Amtrak

[PonderInc]

Here's an exerpt from an article by Jennifer Hattam in the current issue of the Sierra Club magazine, re: rail transit in Salt Lake City:

Biggest Transit Turnaround: Salt Lake City
(population 178,605)

The last time a rail system ran through Utah's capital, Harry Truman was in the White House. When a modern light rail was proposed in the early 1980s, the idea wasn't warmly received. "People said no one would use it, that folks in Utah would not give up their cars," recalls Sierra Club organizer Marc Heileson. Opponents showed up at the 1997 ground breaking with combative banners like "You can pry my steering wheel from my cold, dead fingers." Even supporters didn't have very high hopes, projecting that the system would draw only 22,000 daily riders by 2020.

Environmentalists, transit officials, and city boosters secured federal funds that allowed the first Trax line to open in December 1999 despite the opposition. Now the 19-mile system is drawing more than 58,000 riders a day--and changing the city's pattern of development from auto-dependent sprawl to denser mixed-use neighborhoods. More people than ever live downtown. "Areas that are near a Trax stop are now more valuable to develop, not less," says Heileson, who wants to see the system expand into the still-sprawling suburbs. If they build it, people will likely come: Forty-four percent of Trax's initial riders were new to mass transit. "That means almost half of those people got out of their cars and jumped on the train," says Heileson. "If you can do that in Salt Lake City, you can do it anywhere."

[AVERAGE JOE]

quote:Originally posted by PonderInc

Here's an exerpt from an article by Jennifer Hattam in the current issue of the Sierra Club magazine, re: rail transit in Salt Lake City:

Biggest Transit Turnaround: Salt Lake City
(population 178,605)

The last time a rail system ran through Utah's capital, Harry Truman was in the White House. When a modern light rail was proposed in the early 1980s, the idea wasn't warmly received. "People said no one would use it, that folks in Utah would not give up their cars," recalls Sierra Club organizer Marc Heileson. Opponents showed up at the 1997 ground breaking with combative banners like "You can pry my steering wheel from my cold, dead fingers." Even supporters didn't have very high hopes, projecting that the system would draw only 22,000 daily riders by 2020.

Environmentalists, transit officials, and city boosters secured federal funds that allowed the first Trax line to open in December 1999 despite the opposition. Now the 19-mile system is drawing more than 58,000 riders a day--and changing the city's pattern of development from auto-dependent sprawl to denser mixed-use neighborhoods. More people than ever live downtown. "Areas that are near a Trax stop are now more valuable to develop, not less," says Heileson, who wants to see the system expand into the still-sprawling suburbs. If they build it, people will likely come: Forty-four percent of Trax's initial riders were new to mass transit. "That means almost half of those people got out of their cars and jumped on the train," says Heileson. "If you can do that in Salt Lake City, you can do it anywhere."

See, the only problem with that example is that Tulsans are generally too hard-headed and refuse to learn a single lesson from any other city. Doesn't this make Salt Lake City just the latest in a long line of cities where mass transit has done well in spite of the fact everyone said "it'll never work here"?

[H.Noodleman]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

I now employ the Ingore funtion for pimpthistownvotepaultay and H.Noodleman, his alter-ego.  Keeps you from having your head explode.

I sho aints no part of dat fools head!He be crazy dat pimp boy be!Dont say Homer be ins on his foOl heads_SHIZZLE_NUTCASE_SHIZZLE

[Transport_Oklahoma]

AZBADPUPPY,

This isn't about profits.  Its going to require Oklahoma state government to spend money.  Just like is done for the OKC service, like Missouri is doing for its service, and California, and Illinois, and so forth.

Its about moving people.  It is about preparing for a time when people will wax nostalgic for 2006's "cheap" gas.  Its about quality of life.  Its about generating activity around cbd-based train stations.

With each successive improvement, a level of support will develop for the next level of investment.  

At some point, in the busiest corridors, there may be an opportunity for private sector operators to operate at profit if they don't have to pay for the full cost of the track (kind of like truckers and the airlines).

oklahomarail.org

[Transport_Oklahoma]

Congressional transportation project earmarks of all kinds are down in the state.  Article about it in the Daily Oklahoman the other day.

Maybe the Senator Tom Coburn effect?

The controversial OKC I 40 project might sit unfinished for years with a junior member representing the capitol city down there.

Rail will have to be primarily funded by the state.  City might be asked to help with the TEA-LU Enhancement grant 20% local match on the station.  But that's down the road.  Just need their moral support right now.  Will come in handy getting the legislature on board.

Federal formula funds may be available for the grade crossing work.  

That's o.k.  Thanks to revenue from the gross production tax (natural gas mainly) we can afford it.

[AVERAGE JOE]

quote:Originally posted by pimpthistownvotepaultay

quote:Originally posted by AVERAGE JOE


Therein lies the problem. The Heartland Flyer trip takes 4 hours and 15 minutes to cover 200 miles. So the price is right, but the train ride takes longer than driving!

If you are taking the train for the speed, you are completely missing the whole point.  That why I actually prefer Greyhound over Southwest.  Better class of people.

I think you missed my whole point, Paul. I was trying to identify why more people didn't take the train in spite of the fact the fares are so cheap. When you can drive it faster and have your own car in your destination city, taking the train is only going to be done for the "experience", and that's a small market.

[AVERAGE JOE]

quote:Originally posted by pimpthistownvotepaultay

quote:Originally posted by AVERAGE JOE

I think you missed my whole point, Paul. I was trying to identify why more people didn't take the train in spite of the fact the fares are so cheap. When you can drive it faster and have your own car in your destination city, taking the train is only going to be done for the "experience", and that's a small market.

Believe it or not, there's actually an emerging, albeit still small, market called transportertainment, commanding premium fares.  For example, the murder mystery train tours are in this category.  

Instead of the stoopid concert series, stationary, at the Denver station, Bill Cartwright might put a roving mariachi band on a couple of buses, which would most certainly make the local, maybe even national, evening news.  Think outta dat crummy box on four wheels, people.

If worked right, it could be a very profitable niche for some enterprising, over-pampered trust fund slacker.

I understand your position, but what you're suggesting is to make rail transit more niche, whereas we were brainstorming on how to make it more mainstream.

[pmcalk]

While the niche for those traveling for the sake of traveling is small, Amtrak could do a better job promoting and enlarging that number.  The Eurail pass in Europe is designed for college students--without cars--who want the freedom to roam the country & see various sites on their own schedule.  Amtrak has a few deals for international travelers, but nothing along the lines of the Eurail.  

I have taken Amtrak on a long journey--from DC to Florida.  This was shortly after riding the train in Europe, and there was no comparison.  I understand that most of Amtrak's tracks are owned by freight companies, so anytime we came in conflict with a freight train, the freight train had the right of way.  We had to stop multiple times and wait.  Consequently, our train was over 3 hours behind schedule.  

I agree with AverageJoe, we should focus on regional travel first; perhaps someday we can move on from there.  I disagree, though, about the heartland flyer.  If I could take a train to Dallas in 4 hours, I would do it over a airplane always, especially if the train went downtown.  Really, after driving to the airport and parking, going through security, renting a car at your destination, and driving downtown, the difference is probably an hour at best.

[iplaw]

quote:
If I could take a train to Dallas in 4 hours, I would do it over a airplane always, especially if the train went downtown. Really, after driving to the airport and parking, going through security, renting a car at your destination, and driving downtown, the difference is probably an hour at best.

Here, Here...  5 years ago before the current security situation I would have said no, but with travel security making flight as inconvenient as it is now....

[okiebybirth]

quote:Originally posted by pmcalk

While the niche for those traveling for the sake of traveling is small, Amtrak could do a better job promoting and enlarging that number.  The Eurail pass in Europe is designed for college students--without cars--who want the freedom to roam the country & see various sites on their own schedule.  Amtrak has a few deals for international travelers, but nothing along the lines of the Eurail.  

I have taken Amtrak on a long journey--from DC to Florida.  This was shortly after riding the train in Europe, and there was no comparison.  I understand that most of Amtrak's tracks are owned by freight companies, so anytime we came in conflict with a freight train, the freight train had the right of way.  We had to stop multiple times and wait.  Consequently, our train was over 3 hours behind schedule.  

I agree with AverageJoe, we should focus on regional travel first; perhaps someday we can move on from there.  I disagree, though, about the heartland flyer.  If I could take a train to Dallas in 4 hours, I would do it over a airplane always, especially if the train went downtown.  Really, after driving to the airport and parking, going through security, renting a car at your destination, and driving downtown, the difference is probably an hour at best.

I'm in agreement.  If a regional train gets me there as quickly as my car and I don't have to drive those hours, I'm all about taking the train.  That's why a Saint Louis to Tulsa train would be a good start.  I'm sure Amtrak could promote the train as a gateway for Branson and lure in some business as well.

[AVERAGE JOE]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

quote:
If I could take a train to Dallas in 4 hours, I would do it over a airplane always, especially if the train went downtown. Really, after driving to the airport and parking, going through security, renting a car at your destination, and driving downtown, the difference is probably an hour at best.

Here, Here...  5 years ago before the current security situation I would have said no, but with travel security making flight as inconvenient as it is now....

But we have to consider that when taking the train, one still has to drive to the train station, park, and more than likely go through some measure of security screening. The real time saving is the downtown-to-downtown linkage. So a four hour train ride wouldn't work -- a person could drive there faster, which is a marketing loser.

Faster than driving + cheaper than flying = passenger rail success.

[iplaw]

[sportyart]

quote:Originally posted by AVERAGE JOE

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

quote:
If I could take a train to Dallas in 4 hours, I would do it over a airplane always, especially if the train went downtown. Really, after driving to the airport and parking, going through security, renting a car at your destination, and driving downtown, the difference is probably an hour at best.

Here, Here...  5 years ago before the current security situation I would have said no, but with travel security making flight as inconvenient as it is now....

But we have to consider that when taking the train, one still has to drive to the train station, park, and more than likely go through some measure of security screening. The real time saving is the downtown-to-downtown linkage. So a four hour train ride wouldn't work -- a person could drive there faster, which is a marketing loser.

Faster than driving + cheaper than flying = passenger rail success.

So basically super highways of rail service. The Country would have to build a whole new rail line between all major cities. I could see a huge argument from smaller communities saying that they would be left in the dust. Though I could also see just pointing to major to mid major airports and saying it's the same. Does anyone know the cost per mile of rail to build for high speed rail service?

[Transport_Oklahoma]

Walk through the coaches of most Amtrak trains, ESPECIALLY the long hauls, at 3 a.m. and you will see the majority are not on "joy" rides or "transportainment."  It doesn't matter what Southwest is charging if your traveling from Purcell, Okla to Yuma, Ariz. and you don't have a car or one that is roadworthy.

My point was that you start with "the possible" now and build up to "super trains" over time.

quote: As a reminder.  We are discussing this because the state of Missouri has entered into formal discussions with Amtrak towards establishing train service from Saint Louis to Springfield.  This same Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway line continues on to Tulsa.  Some of us have asked local officials to become involved and get the parameters of these talks to include service into Oklahoma.  It is understood the two states would have to share in the capital and operating costs.

[sportyart]

quote:Originally posted by Transport_Oklahoma

Walk through the coaches of most Amtrak trains, ESPECIALLY the long hauls, at 3 a.m. and you will see the majority are not on "joy" rides or "transportainment."  It doesn't matter what Southwest is charging if your traveling from Purcell, Okla to Yuma, Ariz. and you don't have a car or one that is roadworthy.

My point was that you start with "the possible" now and build up to "super trains" over time.

quote: As a reminder.  We are discussing this because the state of Missouri has entered into formal discussions with Amtrak towards establishing train service from Saint Louis to Springfield.  This same Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway line continues on to Tulsa.  Some of us have asked local officials to become involved and get the parameters of these talks to include service into Oklahoma.  It is understood the two states would have to share in the capital and operating costs.

I agree with you.