Amtrak Funding Will Survive
 

The Administration doesn't set the tone on the Amtrak funding issue; Congress sets that tone. And Congress will not agree to this. The Administration does not feel strongly about cutting Amtrak; it's a shallow area of interest for them. Congress feels much more strongly.

Amtrak will end up with some "reasonable" amount of funding, and will continue to act like the "phone company." That's the creature that's been created here, for better or worse.

HSR makes sense in a number of corridors, like SF-LA, but our leadership doesn't have the foresight to make these expensive projects happen. Amtrak costs less, and provides less, but its costs come in more digestible amounts, and of course union workers are involved, who are very vocal at the Congressional level.

So there you have it, a prediction about what will happen.

Count me among the skeptics of SF-LA rail. Such a massive project would make our recent Bay Bridge cost overrun fiasco look minor by comparison.

Besides, what problem would such a project solve? We currently have lots of cheap flights connecting SF, Oak, SJ and Sac. with LA, Burbank, Ontario, Long Beach and Anaheim. True, flying isn't quite as convenient as it once was, but it's tolerable.

Actually I meant the Shore Line East, otherwise thanks :).

Exactly-what problem does it solve. Maybe potential employment issues for Amtrak execs and other employees.

The dreamers look to the Europe model of inexpensive, reliable train travel. And that it is. But the distances between routes are much farther in the USA, and travel for the masses here didn't kick in until jet planes were well entranched. Amtrak has had 30 years to get train travel into the mainstream and by now should have increasing ridership and profitable passeger operations. The reasons they don't-whether the task is too tough or management made bad choices-really don't matter. Think of the world 30 years ago-no PCs, no VCRs, no cell phones. The world has been virtually reinvented but Amtrak keeps chugging slowly along, dropping tax dollars off the back end of the caboose.

Now the only folks who sign-up for a two day Amtrak trip from Chicago to San Francisco are those reliving the days of old, and who are willing to take the risk that the two day trip may be three or four. Nostalgic trips are great, but don't ask the taxpayers to subsidize them.

Those who want to get cars off the road should turn their focus from the highways crossing Nebraska. Using Amtrak's funds for needed mass transit in the inner cities would make a lot more sense.

If they had initiated the whole thing, wouldn't they have also cancelled their arrangement with Continental and Midwest? Or are those lucrative where the UAL arrangement was not? (Note that MCI cancelled all deals except for Northwest. This suggests that some miles cost less than others.)

If you belive their statement that they did not give notice because not many people were using the transfer to United option, can we expect similar treatment if/when they cancel transfers between Amtrak and Continental or Midwest? Or are they saying that those two transfer options are much more popular? (Yeah, sure.)

Bottom line for me: Unless you actually use your Amtrak points for Amtrak travel, get them out now to either Continental or Midwest. And if you do use them for Amtrak travel, use them now, before they cancel the whole program (or Congress cancels Amtrak) without notice.

Speaking of dreaming, lets get rid of existing service from Seattle to San Diego, and from Denver to Oakland. Then, contract out to a leisure rail company. Essentially, it would be marketed as a land cruise. Redesign the rail cars for maximum sightseeing and comfort. I've seen a travel show about such a train in the Canadian Rockies.

Likewise, spin off the San Jose-Oakland-Sacramento commuter service to a private firm if possible, or Caltrain.

I doubt the state of california would like that idea, and all the charter bus companies operates Amtrak California thruway services. Amtrak California services (Capitol Corridor, San Joaquin, and Pacific Surfliners) are all jointly operated by CalTrans and Amtrak (thus Amtrak California) plus partnerships with virtually almost all the counties it serves and their transit agency so I think its going to be really really hard to spin off to a private firm especailly with a increase in ridership every year.

I estimate that it would save about an hour on the trip (assuming a reasonably fast train) from end to end. This would actually make an SF-LA commute almost feasible.

The Capitol Corridor is, I believe, Amtrak's second busiest (and probably second most profitable) route.

Private rail would be interesting, but moving anything to Caltrain would be a mistake. Amtrak is far more reliable and competent than those bozos. If it weren't for them, we'd have had a cohesive transit system around the Bay 20 years ago.

Yea, it stinks that Amtrak > United is over, but I really think some are jumping the gun here. As was pointed out above, executive budget proposals often slash Amtrak funding, but that's why they are proposals. It is highly doubtful that Congress would pass the budget without continuing the Amtrak appropriation. I guess I could be wrong, but this is what my gut says and so do my sources on the Hill.

As for AGR, I also doubt the programme is going anywhere. Again, the UA transfer was one cutback, but other areas have indicated that AGR is expanding; a new rewards tier, generous promotions.

So, I do not think there is much to worry about. However, for those who are still sceptical, you could also send your points to HH.


Cheers.

Are you assuming the invention of a supersonic train? Let's assume that the train does 208 mph from downtown SF to downtown LA (that speed, by the way, is the record for a Eurostar test train). That's about 1 hr 52 min (of course, the av. speed would probably be much slower than 208 mph). The normal gate to gate flight time is 1 hr 17 min.

So, the more convenient location of the train stations, and the greater ease of getting on a train will more than offset that 35 min. deficit? Indeed, it will save an hour? Who goes to downtown LA, anyway?

Edited to add the fact that the Grapevine (most direct route) rises to over 4k feet (that'll slow you down).

After 30 years of subsidies and failing to build a credible (profitable) long-hual passenger business, it's time to move eliminating the Amtrak subsidy from "proposal" to real action. This is a billion dollar a year toss to the lobbyists we can no longer afford.

No, are you assuming the invention of teleportation to get onto an airplane bypassing checkin and security? (Which would make either form of transportation obsolete anyway.)

Absolutely. First, I'm figuring door-to-door time. In addition to a downtown train station savng 30 minutes, you've got to add 1 hour (minimum) to your flight time for an airport and 5 minutes (maximum) for a train station. Second, the actual flight time is usually somewhat longer than 1:17. I average 1:30 from scheduled departure to actual arrival. Finally, downtown LA is my only destination whan I fly to LAX. I try to avoid the LA area as much as possible and only go down when business requires me to go.

Okay, so what is your estimate on time from station to station, SF to LA?

Edited to add helpful info.: direct TGV service from Avignon to Paris (360 mi. -- about 30 miles closer to each other than SF & LA) takes 2 hrs. 38 min.

That would be a fine time for me from SF to LA, given that I am required to be at the airport 1 1/2 hours before departure time, and the San Francisco airport is not in San Francisco.