Chief prior to Amtrak. In recent months, Amtrak has been forced to add 40 minutes to the Chief's schedule due to a BNSF lowering of the speed limit on the very rough trackage in western Kansas and Colorado, such that Train 4 now departs Los Angeles at 6:15 PM. The BNSF has offered to move the train to the Transcon line, which as we will see, is more populated. The State of New Mexico now owns the line within its borders and runs the very successful Railrunner trains on the portion south of Santa Fe to Albuquerque. The BNSF still owns the rest.

Well then, what would happen if Amtrak had to abandon the line?

Would New Mexico pay to maintain the line through Raton Pass? Would Colorado step up and pay to maintain their portion of the line? Would Kansas pay? Would a "short line" purchase it, knowing there are almost no freight customers? Would Amtrak pay a higher share of the maintenance? Would anyone pay to rebuild it? Would the BNSF pay for a portion of an abandoned line? The answers to these questions are likely to be "No."

All right, then what would be lost in a reroute?

Certainly, there is the loss of the "absolutely spectacular and incomparable" scenic route through Raton Pass, as stated by URPA's Bruce Richardson, "but how many millions of dollars a year in track maintenance is that scenery worth?" In this case economics will eventually govern the results, even though Amtrak CEO Joseph Boardman has said he is "not interested in" moving the train.

Here are the FY '09 Amtrak ridership and revenue statistics for the abandoned towns; but not including Albuquerque, as that ridership could be largely retained by having the Railrunner act as a shuttle to Belen, thereby avoiding Amtrak's having to back up into Albuquerque.

Station - FY09 Riders - FY09 Revenue

Lamy, New Mexico - 13,012 - $1,623,108

Las Vegas, New Mexico - 4,456 - $335,144

Raton, New Mexico - 15,066 - $1,572,789

La Junta, Colorado - 6,809 - $658,928

Lamar, Colorado - 1,722 - $162,363

Trinidad, Colorado - 3,923 - $388,961

Dodge City, Kansas - 4,248 - $429,647

Garden City, Kansas - 6,930 - $712,501

Hutchinson, Kansas - 4,045 - $396,749

Totals - 60,211 - $6,280,190

(Statistics found on Great American Stations)

To Amtrak Accounting, that might be "chump change," but to the people who live in those towns and use the train it can be a matter of life and death, just as was the case for the Empire Builder across North Dakota and Montana.

Yes, there is also a human cost. On my October trip to northern New Mexico, I stopped for a visit at the Las Vegas, NM, Amtrak station, which is not staffed by Amtrak but is the city's nicely-restored Intermodal Facility in the Historic Railroad District. Employees handle questions about Amtrak travel, and there is a Quik-Trak ticket machine.

Transportation Facility Manager Debra Trujillo was aware there was talk of a potential loss of the train, and expressed concern for her town's people, many of whom are senior citizens who would have no transportation alternative. Greyhound does not serve the town. She said many people ride the train to Albuquerque for medical appointments, or into Colorado to visit relatives. While dealing with Amtrak can be difficult, she is looking forward to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) stimulus-money-funded new, ADA-compliant platform; although as of the date of my visit, construction had not yet begun. I urged Manager Trujillo to let Amtrak and the political establishment know how important the train is to her city, and to muster the other cities on the route to do the same.

What would Amtrak gain by rerouting the train?

Many observers felt Amtrak should have also retained the San Francisco Chief when it began in 1971. To go into these towns now would mean they would be starting over, selling rail passenger service after 40 years of absence. Here are the current populations of the new station cities, not their metro areas. It is not a prediction of ridership, but one can certainly see the temptation to reach out to new customers. The towns listed below are not all the stations that were served by the Santa Fe's train, but are the most likely stops:

Station - Population

Vaughn, New Mexico (flag stop?) - 463

Clovis-Portales, New Mexico - 45,124

Hereford, Texas - 14,455

Amarillo-Canyon, Texas (major university at Canyon) - 200,183

Pampa, Texas - 17,204

Alva, Oklahoma - 4,738

Woodward, Oklahoma - 12,206

Wellington, Kansas - 7,812

Wichita, Kansas - 361,420

(Statistics from Rand McNally map book)

Eventually, the decision may be out of the hands of the cities, the railroad or Amtrak. That would be unfortunate and would probably be a big black eye for all. The BNSF's Joseph Faust told the Amarillo Globe-News on October 8 that Amtrak is free to use the freight tracks in Amarillo, but that option "would require a great deal of study." The historic passenger station is used by an auction house, but is still standing; as is the brick platform. Amtrak's Marc Magliari told the newspaper, "Right now (the delays) are not significant. Our intention is to stay on the current route."

This writer urges all parties to work to preserve this service area and work to restore the San Francisco Chief into the Amtrak long-distance system; yes, to San Francisco from Barstow, up the San Joaquin Valley. That would be a bonanza for Amtrak ridership and revenue. Years ago, the Amtrak agent in Stockton told me that he could fill a sleeping car on the train every day, in the old days. Think future, Amtrak!

If you are reading someone else's copy of This Week at Amtrak, you can received your own free copy each edition by sending your e-mail address to

[email protected]

 
I heard Boardman interviewed on NPR the other day. I was struck by a comment in which he was defending high speed rail in places other than the popular corridors. He said loosely that for successful amtrak high speed lines they needed feeder lines from all parts of the country if were ever to get the majority of the public able to access rail travel. I almost fell of my chair when he mentioned that by a certain date, which I won't try and recall, but a dozen or so years out I would guess, that 80% off american towns would have access to rail transportation again? I wonder what that means since so little interest appears to be given in actually returning many of the abandoned cities to the route structure, which in my view is the only way for a successful system and not one touted as only a coastal system by many.
 
I can see your mostly interested in arguing points, however how long has amtrak been around? 40 years? It is a surprise that after contending they had little support for expanding the system that they would now indicate they might. I see nothing the least bit odd about that.
 
I can't even begin to divine what point you're trying to make. Are you trying to say that since they haven't expressed any interest in expansion in the past that they're not allowed to do so now?
 
Its the internet era for sure! Your not going to see a point because you don't want to and can keep arguing about it from now on. Yes I said what I meant. It is some what surprising when so many have tried and had it to fall on deaf ears all these years about the need to expand the system to those places that have no service, the usual reports were that if States would pay for them they might run them other wise they weren't interested. So it did come a big surprise to hear they might be now considering changing that policy. I will believe it when I see it. Besides that there were and probably still are a lot of people who seemed to think that the north east or california was the only place suitable to rail service. Obviously there not living in or near the hundreds of towns for which rail service is the only public transportation available.
 
Since I live in San Francisco, a restored San Francisco Chief would suit me just fine. I usually travel to southeast Iowa, so that would get met there a little faster by avoiding the California Zephyr snow delays and the 30 MPH canyon crawl through the Rockies, AND give me a one seat or one room ride back home without transferring to the San Joaquin or the Starlate.
 
Volume 8, Number 1



January 18, 2011

A weekly digest of events, opinions, and forecasts from

United Rail Passenger Alliance, Inc.

America's foremost passenger rail policy institute

Jacksonville, Florida USA

Telephone 904-636-7739, Electronic Mail [email protected] Website http://www.unitedrail.org

From the Editors…

And now a (highly) condensed look at the year past through the eyes of This Week at Amtrak.

2010, A.D. [Amtrak Defined]

As we enter our eighth year of publication, we find the world of passenger railroading in a greater-than-usual state of flux. Obviously, the biggest curveball thrown may be summed up in three little words: High- Speed Rail. After the "Vision for High-Speed Rail" and High-Speed Rail guidelines of 2009, we waited in expectation for January 28, when $8 billion worth of specific American Recovery and Reinvestment Act rail projects would be announced. It took months for the euphoria to subside. Then came reality; mid-term election candidates began to run on platforms advocating stoppage of HSR projects in their respective states. Freight railroads found the punitive federal guidelines "surprising" and "frightening."

Then things got interesting.

On January 5, after an initial one-year term as President, Joseph H. Boardman was granted (by the Amtrak Board) a permanent position. On January 11, an Amtrak press release announced, "AMTRAK READY WITH BIG PLANS FOR 2010 -- New Year brings major projects and new initiatives." This was hardly the first announcement heralding "big plans." As with so many other forward-looking statements of years past, this was generally received with a sigh. As events would later prove, however, some rather big things did actually happen.

March 6 saw the first Town Hall meeting co-sponsored by Amtrak and Trains Magazine. Well-attended and featuring the presence of Amtrak Chairman Tom Carper, as well as Joe Boardman, there were those inside the corporation who decried this "foamers' forum." Even so, there was positive dialogue about photography and updates on equipment rebuilding at the Beech Grove Repair Facility, using stimulus money. A train of three cars and a locomotive were on display for all in attendance to tour (and photograph).

March 31 was the end of an era at Amtrak. Cliff Black, long-time (and long-suffering) Chief of Communications and employee since 1981, retired. For years, it had been his quotes, his voice which represented Amtrak to the general public. Through each change of leadership at Amtrak, and there were several, the one constant had been Black's deft handling of the news media. Any of us seeking good honest information knew Cliff Black was the man to see. While keeping on-message for his employer, he never led the news media astray; an amazing feat in today's world of journalism. Suffice it to say, this is a retirement well earned and richly deserved.

July 23 brought what was perhaps the biggest, most jaw-dropping initiative undertaken by Amtrak all year, and possibly all decade: The order for 130 new Viewliner 2 single level cars with an option for 70 more to replace the remaining Heritage baggage cars and diners. Was this shocking turn due to a previously-unrealized corporate need? No. As far back as 15 years ago, Amtrak's then-president Thomas Downs described the remaining Heritage cars in service as "junk." Was this, then, as a result of a sudden jump in demand for sleeping car space on eastern trains? No. Sleeper space has been at a premium, especially in the East, since the retirement of the last Heritage sleepers in 2006. Ever since the 50-unit fleet of Viewliner sleeping cars entered service in 1995-96, we have been waiting for the rest of the Viewliner fleet to supplant the last of the Heritage fleet. We have waited… and waited… and waited. When Amtrak announced, on January 11, "a comprehensive and detailed plan to replace and expand its fleet of locomotives and passenger railcars" they could have warned us that this time they really meant it.

The Washington Times of September 12 reported on a Congressional probe of the sudden ouster of Amtrak Inspector General Fred Weiderhold, the previous year. Quoting from draft copy, "Because of his expertise, the [Amtrak] Board viewed Weiderhold as a threat." Also found were "excessive fees" paid to outside law firms by Amtrak's Law Department and, due to the circumstances surrounding Mr. Weiderhold's departure, "It was not a truly voluntary resignation as Amtrak management had suggested in public statements." There was some attention given in the Halls of Congress which, thus far, has amounted to nothing beyond lip service. But as Chicago Cubs fans are used to saying, "maybe next year."

On October 16, a Norfolk Southern freight train departing Enola Yard across the river from Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, en route to Hagerstown, Maryland and points South, derailed in downtown Harrisburg. The rear of the train was still west of the Amtrak station, precluding the eastbound Pennsylvanian from entering. Many will use such an incident to demonize the freight railroads and to call for building separate tracks. Ironically, that is exactly what NS has been attempting to accomplish in the area for a number of years. Currently, when freight trains to or from the south enter or depart Enola Yard, they are required to cross the Susquehanna River twice (and pass the Amtrak station), a process which adds hours to transit times. NS has been working with the State to rebuild a former connection on the south side of Enola Yard at Lemoyne. The process has been held up for the usual political reasons (concerning which a boxcar could not care less). Until this has resolution, efficiency will suffer. Passenger rail will suffer. Egos will continue to be stroked. A similar incident occurred July 2, and for what? For less than 1,300 feet of track. Sometimes the answer really is that simple.

Also in October came an admission of the obvious. One year earlier, the contract to run the Virginia Railway Express commuter service, held by Amtrak for 18 years, was awarded to the French company Keolis. Amtrak did not like this intrusion into its turf. As documented by veteran reporter Don Phillips, "The battle then turned bitter, and Amtrak and its unions turned nasty. Union officials made it clear to employees that if they signed with Keolis, they would be fired immediately by Amtrak and permanently blacklisted. Crews who agreed to stay with Amtrak not only received a $5,000 bonus but were guaranteed a job. Amtrak, meanwhile, even tried to hire crews laid off from New Jersey Transit who had been approached by Keolis. The idea was to prevent Keolis from hiring enough crews to run the system by takeover day, June 28." Yet, in spite of all the chicanery and dirty tricks Keolis did begin service (albeit delayed) and continues to operate. By October of 2010, Amtrak President Joe Boardman finally admitted, "We know we did not provide the right answers," and "I see a lot more competition coming forward." Amtrak considers itself to be the sole keeper of American passenger railroading. Considering its isolationist history, this is understandable; however, the word is getting around that there are others willing to ante up to the table. Amtrak has promised to behave. Will it?

Finally, on December 20, Norfolk Southern and the Commonwealth of Virginia entered an agreement to reintroduce passenger service to Norfolk. This is funded by "an $87 million Rail Enhancement Fund grant" which, when translated into English, means these are state monies, not Federal or ARRA grant. Yes Virginia, there really are states who take the initiative in their passenger rail programs.

2010 promised to be the year of "High-Speed Rail." Ultimately, it came in like a lion and went out like a lamb. HSR was touted as the savior of our economy; an engine for creating jobs in much the same way as the Interstate Highway System of two generations ago. Rhetoric was thick. Substance was lacking. The proposed fast trains look sleek and sexy, but where is the business case to justify them? No one is against creating jobs, but with at least $8 billion in the offing, the question is begged: Is this a good, sustainable transportation policy?

Perhaps the biggest story in passenger rail is the one that did not happen.

Amtrak's manifesto of January 11 predicted, in part, "the purchase of several hundred single-level and bi-level long distance passenger railcars and more than a hundred locomotives." New Viewliners were ordered in July, followed by a contract for new electrics in October. Unlike many of the HSR initiatives, these orders have had no political opposition. Yet as 2010 wrapped up, there were no "bi-level long distance passenger railcars" on the horizon. As pointed out by Andrew Selden, URPA Vice President, "This is the one application of capital available to Amtrak that promises a quick and positive return on incremental invested capital. No other investment opportunity, honestly accounted for using GAAP measures, offers anything even close to this. Yet Amtrak refuses to pursue it."

As the year has drawn to a close, the same basic route map remains in place. Apologists are grateful the map has not shrunk any further. Advocates wonder why, in an era of so much talk of rail, the map is not growing. The Sunset Limited still does not venture any further East than New Orleans, and is carried on Amtrak's daily status as "Hurricane`Katrina' Aftermath & Service Adjustments - Sunset Limited: Normal service resumed 03Nov05, with the exception of Trains 1 and 2 between Orlando and New Orleans."

True, there was much more talk about passenger rail this past year than in recent memory. The small order for equipment was positive, yet after so many years of benign neglect, this can hardly be counted as a fresh start. "What is needed most in 2011, following what happened in 2010, is a better, more rigid plan for creating new trains which have a higher guarantee of success and financial reward, instead of becoming yet another burden on the overburdened taxpayers," said Bruce Richardson, URPA President.

As the afterglow of the latest surge in HSR interest fades into memory, it is clear that sleek, fast trains do not exist in a vacuum. Around the real high-speed world, fast trains succeed as part of a vast integrated network; the trains, by themselves, would be nothing more than pricey tourist attractions. Amtrak would appear to have figured this out, as evidenced by its current equipment orders, and wish list from last January. Unless projects of this type are embraced, to build upon the few successes of this past year, then the whole enterprise is for naught; hopefully, it will not be too little, too late.

If you are reading someone else's copy of This Week at Amtrak, you can received your own free copy each edition by sending your e-mail address to

[email protected]

You MUST include your name, preferred e-mail address, and city and state where you reside. If you have filters or firewalls placed on your Internet connection, set your e-mail to receive incoming mail from [email protected]; we are unable to go through any approvals processes for individuals. This mailing list is kept strictly confidential and is not shared or used for any purposes other than distribution of This Week at Amtrak or related URPA materials.

All other correspondence, including requests to unsubscribe should be addressed to

[email protected]

Copes of This Week at Amtrak are archived on URPA's web site, www.unitedrail.org


 
Volume 8, Number 2



January 26, 2011




A weekly digest of events, opinions, and forecasts from








United Rail Passenger Alliance, Inc.




America's foremost passenger rail policy institute








Jacksonville, Florida USA




Telephone 904-636-7739, Electronic Mail [email protected]

http://www.unitedrail.org



From the Editors…

 

Something is turning 40, and oddly enough someone wants you to know about it. This and other more somber milestones are covered this week.

 

 

Of Time and (Wall) Space

 

If you are not already aware, Amtrak intends to make very sure you will be: On May 1, the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (NRPC) — yes, that is still Amtrak's legal name — will achieve 40 years of existence. According to its internal newsletter, Amtrak Ink, there are numerous outlets planned to observe this latest milestone. There will be a commemorative book for which Amtrak has already canvassed its employees for pictures. There will also be a video by "an Emmy award-winning producer." Also, "Beech Grove is renovating surplus equipment and restoring one F-40, one P-40, three baggage cars, and an Amfleet food service car for a special 40th anniversary `museum train' that will travel across the country to many employee locations." Since when has Amtrak had "surplus" equipment?

 

One thing is for certain, this year's Amtrak wall calendar makes the pronouncement loud for all to hear: "AMTRAK CELEBRATES 40 YEARS OF SERVICE." Superimposed over a map of the original route structure are over a dozen snapshots from those early years of "rainbow consists" and '70s fashion sense. The lovely Patty Saunders is captured in her go-go boots and early Amtrak uniform. The first Amtrak-painted locomotive is seen in a one-of-a-kind design of black with a wrap-a-round pointless-arrow logo. (Mercifully, that was not repeated.)

 

It is a wonder to contemplate the journey of the last four decades; yet, this wall hanging of 24 x 33 inches is quite the reminder of an uncertain era not that long ago. On the original system map, in the lower left corner of the montage, is the directive, "Service from Fort Worth to Houston will be shifted from Temple route to Dallas route as soon as possible after May 1, 1971." Imagine, direct service between Houston and the Dallas-Ft. Worth metroplex. In the lower right of the map is seen the line and station stop for Wildwood, Florida. Just above that, between snapshots of the original Metroliner and a bedraggled Coast Starlight, is the line depicting the service we once enjoyed between Chicago and Florida. Today both of those are distant memories, as service to the Sunshine State has been continuously marginalized over 40 years. Was it something Florida said?

 

Perhaps most telling is the stylized logo all the way in the lower corner of the montage. As a depiction of motive power progress, five caricatures are arrayed from left to right, displayed in five different paint schemes. On the left is an Amtrak-painted GG-1 electric, internationally recognized as the finest example of electric traction ever to see service under wire. Designed by the Pennsylvania Railroad in 1934, the GG-1 fleet would serve her masters and successors until the 1980s. On the right of the lineup is depicted an Acela Express train, the antithesis of the GG-1.

 

On this calendar, Amtrak touts itself as "America's Railroad," but wait — there is a picture used in the ad campaigns from its formative years, showing an employee (not a model) standing between the gauge of the rails, holding a large-scale replica of a passenger rail car. The tag line for the ad was the vow to "make the trains worth traveling again." In 1971, the year the NRPC (now Amtrak) was created, the trains already were worth traveling. Crowds showed up to ride in the peak of summer, 1971; then again in winter, 1971-72. Amtrak did not have the wherewithal to keep up with such demand. When the railroads, in their original role as sole source contractors, did what they could to keep up, the pushback to stop doing that came from inside — Amtrak! It was a downhill slide from there. After 40 years of false starts and unfulfilled promises, is it not time to hold Amtrak to its word?

 

In Memoriam

 

As we muddle our way through the winter season, we wish to pause for a moment to reflect on the lives of three men who, in their own separate ways, left their mark on American railroading:

 

Eugene K. Garfield worked for the Johnson Administration in the 1960s as Assistant to the Secretary of Transportation, Alan S. Boyd, in the then newly-minted U.S. Department of Transportation. It was during his tenure that a feasibility study for an auto-ferry service between the Northeast and Florida was conducted, and concluded that the service would be potentially profitable but best left for the private sector. After returning to the private sector in 1968, Garfield set about making that study a reality, and from 1971 to 1981 he ran the private Auto-Train Corporation. The original Auto-Train eventually succumbed to financial troubles and the infrastructure was purchased by Amtrak. Garfield died at the age of 74 on December 26, 2010, in Hollywood, Florida. Reflecting on his life reminds us that the entrepreneurial spirit in transportation in not dead, but merely dormant, in a generation that has been taught otherwise.

 

James A. (Jim) Boyd was a prolific railroad photographer and writer. Much more that just the average railfan, Boyd worked for the Electro-Motive Division of General Motors as a field service representative. In 1972, Boyd began his long association with Carstens Publications, eventually becoming editor of Railfan (later Railfan & Railroad) magazine from 1974 to 1998. Additionally, he authored many Trains magazine articles as well as dozens of books. Boyd brought a sense of discipline and decorum to the railfan ranks. His guiding influence will be sorely missed. Boyd died at the age of 69 on December 31, 2010, in Newton, New Jersey.

 

Robert G. (Bob) Lewis was that rare, perfect blend of knowledgeable railfan and professional railroader. Between 1934 and 1941 he worked for the Pennsylvania Railroad, and briefly for the Bessemer & Lake Erie. Following the war and a brief return to railroading, he joined the Simmons-Boardman Publishing Corporation. He worked in various editor positions for Railway Age magazine until 1956, when he was named Magazine Publisher. He retired in 1995, but maintained the title of Director of Special Projects. All through his professional travels, he had his camera with him, and amassed an impressive collection of photographs of America's railroads.

 

Bob died at the age of 94 on January 5, 2011, in Ormond-by-the-Sea, Florida, but not before this author had the opportunity to meet him at the High-Speed Ground Transportation Association convention in 1996. Lewis was as congenial and approachable as anyone could be.

 

Later, as a result of merciless prodding by his former co-workers, a number of his photos were published in book form in Off the Beaten Track — A railroader's life in pictures (Simmons-Boardman, 2004). Having obtained a copy, this author made an appointment to stop by and garner an autograph. The welcome was warm and sincere. The meeting was as touching as it was informative. Lewis said the real reason behind starting the publication of International Railway Journal in 1961 was just to have an excuse to travel the world. We discussed the issues of the day including, of course, what to do about Amtrak.

 

With the completion of these distinguished runs the sun shines less brightly over the railway; reminding us of our own finite existence and the need to make our remaining days count. All too soon, the weeds will overgrow and obscure our own tracks.

If you are reading someone else's copy of This Week at Amtrak, you can receive your own free copy each edition by sending your e-mail address to:

[email protected]

You MUST include your name, preferred e-mail address, and city and state where you live. If you have filters or firewalls placed on your Internet connection, set your e-mail to receive incoming mail from [email protected]; we are unable to go through any approvals processes for individuals. This mailing list is kept strictly confidential and is not shared or used for any purposes other than distribution of This Week at Amtrak or related URPA materials.

All other correspondence, including requests to unsubscribe should be addressed to

[email protected]

Copies of This Week at Amtrak are archived on URPA's web site, www.unitedrail.org

URPA leadership members are available for speaking engagements.
 
Volume 8, Number 3

February 14, 2011




A weekly digest of events, opinions, and forecasts from





United Rail Passenger Alliance, Inc.




America's foremost passenger rail policy institute





Jacksonville, Florida USA




Telephone 904-636-7739, Electronic Mail [email protected]

http://www.unitedrail.org



From the Editors…

This week a tale of caution, a tale of woe, a tale of passenger rail investment in our 21st Century.

Editors: D & D Carleton Proofreading: Black Bear Wordsmiths ([email protected])

Beware the Law of Unintended Consequences

Basic physics teaches us that for every action there is a reaction. The sociologists tell us such reactions may bring unintended consequences; unanticipated and potentially undesirable outcomes. It is widely held that such unintended consequences fall into one of three categories: Positive, negative, and perverse (wherein the results of the reaction are opposite to what was intended). Prominent sociologist Robert Merton cited numerous reasons for this lack of foresight, but perhaps the most dangerous in the political arena is the "imperious immediacy of interest" wherein "…paramount concern of the immediate excludes consideration of further or other consequences …"

At this time last year, passenger rail was garnering more than its usual share of the public eye. This was entirely due to the Administration's said goal of building "High-Speed Rail" projects all around the country, even likening these to the Federal Interstate Highway program of the 1950s. As a result, many states pulled their decades-old dreams for intrastate passenger trains off their respective shelves, shook off the dust, and slapped on "High-Speed Rail" labels. One of these was the state of Ohio which wrote, in part, in its High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail Application of October 2009:

"During the past 35 years, the State of Ohio has continued planning for the reinstitution of passenger train service on its Cleveland-Columbus-Cincinnati corridor and vested several state agencies with that responsibility. In 1973, the Ohio Legislative Service Commission (LSC) moved to 'study the feasibility' of establishing a rapid transit system connecting Ohio's 'major cities' in response to the Arab Oil Embargo. In 1977, the Ohio Rail Transportation Authority (ORTA) was created by the Ohio General Assembly to continue feasibility planning. In 1979, the Ohio legislature passed a law urging neighboring states to join them in exploring the potential for the development of a regional rail system within the Great Lakes Region. Following the 1982 defeat of a statewide sales tax initiative to advance high speed rail service, ORTA was abolished and its staff moved to the Ohio Department of Transportation.

"The initiative advanced in 1991 when the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) was enacted funding safety improvements at highway-rail grade crossings on corridors that were 'designated' as high-speed intercity passenger rail corridors based on their present utility and their potential for future development. It was in 2000 that the FRA designated the 3C Corridor as an extension of the Chicago Hub network and included the primary points or cities along the line: Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton and Cincinnati.

"Subsequent and current initiatives to advance passenger rail service in Ohio have been the responsibility of the ORDC, which was established by the Ohio General Assembly in 1994. In 1996, ORDC joined the Midwest Regional Rail Initiative (MWRRI), which calls for the development of a 'Chicago Hub' a system envisioned as a 3,000-mile rail system with eight passenger corridors serving 60 million people in a nine state region. The most current Midwest Regional Rail System (MWRRS) Plan report was issued in October 2004."

Another of these was the state of Wisconsin. Although its rail aspirations were not as long-lived as Ohio, Wisconsin did bring its checkbook. In July 2009, the state entered an agreement with Talgo America to purchase two train sets for $47 million. As part of that agreement, Talgo would establish an assembly plant within the state's borders. In doing so it would set the standard for the Midwest. Its High-Speed plan, also of October 2009, was the guideline for reintroducing service of some 85 miles between the state capital of Madison and Milwaukee. Although tagged with the "High-Speed" label the proposed service would never have exceeded 110 mph. The plan read in part:

"WisDOT is the lead state for the [Midwest Regional Rail Initiative] and will manage the efforts of the Steering Committee to identify the preferred train set equipment type. WisDOT also is involved in the nationwide effort to identify and acquire the preferred train set equipment through their involvement in the Next Generation Corridor Equipment Committee (mandated by the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008, Section 3605)."

Talgo, for its part, kept its end of the bargain. They set up shop in the former Tower Automotive facility in Milwaukee with the promise of jobs in an area perpetually hit by hard times. The train sets to be delivered are of the new Talgo Series VIII, which are to be fully FRA-compliant and needing no waivers. The two sets ordered in 2009 will be placed in service on the existing Chicago - Milwaukee Hiawatha service. (The state of Oregon also ordered two sets, also to be built in Wisconsin.) It was initially hoped that two more train sets would be ordered for the expanded Madison - Milwaukee service. Ultimately, a new maintenance facility would be established in Madison.

At face value, this seemed like a good idea; a state connecting its largest city to its capital. New Mexico accomplished the same in 2008 when it connected Albuquerque with Santa Fe; however, the New Mexico Rail Runner has the look and feel of a commuter train, and has a total length of 97 miles. Recently the Commonwealth of Virginia announced its intention to connect its second largest city, Norfolk, with the state capital of Richmond, a distance of 109 miles. At no time in either case was the moniker "High-Speed" ever used or applied.

As with most parties these days, however, after the champagne stops flowing and the music stops playing, comes the stark dawn of day. The HSR party was no different. This ersatz High-Speed Rail was deemed as grossly indulgent in an era of austerity. New regimes elected to high office in Ohio and Wisconsin view HSR as too rich for their blood. Both new projects have been canceled, and the Federal monies reallocated to other states.

Talgo, for its part, will continue to hold up its end of the bargain; however, instead of filling the 125 positions originally projected, it will fill just 65. The four train sets on order for Wisconsin and Oregon will be completed by 2012. If no new orders are secured by then, the Milwaukee plant will only be used as a maintenance base for Wisconsin's equipment. [As we go to press it has been reported Talgo shall move its operation to Illinois. Details of this shall be forthcoming.]

It was believed by many that these projects of Ohio and Wisconsin were reasonable -- and realistic -- due to their basic nature. Despite the "High-Speed" label, they were really in fact just a return to the past, with schedules that would not have been out of pace just two or three generations ago. Since these were really conventional trains and not the gold-plated fast trains of another continent, it was hoped those in charge would see past the HSR-"imperious immediacy of interest"; however, this was not to be. Even though all that glitters is not gold if it is perceived by the public to be gold, then it is a target. And whereas the call was for "High-Speed Rail" to be built around the country, it appears its collapse will doom many conventional rail projects as well. Can any other reaction be more "perverse?"

If you are reading someone else's copy of This Week at Amtrak, you can receive your own free copy each edition by sending your e-mail address to

[email protected]

You MUST include your name, preferred e-mail address, and city and state where you live. If you have filters or firewalls placed on your Internet connection, set your e-mail to receive incoming mail from [email protected]; we are unable to go through any approvals processes for individuals. This mailing list is kept strictly confidential and is not shared or used for any purposes other than distribution of This Week at Amtrak or related URPA materials.

All other correspondence, including requests to unsubscribe should be addressed to

[email protected]

Copies of This Week at Amtrak are archived on URPA's web site, www.unitedrail.org
 
Volume 8, Number 4



February 21, 2011




A weekly digest of events, opinions, and forecasts from





United Rail Passenger Alliance, Inc.




America's foremost passenger rail policy institute





Jacksonville, Florida USA




Telephone 904-636-7739, Electronic Mail [email protected]

http://www.unitedrail.org


From the Editors…

Beware the idea of ... February? This week a brief of some current events.

Editors: D & D Carleton Proofreading: Black Bear Wordsmiths ([email protected])



Just How Much is that Wild Goose?

"A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon it adds up to real money."- Senator Everett Dirksen

Just how many names can one give to a hole in the ground? What does one name a hole that does not really exist? This particular hole, meant to connect suburban New Jersey with New York City, has had many names and titles. A decade and half ago, it was known as the "Trans-Hudson Express Tunnel" (THE Tunnel) or, deridingly, as the "tunnel to Macy's basement." Later known as "Access to the Region's Core," (ARC) ground was officially broken in June of 2009. On October 27, 2010, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie (New Jersey being the only state officially participating in this project) gave it a new name: Dead. Concerned that the $8.7 billion undertaking would spiral to Big Dig proportions, the governor decided the price was too rich for New Jersey's blood. There were meetings and more meetings between Trenton and Washington, but despite Federal demand for payback of $271 million, the project was axed once and for all… or so it seemed.

On February 6, 2011, a new player, Amtrak, rode into town along with U.S. Senate representation from New Jersey. Together, they announced a new scheme to build, and a new name: The "Gateway Tunnel." They intend to spend $50 million for more design and engineering work, with a potential cost of $13.5 billion for completion. (It would appear Governor Christie's concerns over costs were more than prescient.)

Two days earlier, the City of New York contracted with Parsons Brinckerhoff, Inc. to (quickly) study the feasibility of extending the No. 7 subway line west, under the Hudson River to NJ Transit's station at Secaucus, New Jersey. Unlike the previous tunnel plans, this would allow riders transferring at Secaucus access to the West Side of Manhattan, Times Square, Grand Central Terminal, and Queens, without traversing an already-full Pennsylvania (Penn) Station.

Unlike the ARC, the Gateway Tunnel (actually two tunnels with one track each), proposed by Amtrak and friends, will not terminate north of Penn Station or Macy's basement. Rather, it will run directly into Penn Station, adding to its already burgeoning passenger congestion. Currently, Penn Station handles a daily crush of some 600,000 persons. The existing century-old, twin single-track tubes handle a maximum of 23 trains per hour. It is expected the new Gateway Tunnel will allow for an additional 21 trains per hour. No source for this project's funding was cited.

Just two days later, on February 8, Vice President Joe Biden announced a new Administration initiative to spend $53 billion over the next six years on High-Speed Rail projects nationwide. The goal is to allow high-speed train access to 80 percent of the public within 25 years. Again, no source for the requisite funds was cited.

Not everyone is onboard with the immediacy of interest in "High-Speed Rail." As has been reported in these pages before, many have advanced their political careers on "stop the train" platforms; therefore, it does not portend well that the two U.S. Representatives who declared this initiative "dead on arrival" are the House Transportation Committee Chairman and Railroads Subcommittee Chairman.

John Mica (R-Fla.) was his usual sanguine self in frankly appraising this development: "This is like giving Bernie Madoff another chance at handling your investment portfolio." Mica is none too happy about the previous $10 billion pledged for HSR, or about the involvement of the Federal Railway Administration (FRA) in the HSR corridor selection process; and is especially displeased with the continued interference of the National Railroad Passenger Corporation. "Amtrak hijacked 76 of the 78 projects, most of them costly, and some already rejected by State agencies," said Mica. "Amtrak's Soviet-style train system is not the way to provide modern and efficient passenger rail service."

Bill Shuster (R-Penn.) also had his take on this latest HSR missive: "The Administration continues to fail in attracting private investment, capital, and the experience to properly develop and cost-effectively operate true high-speed rail." … "Government won't develop American high-speed rail. Private investment and a competitive market will."

To date, $271 million has already been spent. This includes $26.3 million for property acquisition in New Jersey for what was the ARC project; and $50 million has been proposed for more study of "ARC-lite." Of the $10 billion pledged for "High-Speed Rail," at least $1 billion has already been spent. To keep this all in perspective, Amtrak currently has on-order 70 new railcars for Eastern trains at approximately $2.3 million per each. The $1.321 billion already spent and proposed could have purchased over 500 of these railcars, expanding Amtrak's existing fleet by one-third. The problem with a wild goose chase is that regardless of the amount of money or resources expended, one still may not wind up with the goose.

An "E-Ticket Ride" to Fantasyland

Lathen, a small city of some 11,000+ souls (in 2009), may not ring a bell in the minds of those from outside the Emsland district in Lower Saxony, Germany. Yet, Lathen boasts what may be considered the world's fastest form of overland transportation. This is where ThyssenKrupp's Transrapid Maglev test track extends over 30 kilometers. If one is interested in buying one's very own maglev transportation system, then Lathen is the place to visit. The test track was built to devise, test, improve and (most importantly) sell the concept of Maglev; nothing more, nothing less. It does not see active scheduled service for the general public to ride.

The team members involved in writing, editing, and publishing this newsletter are all current or former residents of the State of Florida. As such, we have been watching intently the now almost-daily developments, with the latest incarnation of fast trains here being Florida High-Speed Rail. On February 16, newly-elected governor Rick Scott officially turned down $2.4 billion in Federal funds earmarked for the initial east-west, Tampa-Orlando route (roughly 80 miles). His reasoning for doing so included projected cost overruns and questionable ridership/revenue projections. This has become quite the firestorm in Tallahassee, and may rage for some time to come.

Governor Scott was not the only one questioning the validity of this project. At this year's Southwest Rail Conference, one presenter succinctly pointed out that American HSR supporters were "attempting to have their icing without bothering to bake the cake." Specifically he added, "Florida needs to mature its HSR plans." Transporting tourists from theme parks to the beaches on the Gulf of Mexico is not a mature reason for building HSR.

When the go-ahead for High-Speed Rail projects came early last year, it was like popping the cork on a bottle of long-fermenting ideas. For Florida, it was a matter of dusting off the plans for the stillborn Florida Overland eXpress of 1996. When proponents for Florida HSR were questioned about the validity of this endeavor, the answer was curt and simple: The state already owns the right-of-way, and the environmental impact studies are complete. It is true that both of these prerequisites are a major hurdle for any project; still, is it not odd that public benefit was not one of the top two reasons for building?

Would Tampa-Orlando HSR be of anymore use to riders than the test track in Lathen? The simple reality is: No. It was not, nor was it ever meant to be, a serious contender for moving residents about the Sunshine State. As much as Lathen proved the workability of Maglev, so too would Florida HSR be merely a vehicle to test and prove the feasibility of High-Speed trains in America. Every nation that has ventured into the HSR arena has had to develop its own system, with its own parameters to suit that nation's specific needs and conditions. The United States will be no different. Those involved with Florida HSR have been in talks with the FRA about requirements for vehicles traveling at hitherto-unseen speeds. As State Senator Paula Dockery said, "This was going to be a model for the nation."

Numerous potential companies and consortia of companies have been eagerly awaiting the expected payout to develop all the systems for such a project. Now that it appears Florida HSR has been scrubbed, those would-be builders are scrambling. Without Florida, where else will they "beta test" their product? Without Federal money, who will pay to develop new, or adapt existing, technology for use in America?

Had the Tampa-Orlando line been built, the technology would have been built, tested, redesigned, retested, ad nauseam until everything was ready for primetime; after which, maybe the second phase of Florida HSR, a north-south, Orlando-Miami route (roughly 230 miles), would have been built. Tampa-Orlando is, however, a bit of a misnomer. In reality, the Eastern terminus is not the city of Orlando, but rather the airport (which bears its name, but is nowhere near Orlando). The western end is not the beautifully-restored downtown Union Station, but rather a parking lot off the highway. The likelihood of drawing riders was about par with drawing bees with vinegar. No matter how technically successful this may have been, would the public tolerate the spending of billions more of public monies in order to go to Miami?

Universal Truths

Every project has to start somewhere; and someone has to pay for it. Whereas private dollars may combine with public monies and actually build the line on State property between Tampa and Orlando, what about the future? When the champagne stops flowing and the confetti settles, there will still be a train to run. Will those private dollars still be there to fund its operation? When all is said and done, Florida HSR is nothing more than a novelty, a $2+ billion tourist attraction for foreign and domestic visitors to gawk at before moving on to the next attraction. Speaking as a resident this very expensive, publicly-funded tourist trap is the last thing we need here.

If you are reading someone else's copy of This Week at Amtrak, you can receive your own free copy each edition by sending your e-mail address to

[email protected]

You MUST include your name, preferred e-mail address, and city and state where you live. If you have filters or firewalls placed on your Internet connection, set your e-mail to receive incoming mail from [email protected]; we are unable to go through any approvals processes for individuals. This mailing list is kept strictly confidential and is not shared or used for any purposes other than distribution of This Week at Amtrak or related URPA materials.

All other correspondence, including requests to unsubscribe should be addressed to

[email protected]

Copies of This Week at Amtrak are archived on URPA's web site, www.unitedrail.org
 
Just how many names can one give to a hole in the ground? What does one name a hole that does not really exist? This particular hole, meant to connect suburban New Jersey with New York City, has had many names and titles. A decade and half ago, it was known as the "Trans-Hudson Express Tunnel" (THE Tunnel) or, deridingly, as the "tunnel to Macy's basement." Later known as "Access to the Region's Core," (ARC) ground was officially broken in June of 2009. On October 27, 2010, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie (New Jersey being the only state officially participating in this project) gave it a new name: Dead. Concerned that the $8.7 billion undertaking would spiral to Big Dig proportions, the governor decided the price was too rich for New Jersey's blood. There were meetings and more meetings between Trenton and Washington, but despite Federal demand for payback of $271 million, the project was axed once and for all… or so it seemed.
These guys need to first read the history of the project before making pronouncements that anyone involved remotely would take seriously. At least they do provide bits of amusement from time to time :)
 
Governor Scott was not the only one questioning the validity of this project. At this year's Southwest Rail Conference, one presenter succinctly pointed out that American HSR supporters were "attempting to have their icing without bothering to bake the cake." Specifically he added, "Florida needs to mature its HSR plans." Transporting tourists from theme parks to the beaches on the Gulf of Mexico is not a mature reason for building HSR.
I was at this conference, so I'm wondering if this guy was there too. I remember this quote too, and I can't think of who said it. I have to admit that I agree with most of what he said though.
 
Governor Scott was not the only one questioning the validity of this project. At this year's Southwest Rail Conference, one presenter succinctly pointed out that American HSR supporters were "attempting to have their icing without bothering to bake the cake." Specifically he added, "Florida needs to mature its HSR plans." Transporting tourists from theme parks to the beaches on the Gulf of Mexico is not a mature reason for building HSR.
I was at this conference, so I'm wondering if this guy was there too. I remember this quote too, and I can't think of who said it. I have to admit that I agree with most of what he said though.
I don't know a lot of the details, but if the origin and destination of the route make sense and if you have ever driven I-4 between those two cities I think it is a good project and would help with the heavy traffic.
 
March 21, 2011




A weekly digest of events, opinions, and forecasts from








United Rail Passenger Alliance, Inc.




America's foremost passenger rail policy institute








Jacksonville, Florida USA




Telephone 904-636-7739, Electronic Mail [email protected]

http://www.unitedrail.org



From the Editors…

 

This week a post-mortem of Florida's latest foray into High-Speed Rail.

 

There was no Plan B

 

Oh I used to be disgusted… and now I try to be amused. - Elvis Costello

 

On February 16, Florida's Governor Rick Scott announced that the State of Florida would not move forward with the Federal plans to build a high-speed railway between Tampa and Orlando International Airport. Similar announcements had already been made in Wisconsin and Ohio earlier this year. So what is the big deal?

Well, if one were to believe the political rhetoric that has been fired across the bow since then, one might come to the conclusion the governor has cancelled every holiday on the calendar and shot everyone's favorite pet. The U.S. Transportation Secretary, Ray LaHood, extended the deadline for accepting the Federal monies, $2.4 billion, so as to give the state just one more last chance. On March 1, two State senators filed suit in the Florida Supreme Court, as citizens, not on behalf of the Senate, to order the governor to take the money. Right about now, Governor Scott is probably wondering if he should have stayed in his native American Midwest. Nevertheless the answer is still "no." So what is the big deal?

The U.S. Department of Transportation was willing to let go of projects in Ohio and Wisconsin that were not really high-speed rail, but rather state-of-the-art conventional trains running at conventional speeds on improved conventional track. The HSR label was only added to offer the illusion of progress to sell this imperious immediacy of interest. However, as they were not true HSR they were expendable. The sum total of rejected Federal monies was less than half of the ultimate total offered to Florida, and was quickly dispersed to other states. Florida, it would seem, is an entirely different story.

"You recall unpleasant memories: of hours wasted in slow moving traffic; of disquieted children in the backseat of your car; of rushing to the airport to discover your flight canceled; of missing important business appointments; and of the hassles involved in moving around this great state. Those difficult days, though, remind you how fortunate you are to live in a state where logic prevailed in the mid 1990s. Relaxing into your plush, expansive seat, you sigh contentedly when an attendant brings your drink. Just before you doze off, lulled into a peace-filled rest by the train's near-silent motion, you briefly wonder, 'Who made all this possible?'" - Opening statement from the Florida Overland eXpress Executive Summary, 1996.

Fifteen years ago, the vision was crystal clear; a fast train connecting three of Florida's largest metro areas in comfort and style. The planning was solid but the money was scarce, and the whole thing seemed to come to naught in 1999. Then in 2000, an amendment to the State Constitution was approved by Florida voters, and in 2001 the State Legislature enacted the Florida High Speed Rail Authority Act; however, in 2004 Florida voters repealed the 2000 amendment, citing the expense of such a project.

To say there are a tenacious few who continue to keep the flame alive for fast trains in the Sunshine State would be an understatement. Five years after the voting public made their opinion clear, a Federal initiative sought to overrule local sentiments. With a seemingly ever- larger flow of Federal monies, a scheme was hatched to invest $2.4 billion in just the 84-mile Tampa-Orlando leg of the system under the auspices of building a national network of fast trains. There was no referendum, there was no ballot initiative; just an imperious immediacy of interest from Washington, D.C. With the nation in general and the State of Florida in particular suffering the ravages of hard economic times, any infusion of cash -- from any source -- seemed like a godsend. And with other trains on the national drawing board, Florida did not feel alone. But once again there was one rather large string attached: The potential large outlay of local funds. For this reason, the governor cancelled the project. Once again money was a big deal.

High-speed trains are not evil. However, nowhere on earth do they operate in a vacuum. In France, the national railway operates everything from urban transportation to high-speed trains. While they operate around 14,000 trains every day, only a relative handful are high speed. For a high-speed train to be successful it needs feeders to connect to places where the riding public actually wants to go. As of right, now these types of networks do not exist in Central Florida.

In what may appear as a case of bitter grapes, a ridership report was released just after the project was cancelled. Picked up by various news outlets was the figure of "3.3 million annual riders" and "would have made money from Day One." This report was produced, for $1.3 million, by the firms of Steer Davies Gleave and Wilbur Smith Associates. In March 2010 Wilbur Smith Associates along with HNTB, in a joint partnership, were selected as program manager for passenger rail in the State of Florida. Moreover, the much-touted report was nothing more than five pages of numbers, with no justification for how those figures were compiled. The reader may read into this with impunity.

The initial route of 84 miles was chosen in large part due to the relative low cost of building, possibly $3 billion if one includes moderate overruns; however, connecting Central Florida with Central Florida now seems like an oxymoron. This fact was not lost on a recent article by Michael Cooper in the New York Times, "Tampa and Orlando are only 84 miles apart, generally considered too close for high-speed rail to make sense. The train trip, with many stops along the way, would have shaved only around a half-hour off the drive. Since there are no commercial flights between the two cities, the new line would not have lured away fliers or freed up landing slots at the busy airports."

Ultimately the fast train in Central Florida would have been of little to no practical use for the everyday traveler. It would have missed all of the town centers on its route, thus would not have been a catalyst for urban development or renewal. A state-of-the-art conventional train on improved extant tracks would pass through the historic town centers, would be a catalyst for development, and should cost less than a third of the now-defunct fast train. But without the "HSR" label, it is not sexy enough for consideration by those who worry about their legacy.

In retrospect, perhaps the Orlando to Miami leg of the plan should have been considered first. At 240 miles, just over two and a half times the length of Tampa-Orlando, it certainly would have cost over two and a half times as much; however, connecting Central Florida with South Florida does make sense both politically as well as financially, and it certainly would be much less expensive than the postulated $42 billion price tag for the full build-out proposed in California.

With Florida now officially out of the high-speed rail business, attention turns to California and the building of America's first true high-speed train between the metropolises of Fresno and Bakersfield. Instead of Central Florida it will be left to the Central Valley to iron out specifications, codes, analyses, and operating procedures for all American fast trains to follow. This is probably not what the administration envisioned as the next great leap in transportation for the country.

Ultimately the administration placed all its bets on Central Florida in the belief that everyone was on the same page; that everyone believed in the concept of high-speed rail. In doing so, they never contemplated what to do if everyone was not on the same page. In short, they had no plan B. If connecting Central Florida with Central Florida seemed obtuse, then what would connecting the 35th- and 58th- largest cities in the nation seem like?

For now, those passionate purveyors of fast trains in Florida must once again close their plan books and return them to their shelves. Again, they will have to wait for the day when someone whisking along at over 150 mph will ask, "Who made all this possible?" Perhaps someday, but not today.

If you are reading someone else's copy of This Week at Amtrak, you can receive your own free copy each edition by sending your e-mail address to

[email protected]

You MUST include your name, preferred e-mail address, and city and state where you live. If you have filters or firewalls placed on your Internet connection, set your e-mail to receive incoming mail from [email protected]; we are unable to go through any approvals processes for individuals. This mailing list is kept strictly confidential and is not shared or used for any purposes other than distribution of This Week at Amtrak or related URPA materials.

All other correspondence, including requests to unsubscribe should be addressed to

[email protected]

Copies of This Week at Amtrak are archived on URPA's web site, www.unitedrail.org
 
Governor Scott was not the only one questioning the validity of this project. At this year's Southwest Rail Conference, one presenter succinctly pointed out that American HSR supporters were "attempting to have their icing without bothering to bake the cake." Specifically he added, "Florida needs to mature its HSR plans." Transporting tourists from theme parks to the beaches on the Gulf of Mexico is not a mature reason for building HSR.
I was at this conference, so I'm wondering if this guy was there too. I remember this quote too, and I can't think of who said it. I have to admit that I agree with most of what he said though.
I don't know a lot of the details, but if the origin and destination of the route make sense and if you have ever driven I-4 between those two cities I think it is a good project and would help with the heavy traffic.
But they don't. As pointed out in the article, and as repeated in the next newsletter, The Eastern end of Tampa to the Orlando airport is not much use to anyone.

Keep in mind that the most financially viable HSR system in the world connects Tokyo and Osaka - the #1 and #12 most populated urban areas in the world. Tampa, on the other hand, ranks 153rd. Miami is 53rd, but isn't part of the project. Orlando doesn't even rank.

I've lived in Orlando and travelled to Tampa many times. Sure, there is traffic, but there is also heavy traffic in Albuquerque, NM. And in Savannah, GA. And perhaps even occasionally in Kodiak, AK. Traffic isn't a yardstick to measure the necessity for high speed rail by. Commuter rail? Perhaps.
 
Volume 8, Number 6



April 2, 2011




A companion digest of events, opinions, and forecasts

to The Business and Politics of Passenger Rail







United Rail Passenger Alliance, Inc.




America's foremost passenger rail policy institute








Jacksonville, Florida USA




Telephone 904-636-7739, Electronic Mail [email protected]

http://www.unitedrail.org



From the Editors…

There is a lot of talk these days of "passenger rail." This week we attempt to separate reality from hyperbole.

The Definition of Success; The Price of the Definition

"What is the value added?" or similar questions are asked whenever any enterprise considers expansion, upgrade or reorganization. In principle it is a simple exercise; will future generations see this investment of time and resources as valuable or worthless? In the mania that has defined passenger railroading for the second decade of the 21st Century, one fact has become crystal clear, and that is that very few can accurately define what the value added is for passenger trains.

This is not to say that those promoting new trains are doing so out of shear ignorance or malfeasance. Many of these efforts are well meant. This past February, the Administration called upon Congress for a $53 billion down payment on high-speed rail for the country to enhance mobility and create work-fare. The goal was to provide access to fast trains for 80 percent of the country in 20 years. The general response was "Would you like fries with that?" More recently, two actors from a period-piece cable television drama performed, in character, a skit promoting the virtues of high-speed trains. The idea, if not the allure, of sleek, fast, sexy transportation seems positive and for good reason, because it is; however, the path from the trains of today and the trains of tomorrow is not as straight, short, or simple as one would be led to believe.

All around this great land of ours there are mixed signals as to the future of new passenger trains, let alone improvement of those extant. Passenger rail went from a Washington missive to center stage in many regional elections. As a result, planned projects in Wisconsin, Ohio, and Florida came to naught. In California, plans are moving forward to build a high-speed railroad as far out in the country as possible so as not to attract any attention. As a result of the many rejections, once-ostracized states of the Northeast are now allowed to bid for the now unwanted Federal dollars to improve Amtrak's Northeast Corridor.

Despite these false starts, there has been meaningful progress on many fronts for the augmentation of passenger trains. In just the last month, Washington State received its grant of $590 million for improvements between Portland, Oregon, and Seattle. In North Carolina, $461 million was received for upgrades to its Raleigh-to-Charlotte route. And in Illinois, $685 million was realized to continue improvements from Chicago to St. Louis, Missouri. Some $1.736 billion of taxpayer monies have been doled out for worthwhile projects around the country.

It is still early in the decade, but a definite trend has started to take shape regarding the future of domestic passenger trains. At one end of the spectrum, the assumed silver bullet [train] which was to herald the new era of national HSR transportation was nixed in Florida. It would have run on an independent right-of-way with no direct connection to the rest of the National system. The "3C" service cancelled in Ohio was not HSR but rather an upgrade of existing freight-only trackage, most of which has not seen passenger trains for four decades. Even with the blessing of the current owners, the enhanced track was not going to be of too much benefit to freight, as Cincinnati to Cleveland via Columbus is not a natural through-freight corridor. The stalled extension of Hiawatha service from Milwaukee to Madison, Wisconsin, also not true HSR, did plan to make use of an existing passenger route as far as Watertown. From there, a nearly-abandoned freight line would have been completely rebuilt for passenger speeds. West of Watertown, the line sees minimal traffic currently handled by a short line.

The successes seen in Washington, Illinois, and North Carolina are another matter, altogether. What do they have in common?

All are pre-existing state-supported services. Washington started daily service in 1994 using trainsets made by Talgo. The Chicago-to-St. Louis service has existed in many guises since the beginning of Amtrak, and was once home to the French-made Turbo trains. (With Talgo reportedly relocating to Illinois, perhaps the Lincoln service will see yet another iteration of exotic equipment.) North Carolina's intrastate train service started in 1995 and utilizes its own fleet of equipment.

All are on track owned (or operated) by freight railroads. The track in Washington State is a major corridor for BNSF, linking the Pacific Northwest with Canada. Even so, they have proven time and again to be willing partners with the local authority for operating the Cascade services. In Illinois, the line between St. Louis and Chicago is Union Pacific's shortest route between the two cities. North Carolina's Piedmont trains utilize Norfolk Southern's main line from Greensboro to Charlotte. This track is currently undergoing capacity expansion as part of the Crescent Corridor initiative.

All currently host long-distance Amtrak trains. In Washington State the route of the Cascades is also part of the route for the Coast Starlight. The Illinois Lincoln service also hosts the daily Texas Eagle, while North Carolina's Piedmont shares the same track with the Crescent between Greensboro and Charlotte.

In Washington, overall track capacity will increase with completion of the Point Defiance bypass. This bypass will obviate a single track tunnel and will be used by the Cascades, local commuter, as well as long-distance trains. Union Pacific plans for increased freight traffic on the Illinois line once upgrades are complete. North Carolina will add 28 miles of double track between Charlotte and Greensboro, part of the aforementioned Crescent Corridor. The planned enhancements for all three of these routes not only aid the regional and freight trains, but also increase the viability of long-distance trains; it is like getting three for the price of one. Now that is value added!

There is virtually no end to the possible public/private synergies around the country. In Virginia, passenger service will be returned to Norfolk (using State funds). The line from Norfolk to Petersburg is the Eastern end of Norfolk Southern's recently upgraded Heartland Corridor connecting tidewater to the Midwest. Recently, the state of Missouri applied for Federal high-speed money to increase speeds between St. Louis and Kansas City. This is the route of the State-supported Missouri River Runner, and operates over the tracks of Union Pacific. Another plan under consideration is a daily train connecting Dallas to Eastern Texas. Currently, the daily Texas Eagle runs between Marshall and Dallas; westbound in the morning, eastbound in the evening. A counterpart train would run on opposite schedules with a possible extension to Shreveport, Louisiana. This would necessitate capacity expansion on the 150-mile route also owned by Union Pacific. Enhanced service between Oakland, California and Reno, Nevada is also a possibility. Currently, the route between Oakland and Auburn sees daily service as part of California's Capitol Corridor, including the daily California Zephyr. Pushing the corridor past Auburn to Reno, 118 miles, may require capacity expansion over famed Donner Pass; predominantly re-laying much of the second track removed prior to Union Pacific's accession of the route in 1996.

As the nation continues to adjust from the economic correction of the last few years it is evident we are a people defined as "risk averse." Houses are not selling even though there are those who should be able to afford such. The numerous vacant automobile dealerships that now dot the landscape are further evidence of our new-found fiscal conservatism. The progress being seen in Washington, Illinois, and North Carolina demonstrate the public will to invest in the "tried and true," where return on investment may be easily calculated and expedited.

Of all the trains run by Amtrak, it is the long-distance fleet which has garnered consistently increasing passenger loadings despite the downturn of the economy. To those inured by the high-speed-rail mentality sweeping the nation, these "slow trains" do not fit the prepackaged ideal; however, it must be understood that no high-speed train anywhere on earth was built without something predicating it. It must also be recognized that the United States has been limping along on a skeletal passenger rail network for four decades. If there is to be a true high-speed rail network, it must be preceded by a true conventional rail network.

The simple if painful truth is that a legitimate high-speed train is not a few years or even a decade away. A genuine network of meaningful passenger trains will have to be reestablished before going any further. This is a process that could conceivably take at least a generation, and no decree of imperious immediacy can change this. The latter half of the 20th Century was defined by America's embrace of the automobile. This did not happen overnight. The return to rail-based transportation will also be a long-term transition; perhaps too long to satisfy those overly concerned about their legacy in the annals of history.

If you are reading someone else's copy of This Week at Amtrak, you can receive your own free copy each edition by sending your e-mail address to

[email protected]

You MUST include your name, preferred e-mail address, and city and state where you live. If you have filters or firewalls placed on your Internet connection, set your e-mail to receive incoming mail from [email protected]; we are unable to go through any approvals processes for individuals. This mailing list is kept strictly confidential and is not shared or used for any purposes other than distribution of This Week at Amtrak, the Business and Politics of Passenger Rail, or related URPA materials.

Subscribers to This Week at Amtrak automatically receive a subscription to the Business and Politics of Passenger Rail; subscriber lists are maintained simultaneously for both publications, and neither publication can be subscribed to exclusively.

All other correspondence, including requests to unsubscribe should be addressed to

[email protected]

Copies of This Week at Amtrak are archived on URPA's web site, www.unitedrail.org
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top