- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "John Bredin" <jbbredin@h...>
>The long-distance routes as currently configured make absolutely no
> The "long-haul service in the western part of the country" you
> blithely condemn makes perfect sense because a long-distance route
> is essentially a series of corridor operations laid end to end. A
> Chicago-San Francisco train is not like a Chicago-San Francisco
> flight: by making stops at cities along the tracks, it is also a
> Chicago-Omaha, Omaha-Denver, Denver-Salt Lake City, etc. train.
sense from an operational standpoint. Because of their incredible
length, it is difficult for them to stay on schedule and as a result
the service is far too unreliable. At the very least, they should be
split into shorter segments (i.e. no more than 12 hrs, like in
But contrary to what Mr. Crawford wrote, there are some incredible
opporunties for passenger rail in the West. Even at Amtrak's
incredibly slow speeds, hotel trains could be extremely competitive.
Just find 2 city pairs that are 12 hours apart and run night trains
>No, but that is essentially what Amtrak is doing. For example: fully-
> Nobody is advocating the same level of service for the long-
> distance routes as for the great corridors.
staffed stations along lines that see at most 2 trains/day. And full-
blown baggage handling service (Europe did away with its baggage
cars long ago).
>Metra is "famously efficient"?? Now I've heard it all.
> "Amtrak's operations have often been so inept," as you say,
> because Amtrak is grossly underfunded and cannot afford either the
> equipment or the expert personnel that allow a commuter operation
> like Chicago's famously efficient Metra to run like clockwork.
- OK, one more time -- then I'm finished with this one.
On Fri, 7 Jan 2005, emccaughrin wrote:
> > Yes, but we were talking about rail service in vast, unpopulated
> > rural places.
> Um, no. The discussion is about rail service to cities in the west,
> not to some cattle ranch way out in the plains somewhere. There are
> large metropolitan areas in the west -- Denver, Salt Lake City, to
> name a few -- with populations large enough to justify rail service,
> and not so far apart that rail cannot be competitive.
Well, that's two ;^)
I have no problem with competitive rail service in the west. Indeed, I'm a fan and have ridden many of the long-haul trains in the region. I'd simply rather spend the subsidy money in more productive ways (I have a list).
Of course, if passenger service between those city pairs really is competitive, the railroads will be eager to provide it.
> Norway has 300k km^2 and a population of 4.5 million. If one were to
> go by a naive interpretation of its 15 persons/km^2 density, Norway
> has no business running passenger rail because at it isn't "dense"
> enough -- and yet it runs comprehensive, 140mph rail service that is
> far better than anything you will find in even the most heavily
> populated US metropolitan area.
Come on, now. Norway's rail system is heavily concentrated in the more-populated southern part of the country. To the extent that it does serve the northern portions (does it extend beyond Bodo?), let's remember that we're talking about a long, very narrow corridor.
To put things in perspective (again), the Norwegian national rail network totals about 2,500 miles of track -- just a little more than the route of our oft-cited, lonely American long-haul, the Empire Builder.
Not to let this end without further (perhaps naive) reference to population density, the state of Montana, alone, is larger than Norway and, at 2.39 persons per square kilometer, is about *one-sixth* as densely populated.
I just don't think the arguments for subsidizing rural passenger rail service in the US are persuasive, definitely not in a resource-constrained world. Certainly, there are many other subsidies on which I'd merrily pull the plug, also (autos, airlines, ranchers and loggers, warmongers and arms merchants...), but, if given the chance to divert the handout from Amtrak to a really useful urban project, I'd do it in a heartbeat.
I suppose I should close by confessing that it would be fine with me if *all* long-distance travel was relatively difficult and (at least) moderately expensive. In a world of six-plus billion humans with an emerging permanent energy crunch, it is dangerous folly to encourage casual gallivanting around the globe.
P.O. Box 307
Corte Madera, CA