 |
Re: Trump Administration wants to cut service south of Eugene
Author: Erik H.
Date: 08-28-2019 - 11:52
J Mann Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why does the government think busses are an acceptable substitute to train travel?
> Have these people ever taken a bus? Have they ever done a real comparison between bus
> and train travel?
> Washington's solution to lack of train service is always go to bus.
If you are transporting 200 people a day on a route based upon actual demand, you have two options:
1. Run one train a day. Miss it, and you're out for an entire day. If the schedule doesn't work, too bad so sad. The train requires a crew of four to operate.
2. Run four buses a day. The buses can be spread out every six hours or so. You require four drivers.
Option 2 is proven to far better attract ridership than option 1. Of course you could run more trains, but at a far higher cost, and basically running around empty trains. (the current Portland-Eugene Amtrak service actually proves this - the buses that run much more frequently are heavily utilized, have almost zero public subsidy, and actually are more fuel efficient than the two trains a day whose average load factor is somewhere in the 30s and the train spends more fuel pulling around its own dead weight.)
Klamath Falls is no reason to blow a ton of money at a train; the city can't even support airline service despite its remote location, the presence of a military base that is used for training pilots and an Oregon university campus, as well as being close to a National Park. That should be speaking volumes right there. Medford, Ashland, Grants Pass and Roseburg are doing just great without Amtrak (Medford's airport is booming). The cities north of Redding in California hardly need any rail service (especially given the hours that Amtrak stops) and Chemult isn't even an incorporated city, it's a glorified wide spot on U.S. 97 with a couple truck stops, a Post Office, a few Union Pacific maintenance bunkhouses, and I think a public restroom. But Oakridge, an actual town, doesn't get an Amtrak stop.
"Need" is far overstated. The loss of this one train will be lamented by railfans but not by the general public. Alaska Airlines, Southwest Airlines, and Interstate 5 have the region WELL connected for intercity transport. You're basically complaining about the loss of one 737 in terms of real passenger counts, when a quick glance at PDX's flight departures today counts 38 flights in the same corridor just between 6:00 AM and 10:00 AM. There is no way Amtrak can compete here... Those who absolutely "need" to move and cannot or will not use a plane, will use a bus. If you refuse to ride a bus, why should the government effectively pay for you to ride a limo with a dedicated on-board restaurant and lounge?
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why does the government think busses are an acceptable substitute to train travel?
> Have these people ever taken a bus? Have they ever done a real comparison between bus
> and train travel?
> Washington's solution to lack of train service is always go to bus.
If you are transporting 200 people a day on a route based upon actual demand, you have two options:
1. Run one train a day. Miss it, and you're out for an entire day. If the schedule doesn't work, too bad so sad. The train requires a crew of four to operate.
2. Run four buses a day. The buses can be spread out every six hours or so. You require four drivers.
Option 2 is proven to far better attract ridership than option 1. Of course you could run more trains, but at a far higher cost, and basically running around empty trains. (the current Portland-Eugene Amtrak service actually proves this - the buses that run much more frequently are heavily utilized, have almost zero public subsidy, and actually are more fuel efficient than the two trains a day whose average load factor is somewhere in the 30s and the train spends more fuel pulling around its own dead weight.)
Klamath Falls is no reason to blow a ton of money at a train; the city can't even support airline service despite its remote location, the presence of a military base that is used for training pilots and an Oregon university campus, as well as being close to a National Park. That should be speaking volumes right there. Medford, Ashland, Grants Pass and Roseburg are doing just great without Amtrak (Medford's airport is booming). The cities north of Redding in California hardly need any rail service (especially given the hours that Amtrak stops) and Chemult isn't even an incorporated city, it's a glorified wide spot on U.S. 97 with a couple truck stops, a Post Office, a few Union Pacific maintenance bunkhouses, and I think a public restroom. But Oakridge, an actual town, doesn't get an Amtrak stop.
"Need" is far overstated. The loss of this one train will be lamented by railfans but not by the general public. Alaska Airlines, Southwest Airlines, and Interstate 5 have the region WELL connected for intercity transport. You're basically complaining about the loss of one 737 in terms of real passenger counts, when a quick glance at PDX's flight departures today counts 38 flights in the same corridor just between 6:00 AM and 10:00 AM. There is no way Amtrak can compete here... Those who absolutely "need" to move and cannot or will not use a plane, will use a bus. If you refuse to ride a bus, why should the government effectively pay for you to ride a limo with a dedicated on-board restaurant and lounge?
