Articles - All Comments

HarveyK400 — Fri, 16 Nov 2012 17:01:29 GMT

The Rock Island route decision is short-sighted. The existing Metra Heritage Corridor that shares the current Amtrak route needs these railroad-railroad grade separation improvements to increase service and divert riders from the saturated Metra BNSF service. Adding a fourth track to the BNSF would be extremely costly and disruptive.

The proposed connection at 39th Street would displace numerous residents and businesses; and that could be solved without displacement with a new direct connection at 16th Street using the "Air Line" bridge over the South Branch. This could be shared with existing Amtrak services to Carbondale and New Orleans and a potential extension of the Metra North Central Service to McCormick Place and a transfer with the Electric District and eliminate the need for a slower and delay-prone west-south alignment around an expanded NS yard for a restored Grand Crossing connection.

The Metra NCS would afford a McCormick Place - Union Station - O'Hare Airport service with limited intermediate stops.that is competitive in convenience, time, comfort, and cost with driving and the CTA Blue Line.

FSAdams — Thu, 15 Nov 2012 19:50:02 GMT

The NTSB should be on the list of agencies that are redundant and / or have outlived their usefullness. Each mode has another agency (FRA, FAA, etc.), with safety oversight, responsibility and the like and the NTSB is unnecessary.

I recall not too long ago the NTSB being quoted as needing to expand its sphere of influence if it is to remain relevant. I have a better idea; It's time for the NTSB to declare success and fade away.

rudycaparros — Tue, 13 Nov 2012 19:29:54 GMT

HazMat Experts and Firefighters petition Dow Chemical and Union Pacific for safe rail tank cars transporting gas chlorine. Secondary containment is a necessary improvement that must be implemented. See--PETITION C KIT for First Responders Comments.

re: Mica: Report highlights Amtrak's failure to compete

Larry Kaufman — Thu, 13 Sep 2012 20:14:00 GMT

anmccaff: An excellent comment, I think. Here's a historical note you might find of interest or even value:

In 1970m Congress had a number of options to consider in the passenger train crisis. One was the "do nothing" option, and that would have resulted in the shrinking remainder of passenger trains filing "train-off" petitions, and as the railroads really were losing money in hug chunks, they would have been granted authority to get trains off and eventually there would be none left.

The second option, and the one I think made the most sense, was to subsidize passenger train losses but have the freight railroads run the remaining trains. Face it, they knew then, as the know now, how to run trains. But politically, that was not going to fly. So many members of Congress had made so many anti-railroad speeches that the railroads were positioned as the "bad guys." The fundamental question became "how can you even consider subsidizing these guys; after all, they created the crisis by their bad management. Fiction met rhetoric and fact and logic soon departed the field of battle. Taking all the remaining passenger trains and creating a specialized company just to run passenger trains semed like the least harmful solution. The railroads were required to "buy" their way out of their obligation by paying Amtrak two years of passenger service losses. Payment could be made in cash or kind. Most paid in cash, and a few actually stayed out in the belief that even with losses, their trains were better than anything Amtrak would operate. Rock Island stayed out because it just didn't have the funds to buy in. It later went bankrupt, of course. Southern stayed out because its Crescent still was a fine train and they had faith in their operation. SOU joined when it came time to replace the Crescent's equipment; a horrendous expense for a railroad. Santa Fe joined, but would not allow Amtrak to use its Super Chief name, CEO John Reed saying the color schme Amtrak was adopting made the trains look like a French bordello. At least one friend of mine tried to ask John how he knew what a French bordello looked like.

Amtrak, as I'm sure you recall was to operate and maintain a national network of passenger trains, covering above-the-rail expenses by generated revenue. Amtrak got to pay rent to the owners of the infrastructure, with the exception of the NEC, where it got to charge rent of the freight railroads. That Amtrak has required federal financial assistance for the past 40 years surely must tell you something about Amtrak's adherence to the congressional mandate that it not be a drain on taxpayers.

re: Mica: Report highlights Amtrak's failure to compete

goldenspike — Thu, 13 Sep 2012 18:32:12 GMT

Amtrak is our nation's only continental rail passenger system. In a perfect world the United States Congress would have aided Amtrak over the last 40 years with systematic rollouts of new equipment every 5 years. Passenger rail travel serves several solid purposes. One, is providing travel choices other than the automobile or aircraft. Two, is that Amtrak connects hundreds of small towns and rural communities that do not have close interstate highway access or airports. If leadership had been happening in Washington 40 years ago regarding Amtrak our country would have had in operation a nationwide highspeed rail system today! Unfortunately, most congress persons don't really have a technical background to understand traffic engineering. Amtrak is a very important infrastructure resource in America! This organization should be valued as such! I just rode the Empire Builder to Chicago and back, and it was a load of fun in the dinner and viewing car. Of course; I enjoyed a first class sleeper. Brought back memories of the 1950's as a kid when my parents occupied Pullman rooms in the crack trains, Santa Fe Super Chief, 20th Century Limited and a few more, taking me on the great rail trips. Like the old saying goes, "the fun is in how you get there". Long live Amtrak!!!

re: Sound Transit to kick off commuter-rail service to South Tacoma, Lakewood next month

JohnNiles — Thu, 13 Sep 2012 17:46:50 GMT

Statement from Puget Sound Public Interest Transportation Forum (PITF):

A new but lightly used peak period passenger train in Washington State starting October 8 combined with bus service cuts could force changes.

The $300 million spent by Sound Transit in Seattle over a decade to add just two more stations to Sounder commuter rail for a paltry number of additional daily transit riders would have been better spent by transferring these taxpayer funds to Pierce Transit to keep regular bus service going strong throughout the entire County.

Train service replacing a few peak period runs of existing air-conditioned bus service on HOV lanes is a questionable luxury, since by state law -- RCW 81.104.120 -- the train service is supposed to cost less per passenger mile than bus service. The train doesn't qualify if only a few ride it.

Today, all-bus Pierce Transit says it is broke and has cut service, with plans to cut more service if the November tax election fails to bring relief through the proposed 50% transit sales tax hike, from 6 cents to 9 cents on a ten dollar purchase.

A decision to redirect available public transit funds could have been soundly made over ten years ago when the existing track between Lakewood and Tacoma Dome was found to be too steep for Sounder locomotives to handle. More Pierce Transit bus lines feeding commuters to the Tacoma Dome station could have been the decision. Instead, hundreds of millions of dollars and years of construction time were added to the Sound Transit budget to build new track.

Sounder commuter rail was promised in the first Sound Transit tax campaign (1996) to be economical because it would run on existing tracks. The Lakewood extension breaks that promise.

Furthermore, as a result of the path taken, unfortunate collateral damage will arrive if Amtrak/WSDOT gets the authorization it seeks to start running passenger trains to Portland on the Sound Transit track through Lakewood neighborhoods at 79 mph without stopping there.

The forecast result of the new Sounder service extension to Lakewood is for 1,700 new transit riders in 2030. However, alll of Sound Transit's pre-opening forecasts to date have been higher than the number who showed up to ride later.

Forthcoming low ridership combined with the lack of legal standing may motivate some economy minded State Legislators to examine what is going on with the new Lakewood Sounder and force a correction. In other words, South Sound commuters may need to use it or lose it. Passage of the November 6 tax hike for Pierce Transit could also be a critical event in avoiding a reconsideration of how resources are allocated for transit in the Tacoma region.

In any event, however, serious reconsideration is long past due of where and how limited transit resources from taxpayer pockets are spent in Washington State.

re: Mica: Report highlights Amtrak's failure to compete

anmccaff — Wed, 12 Sep 2012 22:39:31 GMT

A legislator attacking Amtrak for failure to compete? That's like cutting someone's arm's off, and then wondering why they can't box.

As I've said before, and will probably say again, in the wake of 9/11, Amtrak had dozens of real opportunities to build market share. The reason why they couldn't, in a word, comes down to congress, which has always kept them starved of capital.

re: Mica: Report highlights Amtrak's failure to compete

Larry Kaufman — Wed, 12 Sep 2012 20:32:46 GMT

How about stating for starters that Rep. Mica is a posturer and panderer who never has had anything good to say about Amtrak. He does not have the courage to try to eliminate the service altogether. Perhaps he believes that Mr. Romney will do his dirty work for him if he is elected. Republican ideologues always focus on the inability of an institution like Amtrak to "compete." What part of "public service" do these people not understand? If Amtrak could compete, it might not have been necessary to create it 40 years ago.

re: Mica: Report highlights Amtrak's failure to compete

HarveyK400 — Wed, 12 Sep 2012 17:19:58 GMT

The Valpo "Dummies" were subsidizing Amtrak national marketing to the tune of $200,000 a year, roughly 10% of the cost, without advertising the Valparaiso-Chicago commuter service locally. I have been suspicious since then that commuter services are cross-subsidizing Amtrak and its administrative overhead despite testimony to the contrary; and it's small wonder that Amtrak lost bids. This has little to do with the supposed virtues of privatization and more with the need for more transparency and a small pool of capable service providers.

re: IANA part of legal brief filing in FMCSA hours-of-service rule case

JPavetto — Fri, 24 Aug 2012 20:09:44 GMT

Following safety, naturally, HOS and how it relates and works at reducing some of the incessant driver-shorter for the overall trucking industry is the real task of FMCSA . And, Intermodal WILL be first-struck by 34hr restart--very costly and plaguing all of the supply chain.

The best effect for the whole enchilada lies in O/O's benefiting and company' usage and benefit by incentivizing the current drivers, and, hereby attracting the next generation of new- and improving capable and good-driving truckin' personnel and those who serve them. The plan includes picking out, in advance, how many total days - monthly that a trucker will plan to work, then, FMCSA coming along-side to make differing HOS code for each. Contact me if you would like more information. Easy?---what with the 'stock' of today's young people, not a chance. However if this is not solved, then look out!.. thanks, joe

re: Sound Transit solicits comments on Tacoma Link expansion, receives national award for procurement process

NeilRader — Wed, 22 Aug 2012 19:07:00 GMT

I can see the Link continueing on up Stadium Way to Division and then continueing past Tacoma General Hospital to Sprague Ave. then heading south to 12th and then west to end up at TCC.

re: Twin Cities' Metro Transit to trim fares on Northstar commuter-rail line

Larry Kaufman — Thu, 02 Aug 2012 18:08:40 GMT

goldenspike: Flattery will get you everywhere. Thank you for saying I'm perceptive. Yes, I do believe I can see your argument. I'm not sure I agree with or accept it, though. And, whether I do or not is of no significance. The ridership forecast you cite seems awfully low, and if you are accurate, perhaps the project should have been stopped and sent back to the drawing board at that point. I don't know enough, though, to be able to say that with any confidence. In most transit and commuter projects around the country ridership forecasts assume growth and future ridership. Perhaps that is what was done in Minnesota? I also know that almost every transit or commuter project in the United States was opposed by people who simply do not believe that the benefits justify the cost. We had a jerk of a governor in Colorado who opposed the FasTracks metro-wide build-out tax vote saying "They'll never ride it." The fact is that people use mass transit wherever it is offered and provided in a modern system.

re: Twin Cities' Metro Transit to trim fares on Northstar commuter-rail line

goldenspike — Thu, 02 Aug 2012 17:00:07 GMT

Mr. Kaufman...I'll give a brief summary of what went wrong in the planning and expenditure of tax dollars. The main mistake was what I call a rush to judgement regarding establishing Minnesota's very first hard-rail commuter transit. As the main line of the BNSF northwest out of the Twin Cities presented a quick so-called "shovel ready" access, politicians jumped to quick just to get a commuter train in place. They seemed to be suffering as Minnesota has been a very backward area when it comes to rail commute. The second big mistake was not spending the money (which they ran short of) at the state funding level to connect the City of St. Cloud, which already had hundreds of daily commuters that would have taken the train into downtown Minneapolis, and several small universities in that area in which students would have had an efficient and fast way to get back home. So; the plan stopped virtually at a truck-stop area called, Big Lake. Lofty numbers were presented to the public as far as projected riders, in the hundreds daily! Fact is the train runs these days with cars only filled about 25%, with maybe at a stretch just a hundred or so riders day long. A much more pragmatic route would have been to the rich and professional southwestern suburbs on the rail line already in exsistance. Thousands of riders on that route working in the office towers in downtown Minneapolis would have gladly garaged their BMW's for a safe and speedy commute into town and back home again. Of course that route would have cost more, but as is said, "the higher the price, the nicer the nice". You are a very perceptive rail authority, and I believe you can see my argument?

re: Twin Cities' Metro Transit to trim fares on Northstar commuter-rail line

Larry Kaufman — Tue, 31 Jul 2012 19:39:15 GMT

goldenspike: You may be completely accurate in your fulmination against Twin Cities Metro Transit, but I have no way of determining how accurate or inaccurate you are. Having left the Twins 28 years ago, I'm sure it's changed greatly over the years. But, you offer no data to support your contention that the existing commuter rail line is badly designed, badly built, not used, etc. The reader - me, in this case - has no way of evaluating what you say. What was the forecast ridership, for example? And what is actual ridership?

re: Twin Cities' Metro Transit to trim fares on Northstar commuter-rail line

goldenspike — Tue, 31 Jul 2012 18:29:00 GMT

This hard-rail commuter line is a total failure and the result of extremely poor and unprofessional planning by Twin Cities Metro Transit! First off the run did not connect the city of St. Cloud, Minnesota, as should have been a primary priority! The route ends in a rural area in the middle of a cornfield called Big Lake. Just short of St. Cloud the project was rushed before a comprehensive traveler survey was done in my opinion, which would have included providing rail transit for St. Cloud residents working daily in Minneapolis. Now the Metro Transit is going to reduce fares to almost nothing to entice riders to board! Ridership is way, way below what was projected. One reason is that the open-platform drop off in Minneapolis is blocks from the business district. As the City of Minneapolis destroyed all of their city rail stations over the years they used a far off rail spur to construct an open air platform, in which riders get off in the worst winter weather conditions in continental United States. By the time they tread through deep snow and ice in this northern lost world, from the so-called platform station they are froze and chilled to the bone, finally to thaw-out reaching an office building. Many rail planning experts agree that there was not enough riders available to make this daily run. This commuter train was placed on the wrong rail route...should have been to the proserous and professional southwestern suburbs of Minneapolis, where thousands of office building inhabitants would have been glad to have given up fighting auto traffic every day! Guess who picks-up the loss tab for this train...if you guessed right, it's the poor Minnesota taxpayer, again sharing the financial responsibility for a totally public subsidized commuter train. In the Twin City metro area there has been a rush to judgement concerning light-rail and hard-rail planning. Mistakes have already been made. More are in the planning. The general commuting public has not been extensively questioned on this matter. Would that have happened, a more efficient hard-rail plan would have come about. My professional advice is that the Metro planners take a long look at how Chicago plans. They might learn how it's done!