Garl B. Latham

Bravo!

Garl B. Latham — Fri, 14 Sep 2012 22:18:00 GMT

"Every man has a right to his own opinion, but no man has a right to be wrong in his facts."

Bernard Baruch

It often seems that proper, respectful public discourse is a thing of the past. If nothing else, our society now sits at a cyclical low point.

Perhaps technology makes it far too easy to mouth off. After all, prior to the internet's rise, it was quite unusual to hear someone being publicly labeled a "Nazi" simply because they held to a different set of values or a unique system of belief.

Now, anyone with a keyboard and time on his hands can play the fool.

Conversely, someone who is thoughtful and articulate is often overlooked or, worse yet, excluded from public debate because they dare to broach subjects deemed unsuitable.

Obviously, this might include any discussion regarding things like religion and politics.

Thankfully, our own Larry Kaufman ignored this standard protocol. With the support of others willing to publish his thoughts, he penned a profound review of the G.O.P.'s recently approved platform and its blatant attack against high speed railway development, Amtrak and intercity passenger service in general.

The piece is entitled RNC: A little hypocrisy goes too far. For those who've not yet read his essay, it can be found on-line, courtesy of the Railway Age magazine:

http://www.railwayage.com/index.php/blogs/larry-kaufman/rnc-a-little-hypocrisy-goes-too-far.html

Solidly accurate and faultlessly logical, it's a pleasure to read.

In a few short paragraphs, Larry touches on at least five principals which every serious and sincere voter needs to know, and everyone involved in the railroad industry on any level should firmly grasp.

1. Eliminating Amtrak subsidies means eliminating Amtrak, period.

Now, I'll admit, there are many on the freight side of things who might see no problem with such an outcome. Less governmental involvement in day-to-day operations and no interference from passenger train services would probably rank among the most popular reasons given.

Still, it's a fact that blows a hole right through oft-stated arguments supporting "privatisation" of the N.R.P.C.

Even Acela, Amtrak's Northeast Corridor flagship, isn't "profitable" in the classic sense. Sure, that specific service covers what is known (among other things) as "above-the-rail" costs; however, the remaining cash doesn't even begin to support infrastructure maintenance, station facilities and administrative budgets. And what of passenger ticketing and reservations, rolling stock improvements, marketing and advertising, and the like?

Cut Amtrak's taxpayer-supported financial lifeline and it'll not only be trains like the Empire Builder and Coast Starlight that will die; it will also be every one of the many trains the company fields along the N.E.C.

That leads us to the next point:

2. Killing Amtrak will essentially mean the death of domestic intercity passenger train service.

Once Amtrak is out of the way, is there anyone with a knowledge of the industry who honestly believes some other organisation will be in a position to fill the void?

More to the point, even if there was another entity standing at the ready, do you think our Class Is would allow it to happen? [If you have any questions regarding that possibility, I dare you to mention the phrase "open access" in an executive suite!]

Of course, along the Northeast Corridor, some independent operators might step into the breach; however, that presumes a few things up front, including the formation of a new-and-improved governmental agency to take Amtrak's place as owner/operator of the N.E.C. and a greater (not lesser) need for taxpayer support of that infrastructure. After all, any "for profit" companies which run the Acela, Metroliner or TurboTrain of tomorrow will want to take the word "profit" seriously. To presume private financial involvement in the corridor beyond simple user fees is preposterous.

In addition, we'll see no substantial reduction in administrative costs, a sizeable chunk of operating subsidy will remain in need of forgiveness, and the new entity will serve less than half of Amtrak's current annual ridership and find itself supported by far fewer influential politicians.

Oh, well; one thing is certain. Without Amtrak at the helm, whatever might happen will be made all the more difficult due to an oft' cited fact:

3. The U.S. still has no uniform, comprehensive national transportation policy in place (and we've been given no reason to believe one might be forthcoming).

Larry's composition makes it crystal clear: what this nation does (or does not do) with passenger train services, or any other alternative modes of mass transportation, is a matter of public policy. The way we spend our money, design our cities, respond to our energy needs or environmental concerns or increasing levels of congestion...all these things, ultimately, involve policy decisions.

We reject (or ignore) this truth at our own peril.

Our federal government could, after long and meaningful deliberation, decide we do not need intercity passenger trains. They might, with a straight face, declare that the "drive-or-fly" society we've so carefully crafted remains sustainable over the long-term.

There's no question I'd vehemently disagree and strongly oppose any action taken upon the basis of those decisions; but, I would have greater respect for that approach than I do with what passes for national transport "planning" today: throwing a few (million) bucks at something which looks good and generates some votes while completely disregarding multimodalism, much less true intermodalism.

It's that sort of rudderless conceptualisation which helped create a continent-wide system of taxpayer-owned, controlled access roadways running parallel to privately-owned railroad lines - roadways that could not survive without a dedicated place at the public feeding trough.

You know, this is one thing the highway lobby and trucking industry loves to deny:

4. A subsidy is a subsidy is a subsidy.

Use whatever euphemisms you might wish: fuel tax or user fee or trust fund. We're still discussing taxes, coming out of our pockets, aiding private concerns. These private companies are then in a advantageous position to compete directly against other firms which, for whatever reason(s), don't rate a stipend.

Furthermore, ignoring for a moment the specious argument that, somehow, a tax only upon those who benefit from a service isn't really a "tax," the fees collected still don't even begin to cover current roadway maintenance budgets, much less any infrastructure expansion, replacement or improvement.

Naturally, that reality doesn't slow down our pave-and-pollute friends. Three of the most often cited possibilities for the future of U.S. roads involve the construction of toll facilities alongside existing highways, separate roadways for automobiles and trucks, and intelligent transportation systems, allowing driverless vehicular control.

All of these proposals are being marketed under the umbrella of "safety."

They also will require major infusions of public cash - and do absolutely nothing to address the energy, environmental and congestion issues mentioned previously.

Ah; but, that's reality and, to the ideologue, reality only serves to get in the way. You see...

5. Generally speaking, the world as presented by the professional politicians does not exist.

Paul Ryan's convention speech notwithstanding, the G.O.P. does not possess a monopoly on this malady. Few elected officials allow truth to get in the way of a good yarn. [We'll get to Barack Obama's convention speech in just a moment.] There are many examples where significant divergence persists between a political party's platform and what the facts indicate or common sense demands.

The Republican Party's stated belief that a free marketplace in transportation literally exists or that Amtrak would be healthier if its access to the U.S. treasury was cut off is the stuff of dreams.

Why constantly attack Amtrak for its need of operating subsidy, yet give users of taxpayer-owned-and-operated infrastructure a pass? Pouring money into other modes while not requiring fair compensation will never lead to lower taxes or a shrinking bureaucracy. It'll only create (and sustain) the critical imbalance from which we now suffer.

Is it really that difficult to make fair comparisons or at least attempt to understand the complexity of these issues? Perhaps some of the players have vested interests. Maybe others just know our railroads would likely win a fair fight.

President Obama had a chance to illuminate one of the substantial differences between himself and Romney as he delivered his own acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention. Unfortunately, it seems as though passenger train service (of any sort) has slipped off centre stage.

As he asked for citizens to "rally around" his goals for a second term, Obama specifically mentioned "manufacturing, energy, education, national security, and the deficit." At least the manufacturing, energy and national security goals might have been tied to some sort of railroad transportation imperative. Sadly, it was not to be.

No, Obama was too busy reminding us how our "dying auto industry" is now "back on top of the world." He was anxious to declare his plan to "use the money we're no longer spending on war to pay down our debt and put more people back to work rebuilding roads and bridges and schools and runways."

Out of fairness, I left in the phrase about paying down debt. What I can't figure is how schools became part of that list.

Of course, I should also mention the way this champion of roads, bridges and the motor vehicles which use them accused Republicans of doing nothing while companies release "toxic pollution into the air your children breathe" because that's "just the price of progress" - even though, statistically, the greatest source of petroleum-based air pollution (both gaseous and particulate) is transportation and the biggest chunk of that comes from automobiles and commercial trucks.

If I had but one wish for November of 2016, it would be for someone to have a serious chance of winning the Presidency who really gets it!

In the meantime, I'm glad to see a few politically oriented pieces out there. It never hurts to study the issues and go beyond a candidate's sound bites and photo ops.

Larry Kaufman deserves kudos for saying what needed to be said - and doing so with candor. William Vantuono and the Railway Age magazine deserve our sincere appreciation for their willingness to publish his work.

Bravo!

A world of VIAs

Garl B. Latham — Tue, 05 Jun 2012 22:54:00 GMT

Down in San Antonio, Texas, mention the word "VIA" in conjunction with passenger transportation and only a few railfans and dedicated passenger train riders will think first of VIA Rail Canada. That's because the Alamo City's public bus agency is also named VIA - and it credibly serves the one-and-a-third million residents with a comprehensive network of intracity routes and services.

VIA Metropolitan Transit has earned several national safety awards, takes a leadership role in vehicle management techniques and remains on the cutting edge of energy efficiency (including the development of solar-powered passenger facilities). In 1990, VIA was named the Best Transit System in North America by APTA.

Unfortunately, they seem to know very little about trains.

I suppose that shouldn't be too surprising. The last street railway service in VIA's hometown was ingloriously abandoned 44 years prior to the agency's birth (making San Antonio the first major U.S. city to discontinue all rail-based transit). Besides, railroading tends to be a specialty enterprise - and there probably wouldn't be too many railroaders very adept at running a bus line!

Still, it irks me to remember VIA's first major expansion programme: its so-called "historic streetcar" system downtown, which amounted to nothing more than circulator buses dressed in fancy garb - sort of a "wolf in sheep's clothing" approach to the movement of passengers.

With that sort of background, VIA, to me, possesses the same sort of reputation as any other rubber and asphalt transportation firm: well meaning, perhaps; but, when it comes to rail-based initiatives, suspect at best.

Which brings us 'round to their current endeavours.

VIA, with the City of San Antonio and Bexar County in full support, is now involved in a REAL, honest-to-goodness streetcar plan. It involves a starter system of two lines (nominally north/south and east/west), crossing downtown and connecting both popular tourist destinations and passenger transport nodes.

This is where it all begins to get interesting.

Integral to the streetcar proposal, VIA's future development goals and San Antonio's "SA2020" plan is the creation of a new Westside Multimodal Transit Center. By the end of this year, the location should be serving as one of the two central city stations for "Primo" - VIA's new B.R.T. line.

Yes, that's Bus Rapid Transit.

So, where do the trains come into play? Well, eventually, at least one of the street railway lines, the proposed Lone Star Rail regional service north into (and beyond) Austin, and (at least in theory) Amtrak are all to call on the newly resurrected depot. As for now, in an effort to "address the current challenges while not precluding future rail," VIA's consulting firm, EE&K (nee Ehrenkrantz Eckstut & Kuhn Architects, a Perkins Eastman Company), is placing their emphasis on improving bus operations (as they simultaneously speak of "marketing people out of their cars").

And I suppose that, in itself, is fine - as long as they don't lose track (as it were) of the alternatives.

I do, however, have a problem with the chosen location of this proposed transit centre and the various needs it will supposedly meet.

A bit o' railway history (of the genuine type): Back in the days, San Antonio was never blessed with a true Union Station. Each system called upon its own depot: one each for the Southern Pacific Lines (T&NO), the Missouri Pacific Lines (I-GN) and the Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad.

The Katy's was by far the prettiest (which, considering the field of competitors, is honestly saying quite a lot!) and the first to be abandoned. By the mid-60s, the structure's existence was superfluous (and costly) to a railroad fighting for its survival. It survives now only in photographs and memories.

Conversely, both the Missouri Pacific and SP stations are still standing, in pretty good shape (although both falling under "alternative uses" categories) and graced with live trackage alongside.

It's the former MP depot (now occupied by a credit union) which is to become VIA's west side home.

Please don't get me wrong. I love the idea of restoring modern passenger train operations to a genuine passenger train facility. Adaptive reuse is fine (for what its worth), presuming that's what it takes to secure the structure's future; but, I'll ALWAYS vote for railroad stations being (re)designed to serve railroad functions.

Granted, I wish the desire for a modern (or at least current) title didn't leave us with a cumbersome appellation like "Westside Multimodal Transit Center." There are so many other possibilities, including location (Central Station), function (Terminal Station), address (Medina Street Station), history (Missouri Pacific Station)...any one of which has a far more pleasing railroad-esque sound to it.

But, ultimately, I honestly don't care WHAT it's called as long as the "multimodal" execution is effective from an operational perspective. And, since VIA is a bus company, I have no fear they'll understand and meet the projected needs of their new-and-improved buses.

That leaves us with the trains.

In one sentence, I guess we might sum things up thusly: just because a track runs past a building doesn't automatically make that structure a good place for a railroad station.

Back to San Antonio's railroad history for just a moment:

There was a _reason_ why the Alamo City never had a true Union Station: the necessary track work was never executed which would have made such a station operationally feasible. This is vital to note if Amtrak services are really to be included in the project (and not just a nice sounding but inherently meaningless declaration for politicians to parrot).

Today, south of downtown, a new intercity facility _could _ be built at the site of Tower 105, where UP's former SP and MP main lines cross. Unfortunately, it's (shall we say) not the best of locations - for much of ANYthing, save an interlocking plant.

Besides, one area in which the planners and I wholeheartedly agree is the necessity for keeping the main railway terminal downtown. This basically true in every case; but, it's especially true when dealing with a high trafficked, tourist-oriented destination city like San Antonio.

So, if we are to keep things downtown, there is only one existing location where current Amtrak services could call without cumbersome, expensive and potentially dangerous movements: the Southern Pacific station site - where Amtrak has its existing depot and maintenance buildings.

I understand this statement not only flies directly in the face of what VIA has stated to be possible - that Amtrak join it at the newly restored Missouri Pacific site - but it also contradicts what the Texas D.O.T.'s own Rail Division noted in its Texas Rail Plan.

Section 4.7 of that plan covers the importance of railway passenger trains' "connectivity with other rail services as well as intercity bus and local transit services." They mention a goal of "seamless transfer" and hopes for the concerted "development of intermodal stations." The first example used in that document is "the proposed San Antonio West Side Multimodal Center," for which TxDOT submitted a grant application. Page 4-92 specifically mentions "Amtrak...services" as a part of the mix.

Certainly, VIA can't be held solely accountable for making erroneous assumptions regarding intercity passenger service requirements if TxDOT's Rail Division agreed with its depot assessment, and TxDOT should be forgiven if they were simply allowing Amtrak to define its own future needs. Besides, at least in theory, intercity passenger trains could serve the MP site in some fashion. Still, one reason Dallas' Union Terminal has an inadequate number of platforms tracks today - even for its current needs, much less tomorrow's - is because the city listened to Amtrak back in 1974 and believed them when they declared the station's future infrastructure requirements.

Regrettably, one cannot take what Amtrak's hierarchy says at face value regarding these things. If nothing else, Amtrak will go where they have the best chance of inexpensive digs. Additionally, with earlier proposals in place (including breaking the current Sunset Limited operation into two separate trains: one east out of San Antonio and one west), a planner might, with a straight face, defend the MP station site choice.

Now that the matter is back on the table, however, there are no excuses.

As I've already mentioned, the original SP depot is still extant. Had those in positions of power understood what was at stake and has supported such a concept, that specific structure could have remained active as a train station.

Instead, once the building was lovingly refurbished, it was rechristened "Sunset Station" and turned into a live music venue with bar service. Amtrak was forced to build new structures, for passengers, employees and maintenance, adjacent to the original depot. Today's passenger trains still use the one remaining original platform and shed.

At the time this work was being completed, I heard several arguments against restoring the facility for railway passenger use, among them that the building was now far too big for that singular purpose (untrue) and that the historic structure would be placed in danger through its constant contact with the general public (versus making it a BAR; are you KIDDING ME?!).

Just for the record, the so-called "Sunset Station" now stands locked and empty most days, open only to special events through prior arrangement (something about the historic structure being placed in danger through its constant contact with bar patrons...).

By all appearances, it stands ready to reclaim its rightful role as a train station, once the right people buy into the idea and the right sources of cash are secured. Things could certainly be be worse.

Unfortunately, the site's utility as a modern railroad passenger terminal was additionally undermined by construction of the nearby Alamo Dome; however, "difficult" and "impossible" aren't synonymous.

In addition, every route Amtrak now operates or has ever operated to or through San Antonio could be made to efficiently call upon the SP depot. Future trains to the Gulf coast and the Valley could easily use that station. Even re-extending the Texas Eagle back to Laredo could still work out of Espee depot, without any reverse movements (using the Tower 105 crossing and a restored Katy/SP connection at the Camp Travis lead). Conversely, none other than the Sunset Limited, itself - the oldest continuously-operated name train in the world - could never work (as a through service) out of the Missorui Pacific station - the first choice for VIA's multimodal home.

Hope is not lost; far from it! We simply need to inject a healthy bit of reason and knowledge into the discussion.

First of all, let us consider keeping San Antonio a two train station town. That might not the be ultimate solution, had reasonable solutions been considered from the start, but they weren't - and what we're able to accomplish at this juncture is quite different that what was possible a quarter-century ago.

Allow Amtrak and any future intercity passenger operators to concentrate their operations at the SP site. Bring all travelers' services, including ticketing and baggage, back inside the former SP depot building (and please, lose the "Sunset Station" moniker!). Connect the SP and MP stations with a streetcar line.

Eliminate the idea of direct connections between Amtrak and Lone Star Rail trains in San Antonio. Instead, emphasise the possibility of making transfers from regional services to intercity trains and back again in places like Austin and San Marcos. [Sadly, Austin is yet another place where a single, multipurpose railway terminal may have been possible at one time, but is no longer economically feasible. Paint the happiest face on things and move on.]

Now, go ahead and create VIA's West Side station at the former Missouri Pacific location. It will be a wonderful (though ironic) way to make local history come full circle and it holds a great deal of significance to residents.

I do have a few suggestions, however:

Design the new multimodal terminal in such a way that pedestrian flow is routed THROUGH the building, not around it. The head house should not only be used for VIA offices (or other restricted purposes) but, just like the SP depot, provide for all the traveler's needs: passenger information, food service, newsstands, shops. Back to Dallas (a station near and dear to my heart): a fatal flaw in its new-and-improved design is the fact that, to most DART passengers, the station building is simply something to circumnavigate on your way into town. There is practically no value to the station's floor space, since the majority of the thousands of passengers who use that depot daily never go inside.

Early conceptual designs of VIA's West Side Multimodal facility shows many of the passenger activities taking place outside. This is a tragic mistake.

At a terminal like this, both train-to-train and mode-to-mode transfers will be of great importance. All direct rail-based connections should be made in the same area: from the public's perspective, "behind" the building, at trackside. Streetcar operations can be centred at one of the adjacent railway platforms, along with all of the other train services.

Unlike Dallas (think some of this has stuck in my craw?), no motor vehicles, whatsoever - no buses, no taxi cabs, no parking - should be allowed between the trains and the depot structure. Buses can be across the street in the plaza area, as EE&K's drawings show: a convenient, contiguous facility for connections...but not in the way of the trains.

Continue to dream and plan for the future. Believe in the possibilities! Don't allow a lack of faith to hinder progress - and don't let this opportunity pass us by, like so many other have in the past. Who knows how many more chances we'll get to do this right?!

In a good year, San Antonio attracts nearly 30 million tourists, visitors and business travelers to the city. If only a relative handful choose to travel by train, the city will be glad it took these things seriously, accepted the constraints of existing railroad properties, reclaimed history and otherwise planned with tomorrow in mind.

My two favourite statistics

Garl B. Latham — Tue, 29 May 2012 22:49:00 GMT

When I was little, the people who seemed old were those born in the 19th century. Some of them even hailed from the time during or immediately following the War Between the States. A handful of those were still vital and sharp witted.

The young-to-middle-aged adults were from the generation who had seen the Great Depression and served, either overseas or on the home front, during World War II. My parents' age; the age of my aunts and uncles and friends' folks.

They were the people who were working for a living, serving the public, running the household.

Some call them "The Greatest Generation" - although I've always felt their own parents probably deserved that honourarium, since they were the ones who instilled within their children the myriad "greatest" values.

Now, of course, they are the people who seem old. Shoot; they are old! An entire generation is rapidly going the way of all flesh and, with their passing, some very definite pre-conceived notions regarding this society and the way it should function.

Naturally, there are a wide variety of opinions concerning these "pre-conceived notions" - which ones may still be needful and which ones our culture may be better off without. Of all those basic notions, many might be considered off-topic here; however, one is very much on-topic and worthy of review.

You see, generally speaking, the people whose lives were shaped by the War were able to appreciate the intrinsic value of railroad transportation. On some sort of foundational level, they "understood" trains: their purpose and their nature, and our own civilisation's symbiotic relationship with them.

Most U.S. citizens who were very much older tended to hold a grudge against our industry due to the various excesses - both real and presumed - which railroading enjoyed during an era of unbridled growth and development. Most younger people, evident as early as the Korean War, tended to discount the railroads and seemingly believed they were anachronistic and, ultimately, unnecessary.

But, when the World War II generation said we needed our railroads, they were speaking from experience. When they'd say "I wish we had trains like we used to," they held some definite ideas in mind.

In a very real sense, it was during World War II that railroading, overall, reached its zenith in these United States.

Oh, sure, today's ton miles and operational efficiencies far surpass those of 60 years ago. Conversely, overall railway mileage peaked a quarter-century before the War. There are many ways to measure things and many standards by which any age can be argued "superior" to another. By the same token, we all know that statistics can be used to prove just about anything!

Nonetheless, thanks to divine providence, necessary stations and terminals and shops were readily available for use in the war effort. Locomotives and cars (and anything else that would roll!) were out on the property. Diesel-electric technology had started to mature, but steam had not yet begun its decline. Steel cars - especially passenger - were fairly commonplace, but wood and "hybrid" construction techniques could still be found across the continent. Huge central-city passenger depots, which some had already begun to fear might become "white elephants," were gorged to overflowing with wartime traffic. 1930s ridership data sheets, emblazoned with anemic passenger counts and red ink, morphed into 1940s posters which ominously asked, "Is your trip really necessary?"

With Memorial Day upon us, I was thinking about all of this - and such thoughts always bring to mind the two statistics which are my favourites of all.

During the Second World War, our railroads moved servicemen by the millions, carrying them to training camps, domestic bases and ports of embarkation. Thankfully, most of them made it back after the job was done - and our railroads were once again there to take them home, where family and friends were waiting.

Railroads also moved all the raw materials from forest, mine, quarry and field. They took finished products to assorted destinations, primarily seaside, for use against the enemy.

The war effort required at least six tons of equipment and supplies for every soldier, sailor and marine headed overseas. It also necessitated a tremendous level of ongoing support: an average of more than one ton of material every month just to keep each member of the service going.

[Please pardon me if I begin to sound a bit like an old A.A.R. movie: "That's what the railroads were called upon to do and that's what the railroads did!"]

The end result, though, is seriously mind-boggling.

All told, our railroads carried more than ninety percent of all military freight and handled more than ninety-seven percent of all organised military travel!

Let that sink in for just a minute.

A figure like 90% sounds impressive enough. A figure like NINETY-SEVEN PERCENT of anything is almost beyond comprehension! I mean, that's only 3 percentage points shy of everyone! My gracious; many efforts at scientifically-based polling offer results with a sampling error margin of 3 to 4 percent!

Just think about it!

Understanding and accepting God's ultimate role ("Except the Lord build the house, they labour in vain that build it: except the Lord keep the city, the watchman waketh but in vain." - Psalm 127:1), those numbers bring a whole new meaning to the idea so many of that generation shared concerning America's railroads: without them, the Allies could not have won the War!

Of course, by giving it their all, our railroads sacrificed their future and almost their very lives. Oh, well...that discussion must remain for another day.

Railroads. Leading the fight on the home front; second in importance only to those who actually served. It was a sacrifice worthy of note; a remembrance worthy of Memorial Day.

90% of all military freight. 97% of all organised military transport.

100% effort.

You know, it'll make you proud.

The importance of being connected (Grid and Gateway, part 5)

Garl B. Latham — Tue, 15 May 2012 22:54:00 GMT

Two of the vital parts of my Grid and Gateway idea involve the individual routes which criss-cross the continent (the grid) and the points at which those lines intersect (the gateways). [Makes sense, doesn't it?!] Together, they create a matrix where, ideally, between the various through services and direct connections, one might efficiently travel between any two sites found along the system.

There would be a few exceptions, of course. Some locations may feel shortchanged because of geography or their relative level of unimportance during the day when most of our railway lines were being constructed. Las Vegas, Nevada is a good example.

Still, with Barstow, California acting as a secondary gateway (or perhaps Victorville, given some of the new-and-improved H.S.R. proposals), southern Nevada can eventually become a convenient destination area.

Of course, new infrastructure could be built, including main lines across virgin territory, but the sheer cost combined with low projected return may doom any such effort from the outset. Personally, I'm able to envision a cut-off northwest out of Kingman to Boulder City, but even my ability to fantasise is overly taxed when confronted with Las Vegas to San Francisco via Death Valley!

Yes, I get the feeling that UP's old Los Angeles and Salt Lake subsidiary (today's Caliente and Lynndyl Subdivisions) will remain Las Vegas' sole railroad connection to the outside world for some time to come. Therefore, Barstow (or the effective equivalent) would continue to serve as a regional gateway.

"Regional" being the operative word.

You see, the gateways in my plans come in three flavours: continental, regional and local.

Continental gateways - arguably most important in the scheme of things - are the traditional, major, multi-route connection points: cities with names like Chicago and Saint Louis and Memphis and New Orleans.

Today, Chicago seems a bit overwhelmed, but improvement proposals abound. On the freight side, CN opted for their EJ&E by-pass project. CREATE, of course, offers something for everyone. Even Union Station - the sole terminal facility hosting Amtrak service - is the target of yet another master planning effort. Regrettably, substantive changes often get lost in the shuffle, replaced by insignificant ones (such as the rechristening of its general waiting room, now the "Great Hall").

[Note to planners: Want to make C.U.S. considerably more efficient overnight, with minimal investment? Direct waiting passengers back toward the "Great Hall" and remove some of the concourse floor clutter to aid free movement of pedestrian traffic. Why must there be seating adjacent to the platform gates, anyway? Union Station isn't an airport; it's a railroad terminal - and it was built with a waiting room for a reason.]

Something which would dramatically help Chicago is for St. Louis - the "Gateway City" - to regain some of its prominence as a passenger terminal. Just one train eastbound along the CSX (former Conrail, nee PRR) through Indianapolis to Pittsburgh would work wonders and take some pressure off Chicago by offering an option for east/west traffic. [Isn't it interesting how often that route comes up in conversation?]

Something else restoration of through service due east out of St. Louis would accomplish is the resurrection of a few classic regional gateways: those stations serving markets of secondary importance at various junction points throughout the national network.

Surely, both Pittsburgh and Indianapolis must serve as regional focal points; however, to me, such cities don't actually offer our greatest hope for the future. Rather, it's places like Effingham, Illinois (the "Crossroads of Opportunity"), situated along that same line, where the synergy of train and town could really shine through. Effingham, a county seat of about 12,500 residents, is 30 miles away from the nearest commercial airfield and 90 miles from an international facility. It's a great example of the type of community which stands to gain the most from expanded intercity passenger train service.

Effingham is blessed with a true Union Station structure, placed right at the diamonds where CSX's old Pennsy route and CN's IC main intersect. Already host to six daily north/south Amtrak trains, Effingham (the depot and the city) remain ideally situated for exponential growth. Just imagine what a single "crossroad" extending from the Mississippi to the Ohio might do when considering the potential combinations of city pairs. The permutations are impressive - and Effingham, the connection point, rests squarely in the middle.

Finally, it will be the local gateways which offer travelers convenient means to leave primary network runs and reach final destinations. Commuter and regional and transit services present reasonable alternatives to the rent-a-car and make intercity train travel that much more marketable.

Certainly, most larger cities and their stations carry dual (or multiple) roles. Dallas' Union Terminal, for example, serves Amtrak - as well as the Trinity Railway Express and DART's Red and Blue line light rail routes. When I think of local gateways, however, I picture outlying locations where interconnections between independent carriers give one an opportunity to travel, if I may, "off the grid."

In the Dallas area, one example would be the Trinity Mills Station on the north side of Carrollton (a DART member city and Dallas suburb). Cross-platform connections are available there, linking DART's Green line and the Denton County Transit Authority's A-train to the city of Denton. By way of that transfer, the D.C.T.A. is able to advertise service between the county's major schools (including North Texas and Texas Women's Universities) and downtown Dallas.

In the future, the city of Carrollton itself should serve (no; let's be positive: will serve!) as a distinct local gateway of import, due to the town centre's location at the junction of three lines: the DART Green line/D.C.T.A. A-train (using the former Katy right-of-way), the Cotton Belt corridor (which has recently been its own topic of conversation here) and the BNSF Madill sub (ex-Frisco, through its namesake town). All three routes are highlighted in current regional passenger transportation planning documents.

Practically untapped sources of potential traffic can be found amongst recreational and excursion carriers. No greater set of opportunities exist for the establishment of new local gateways than in conjunction with the underrated and generally unacknowledged tourist railroads. Thankfully, there are now isolated instances of such operations encouraging "real" transportation business on their trains, making hope for meaningful systemic change seem reasonable.

The Grand Canyon Railway is a great example of this idea. They offer scheduled connections at Williams (with the GCRX located downtown, adjacent to the Fray Marcos [Harvey House] Hotel and Amtrak using the Williams Junction depot along BNSF's Transcon), joining the National Park to the national network. Everything from individual transfers to complete vacation packages are advertised. It's wonderful to know that, even in 2012, one can travel from places like Los Angeles and Kansas City to the South Rim with but one change of trains en route.

The Saratoga & North Creek Railway (a division of Iowa Pacific Holdings) began passenger operations between its two namesake towns in July of last year. Trains currently run daily except Tuesday and Wednesday, offer two classes of seating, include amenities such as dining/lounge and checked baggage service, and connect with Amtrak trains in Saratoga Springs. Now, all that's needed is through ticketing!

Many other lines exist on my wish list. The Strasburg Rail Road, the oldest railroad in the U.S. still operating under its original charter, runs through the heart of Pennsylvania Dutch country. A oft' proposed but never funded stop along Amtrak's Keystone Corridor at Leaman Place (a.k.a. "Paradise") could provide direct connections, giving an instant boost to the tourist trade and making transportation that much more convenient for the local Amish population.

Of course, for every excursion service that takes its role as a transportation provider seriously, there are a multitude of others which seem contentedly oblivious to the benefits of cooperation. I see no need to mention names, but the litany is exhaustive. Just in my own personal experience, I can think of six roads off-hand whose management staff and/or boards have laughed me off the property. Literally.

We'll see what the future holds. Often, success may require little more than a desire to work together, combined with an A.D.A.-approved platform and a bit of marketing savvy.

In the meantime, I'll continue fine-tuning this aspect of my Grid and Gateway proposal.

You know, I'm even debating changing the names of the three types of gateways. When it comes to specific designations, terms such as "continental," "regional" and "local" may be somewhat confusing due to the various stations' multiple, overlapping roles. It might be more descriptive to speak of "primary," "secondary" and "tertiary" gateways. I'm honestly finding myself leaning toward those classifications - in part because I love the word "tertiary" and I really want to use it!

Keep the faith, y'all!

Hallmark holidays (and other pet peeves)

Garl B. Latham — Fri, 11 May 2012 22:38:00 GMT

Yesterday, on the 143rd anniversary of the driving of the Golden Spike (almost to the minute, interestingly enough), I ran across a sign taped to a glass door. In living colour, it proclaimed:

"National Train Day - Discover the Rail Way - Come join us and celebrate America's Railroad Holiday! - ALL ABOARD!!!"

Printed at the bottom of the page were locations and times for assorted events.

So, why does this turn me off so much?

If this is truly "America's Railroad Holiday," why shouldn't I be enthused? Why am I not planning various ways I might volunteer my time to spread the word (whatever that word might be)?

I really don't have good answers to those questions. I only know the entire manufactured event leaves me cold (and, apparently, causes me to embrace numerous cliches).

Maybe if Amtrak hadn't started it, I'd feel differently. Problem is, they did - and it all seems so self-serving, it makes me sick. Besides, I'm not quite sure what I'm supposed to be celebrating.

Perhaps I'm being unrealistic. Amtrak exists as a child of the political process. Why not do whatever is necessary to encourage people to "think train"? Certainly, it doesn't hurt to do just that. Far too many individual railroads, transit agencies, museums and railfan groups have involved themselves through the years (and have returned the next time 'round) for there to be anything overtly negative about the celebration.

Is it simply because someone had the audacity to concoct a holiday? In truth, that's how practically every holiday (apart from anniversaries) was initially created. Even many which purport to be derived from specific calendar dates are, in the final analysis, innovations of man. If we disallowed human involvement in the process, I can't think of many holidays which would exist, save those commemorating a singular historical incident.

And of those true anniversaries...well, they are subject to divine providence. After all, despite the "best-laid schemes o' mice an' men," the aforementioned event at Promontory Summit occurred on May the 10th - not the 8th as originally intended.

The cynic within makes things even worse by asking an otherwise reasonable question: how does Amtrak's anniversary (May 1st) tie in with the planning of National Train Day?

I guess it really doesn't matter. I honestly don't begrudge anyone else taking part in N.T.D. [Is it alright to use the abbreviation?] I just don't feel kindly toward the day, itself.

Here's something else which came to mind:

Had I been in Los Angeles and was planning to attend the official National Train Day event in New York City (to be held, oddly enough, at Grand Central Terminal - a location which Amtrak abandoned over twenty years ago), I could have, theoretically, departed Union Station (nee L.A.U.P.T.) via AMTK 4 on the 8th with every expectation to be on Mahattan Island in time for the celebration. That day, number 4 departed Los Angeles right on the advertised.

Unfortunately, train 4 began to suffer engine problems almost as soon as it cleared Mission Tower. One locomotive failed, then was revived enough to limp along - only to have the other go completely dead in Barstow. BNSF came to the rescue with a unit off an incoming freight train, but they needed some time to prepare it. 4 departed Barstow 2 hours and 13 minutes late.

With only the BNSF loco performing up to standards, the train lost time steadily - no, not just steadily; embarrassingly - until it reached Albuquerque and a relief Amtrak unit. AMTK 4 left Albuquerque 6:43 behind time.

Final arrival in Chicago was at 10:59 p.m., 7 hours and 44 minutes late. Number 4 missed its Lake Shore Limited connection (which left on time, in case you were wondering) by 1 hour and 29 minutes.

Unless I cashed it in and took to the skies, I'd miss every one of the New York events.

Sometimes, do things just "happen"? Sure; but, equipment troubles are nothing new at the 'trak. I feel perfectly justified wishing Amtrak would spend a little less energy creating holidays and planning special equipment displays and a little more time maintaining its road power.

Then again, maybe all of this N.T.D. stuff simply falls under the category of "Scraping-Fingernails-Across-A-Blackboard-And-Other-Things-That-Absolutely-Make-Me-Cringe":

There's the term "Choo-Choo" and all of its derivatives, including reading or hearing of a modern-day train "chugging" down the line. This is especially true when the words "Choo-Choo" are intoned as if they were emanating from a steam locomotive whistle. How often I hear folks getting their Choo-Choos mixed up with their Woo-Woos!

Another is when someone refers to a locomotive Engineer as a "Conductor." This is something else one encounters quite often in news accounts. It gets worse, though. Even when confronted with a traditional Engineer's uniform of striped bib overalls and a pleated cap, people (who one might think are old enough to know better) often call the employee a Conductor!

The presumed use of "All Aboard" as a term indicating "highball" rather than a simple command for passengers to enter a train's consist is also bothersome to me. After all, a Conductor (in a black or navy blue pillbox hat, mind you) doesn't say "'boooard" for the sake of the Engineer (the guy up in the cab)!

That's enough. My list could go on (and on!), but it'd probably serve no constructive purpose. We all have our own pet peeves; who really cares about someone else's?

I only wish I didn't equate National Train Day with other Hallmark holidays. It'd be nice to commemorate "the ways trains touch the lives of people" (yes, that's actually what one of the brochures says) without feeling my head spin (or my stomach churn).

And I'd like to think I could celebrate Amtrak's special (albeit artificial) day aboard a train with at least one functioning locomotive.

Legislating magical solutions

Garl B. Latham — Fri, 04 May 2012 22:57:00 GMT

The New York Times is one of the world's great newspapers, with an enviable reputation and impressive history. Therefore, when they miss the mark - especially in such a profound way - it tends to hurt.

Earlier this week, the Times printed an editorial entitled "Don't Bargain With Rail Safety," outlining the publication's unilateral support of the Positive Train Control concept. It's full of misconception, innuendo and baseless imputation, and indicates a thorough lack of understanding regarding railroading, business operations and the political process.

The Times apparently believes any request to delay implementation of P.T.C. must be based on greed ("groups [such as the A.A.R.] contend the costs outweigh the benefits"), partisan politics ("House Republicans, ever determined to do [the railroad] industries' bidding, have taken up their cause") and ignorance of the facts (since railway executives "question the availability of equipment").

While I acknowledge the temptation for mass media to ride the "robber baron" express, this all still seems a bit outrageous.

In many aspects of life, especially within the political world, there are actions which are taken for but one primary reason: the deep-seated fear of appearing impotent.

If a simple problem requires simple attention, then a bona fide emergency or horrific incident of some sort demands an almost immediate response. The last thing politicos want is to be labeled as someone who fails to do something, even if it later ends up being the wrong thing.

If the inevitable reaction involves spending large sums of money, especially if the cash belongs to someone else (or at least the taxpayer, presuming that's not the same thing), it's even better. We've seen it time and again.

In response to the Chatsworth, California Metrolink collision of 12 September '08, a new piece of legislation was quickly ushered through Congress by the Senate Commerce and House Transportation and Infrastructure Committees. The Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008, which (among many other things) mandates installation of Positive Train Control technologies, was signed into law by President George W. Bush on October the 16th: just 34 days after the incident which spawned it and over 15 months prior to the release of the N.T.S.B.'s official report regarding the incident.

Admittedly, the A.A.R. issued a statement in support of the bill prior to its passage. Still, how can we expect our industry's emissary go on record as supporting anything but "safety first" (after all, the railroads coined that expression) and standing unified against the loss of life?

The phrase which just crossed my mind is "under duress."

Only days after the Metrolink/UP crash, then F.R.A. Administrator (and current Amtrak President) Joseph H. Boardman told reporters that "[P.T.C.] would have stopped the [passenger] train before there was a collision." A locomotive Engineer willing to take his job seriously and respect the lives and equipment entrusted to his care "would have stopped...before there was a collision," too; but, we won't go there.

The N.T.S.B. soon followed with a statement indicating P.T.C. (or a similar system) "would have prevented this accident." With all due respect to the Safety Board, this remark seems far less prescient when one remembers P.T.C. had already been on the N.T.S.B.'s Most Wanted List of Transportation Safety Improvements for years.

In all this, the fact that P.T.C., even now, does not exist as an off-the-shelf technology seems lost to those standing on the outside, bloviating. Its multi-billion dollar price tag is apparently meaningless.

Of course, there must also be piles of cash available for lawsuits. It took but three days after the Chatsworth incident for the first claims to be filed. Bolstered by the previously mentioned remarks, attorneys began alleging that Metrolink "chose not to use the available rail safety features" which, in context, seemingly referred to P.T.C.

Naturally, there are other, older systems (electro-mechanical by design) such as Automatic Train Stop and various forms of cab signaling which have been successfully used for generations. Interestingly, several U.S. passenger carriers began to make public statements shortly after the Metrolink event intended to reassure both the general public and their customers regarding the relative safety of their operations. Every one of the systems outlined either indicated their reliance on time-proven technologies and/or operational standards, or emphasized various forms of temporal separation (which, in all honesty, may only mean that passenger train collisions would never involve freight trains).

One of the nice things about A.T.S. and cab signals (along with other forms of Automatic Train Control) is that those systems can overlay existing signaling and communication devices. Many of the technologies now in place have been successfully used since the 1920s. Britain's own Great Western Railway developed the very first automatic safety control system in 1906.

Admittedly, an incremental approach to P.T.C. - the only sort which could possibly meet the fed's arbitrary deadline - would also overlay existing systems, with wayside components ("interface units") being used to dovetail individual signals, switches, detectors and the like into a new digital network. In turn, that data link would connect specific pieces of equipment (such as locomotives and hi-rail vehicles) and voice communications services with the other devices, so that every vital ingredient was included.

Most major railroads have studied the concept of P.T.C., under many different names and (sometimes quite forced) acronyms, for decades. It should be noted that, from the start, our industry - including the Brotherhoods - has remained dedicated to the basic notion of automatic train control safety devices and, along with the F.R.A., the N.T.S.B. and Congress, stands in agreement with today's stated goals for P.T.C. Those objectives include preventing several types of dangerous events: collisions between trains, overspeed operations, movement through misaligned switches and incursion into properly established work zones. [Issues regarding switches and speed control (or the lack thereof) regularly make the top ten in the F.R.A.'s annual safety analysis lists.]

At present, there are 11 ongoing projects, involving 9 different systems and 6 manufacturers. Thankfully, the four major players - NS, UP, BNSF and CSX - hammered out a cooperative agreement back in late '08, understanding what's ultimately at stake. Several individual approaches to P.T.C. are in the works, but all those under the purview of the four Class Is previously mentioned are being designed to maintain interoperability by way of Wabtec's Electronic Train Management System.

This is important since P.T.C., no matter how it ultimately evolves, should essentially be universal in scope - for the same reasons developments like standard gauge and rolling stock brake and coupler appliances have been so important.

Therefore, our question for the day: what's a justifiable alternative to the legislated time schedule as it now exists?

Well, I suppose the simple answer would be to approach this matter from a completely new perspective. Instead of knee-jerk politics creating a mandate for change, allow the industry to use this as an opportunity: a chance to make a technological leap into the future.

Right now, what's in it for the railroads? As it currently stands, P.T.C. is yet another example of an unfunded mandate - nothing more. We're insisting that the capital needs for presumed public benefits be covered with private money. To meet the bare minimum requirements will only give us a fancy (and expensive) train control system, similar to what was in development more than a century ago. Moreover, a fair estimate for the cost of base-line P.T.C. overlay is 1.2 million dollars per mile of high-density main line track. Washington needs to move away from the idea that spending large sums of money tends to do anything but consume large sums of money.

Yes, saving innocent lives is crucial! No one argues with that. Still, if we were never allowed to do anything which posed even the slightest risk of danger, we'd never accomplish anything at all!

Give our industry time to establish goals, develop standards and set priorities. P.T.C., properly handled, could lead to a great, systemic change for North American railroading, similar in its own way to dieselisation. It must be noted, however, that the switch from steam to diesel-electric power occurred over a 30-sum-odd year period and - get this - was due to the railroads' own decisions, goals and investments. No governmental edicts were involved. The industry was also able to make this change gradually over time and at its own pace; no absolute deadlines were established. Finally, diesels promised something for the coffers immediately; there was an initial financial incentive. I've seen the figures: steam locomotives offered better tractive effort at speed. Apart from that, things like maintenance costs and the inability to operate multiple units with one engine crew sealed their fate.

So, what might be in it for the railroads if they get P.T.C. right the first time 'round?

How about significant increases in equipment utilization, employee productivity, energy efficiency, scheduling ability and, above all, safety? How about dramatically improved customer service? How about eliminating the causes of incidents instead of just the incidents themselves?

Out here in the real world, the best solutions involve answers to actual problems. Those solutions are not magic, nor do they often stem from a singular epiphany, but come about through necessity, trial and error, and scientific research.

Those solutions also can't be legislated into existence.

It seems pretty simple, doesn't it?

The Cotton Belt: an addendum to the conundrum

Garl B. Latham — Fri, 27 Apr 2012 22:52:00 GMT

Mention the Cotton Belt Route in north central Texas and it brings to mind the St. Louis Southwestern Railway's former main traveling northeast out of Fort Worth's famed Stockyards, past the Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport, across Dallas' northern suburbs and into the "ArkLaTex" region. Dallas Area Rapid Transit owns the corridor from Tower 60 (North Fort Worth) to Wylie, at which point the line falls under state ownership by way of the Northeast Texas Rural Rail Transportation District (NETEX). The Blacklands Railroad, proclaimed "Short Line Railroad of the Year" in 2011 by the Railway Age, operates 73 miles of line from Greenville (about 29 miles east of Wylie) to Mount Pleasant and a junction with today's Union Pacific.

The existing DART-owned portion can be effectively divided into three segments: Fort Worth to the D/FW Airport and D/FW to Plano (with each stretch representing approximately two-fifths of the total distance), thence Plano to Wylie.

The trackage east of Plano to Wylie isn't currently a part of any specific public planning documents. In fact, it was during my tenure at DART that I learned a valuable (but distressing) truism concerning professional Planners: for all their talents, they aren't necessarily future-minded. To put it another way, they can occasionally be far too practical to allow themselves the luxury of dreaming. [That's not a bad thing, of course; occasionally, one needs level heads to prevail.] Still, it was a DART Planner who taught me what I came to call the "N" word and the "C" word: "never" and "can't."

"Wylie? Oh, we'll never go there. We can't do that."

This is despite the fact that NETEX specifically identified the purchase of their Wylie/Greenville right-of-way (the track infrastructure having been previously removed by the SSW) as being based upon its connection to the DART-owned portion of the corridor, which will enable "future rail passenger connections to/from the [Dallas/Fort Worth area]."

Hmmm. Don't they understand what never and can't mean?!

Oh, well.

We've previously discussed the former Cotton Belt Route within Dallas and the various issues which only serve to undermine attempts at the restoration of passenger service along that line. Now, in an effort to gain a more complete understanding of the matter, we'll shift our focus to Fort Worth.

Call this the west side story, if you will.

It's that western segment - Fort Worth to D/FW by way of Grapevine - which, at least in theory, holds the best chance for near-term development.

The Fort Worth Transportation Authority (known locally as "The T"...although, in deference to the MBTA, I just can't bring myself to use that moniker) has been working on this project in its current form for the past six years. Now, they're not only attempting to segue into the preliminary engineering phase, they're also trying to secure various avenues of funding for the 600 to 750 million dollar price tag (depending upon whom you ask and what all is included).

Certainly, there are the usual issues with NIMBYs. Some locals, failing to understand the promise of rail-based transit (or falling for the standard scare tactics) are gearing up for a protracted fight. The two most vocal areas are the City of Colleyville and the Mistletoe Heights neighbourhood in Fort Worth (which, interestingly, is not actually located along the original SSW main, but on a proposed former-SLSW line extension intended to serve the medical district).

Naturally, all the homeowners are asking is that their "legitimate concerns" be addressed. Concerns which have made their "legitimate" short list (how 'bout that qualifier?) include, of course, automobile traffic and noise, neighbourhood encroachment, and (wait for it...) property values!

I've done this sort of thing on a professional basis before, standing between virulent property owners on the one side and progress on the other, through some of the most difficult "new starts" territory we've yet to see in north central Texas. I bear the scars to prove it.

"Legitimate" concerns notwithstanding, what most the NIMBYs actually believe they want is for the bad ol' trains to just GO AWAY! Short of that, they'll hold out for additional landscaping and "visual mitigation" walls - substantial barriers which will not only block the station site from the homeowners, but also block the homeowners from the station site!

In one word, they are afraid.

The saddest thing? Presuming the antis get their way, folks living nearby who are blessed with a healthy dose of common sense will end up being deprived of a convenient way to and from the trains - and all the noise and "encroachment" will still exist, even if the trains don't stop at all!

The NIMBYs have precious little to do with my primary concerns, however.

To me, the distinct possibility that the project will be seriously hobbled from the outset is truly depressing. As we've already pointed out, due to the previously negotiated DART agreements, operations along any segment of the Cotton Belt may be required to use the so-called Light Rail New Technology (L.R.N.T.) vehicle (a.k.a. the North Texas Regional Rail Vehicle) - not yet developed, but presumably similar to Stadler's G.T.W. (something else we've discussed before). Might that be enough to shoot the project in the flange? Who knows? When a government agency mandates the use of specific technologies which have yet to be developed, strange things can happen. Ever hear of P.T.C.?!

There are no public discussions being held regarding through service, whatsoever. DART and the F.W.T.A. are busy planning within their respective vacuums - and if tomorrow's rider wishes to go from, say, Grapevine to Addison, they'll be required to physically change trains, probably within the airport grounds (adding a sizeable chunk of time). Worse yet, if I was a gambling man, I'd bet my bottom dollar there will be no true coordination between service schedules, whatsoever.

The hardest thing to take is the terminal situation within the D/FW Airport property, itself. Here in our "modern" society, airfield security has long been an established fact of life. It's now two completely different worlds on the secure and unsecure sides of a passenger terminal.

At D/FW, several individual terminals exist, all connected by the relative new Skylink "bus-in-a-gutter" people mover (which replaced the original Airtrans system). Unfortunately, Skylink is on the secure side of things. Once a passenger arrives at the airport by train and passes though security (requiring a valid ticket, don't you know), she can always use Skylink to reach any terminal desired. However, upon arrival at D/FW, her baggage will be claimed on the UNsecure side of things - instantly making Skylink inaccessible as a transfer agent and causing the train depot to be that much more difficult to reach.

Finally, there are ongoing issues with the entire series of Cotton Belt projects which clearly indicate the powers-that-be are willing to agree to almost anything in order to get their individual segments rolling.

Regarding the western stretch, what may prove most interesting revolves around preliminary negotiations with one of the three primary property owners.

There's no signed document with DART, yet; but, knowing the agency, I find it difficult to believe that will be a problem. President Gary Thomas is an honourable man and you can take one of his verbal promises to the bank. All that's left to hammer out are the details.

The Fort Worth and Western (owners of the ex-Frisco extension) is haggling over improvements (including signaling and stretches of second main) intended to effectively eliminate delays to their own traffic. Nothing mind-boggling there. The FWWR is only looking after their customer's (and investor's) best interests. I'd be shocked with (and extremely disappointed in) any road that did otherwise.

No; in this case, it's the UP who's doing the posturing. They've brought a completely unrelated matter into the discussion as a negotiating ploy. If nothing else, it'll be fascinating to see how it all plays out.

UP owns a couple of puzzle pieces: one which joins the Texas & Pacific Railway Building downtown to the FWWR main line west of that depot and the other running a couple of miles between interlocking plants at 6th Street (the Trinity Railway Express [nee Railtran] connection) and Tower 60 (the junction with DART).

The two parties currently stand in agreement that access to the T&P station will require a separate lead dedicated to passenger service. It's the other stretch which may prove to be a sticky wicket.

According to several sources, in exchange for capacity north of downtown to the Cotton Belt line, UP wants Amtrak (Amtrak?) to operate their existing service between Fort Worth and Dallas (AMTK 21 and 22) over the T.R.E. route instead of the former T&P.

The T.R.E. alignment between the two cities - already heavily used by commuter trains - may indeed be a reasonable choice for today's Texas Eagle, but it is not for a myriad number of other future trains (such as, for example, a Galveston/Houston/Dallas/Fort Worth/Oklahoma City service - one possibility which isn't too far-fetched).

Once you remove the only scheduled passenger service from the T&P, you've effectively redefined that corridor as "freight only." This will dramatically increase future costs when any sort of passenger service is restored.

Personally, I see a LOT of potential downsides for the T.R.E. in signing a deal with Amtrak, including daily operations, Amtrak's presumed superiority over all other services, the distinct possibility that Amtrak trains will be late as often as not (which may eventually cause a reduction in the number of overhead trains the T.R.E. can handle on a given day, directly affecting UP and BNSF movements over that line - the T.R.E.'s bread-and-butter), various mechanical matters, Amtrak's ostensible desire to use the CentrePort station for airport connections (or at least some other group's desires that Amtrak do so), liability issues and so forth.

In all fairness, I must mention the two best reasons to support the Texas Eagle's operation over the T.R.E. (and, for that matter, any other Dallas/Austin/San Antonio service): no reverse moves involved to reach the Fort Worth station (in this case, the regrettably named Intermodal Transportation Center, or I.T.C.) and only one trip through Tower 55 per train instead of three. In addition, there's something to be said for setting a precedent whereby the T.R.E. becomes the "official" passenger railway corridor connecting Dallas and Fort Worth, firmly establishing that line's right to claim any future intercity improvement capital allocated by the feds.

To be honest, I just find it regrettable that so many other players claim the right to make plans involving Amtrak and the T.R.E. Of course, government agents have been doing that to the Class Is for years, so I should be used to it by now. Even BNSF has involved the T.R.E. when publicly outlining their hopes for solutions to congestion at Tower 55, so UP certainly has company.

I figure UP's stance may also have something (a whole bunch of things?) to do with local planning efforts regarding future commuter traffic on that same T&P line through Grand Prairie and Arlington. For the record: the North Central Texas Council of Governments has already promised UP that construction of a third main line track will be part of any "regional rail" bargain, even though improvements to Tower 55 and an expansion of Davidson Yard would do far more toward keeping that corridor fluid.

We'll see.

I must admit, when things get this interesting, they are rarely dull!

The case for time efficiency (Grid and Gateway, part 4)

Garl B. Latham — Tue, 24 Apr 2012 12:01:00 GMT

It has been true since the birth of Acela.

It remained true for the entire life of Metroliner service.

Even now, it's an important part of traditional "Pullman"-style transportation.

The matter at hand is the efficient use of time while traveling: the way passenger train services, even those of conventional speeds, can not only tap into but help create an exclusive market.

The Grid and Gateway proposition will never work well if the basic concept of time efficiency is ignored. It's what enables travelers to work and play and eat and sleep while moving. It's also the thing that allows high-speed corridors to claim "faster" travel times than their airline competitors.

After all, even today's Acela doesn't really beat commercial air shuttles between New York City and Washington, D.C. It can only claim time superiority when comparing total trip duration between, say, midtown Manhattan and the U.S. Capitol building. Once everything is factored in (transit to/from passenger terminals, security delays, boarding procedures, etc.), the train can get you to your final destination sooner - and in better physical shape! - than the flyboys.

At an intermodal conference, Andrew Sharp of the International Air Rail Organisation once mentioned how the Eurostar wasn't literally able to beat the aeroplane's terminal-to-terminal transit times between London and Brussels; but, the train gave travelers longer uninterrupted periods for work or leisure activities, thereby drastically increasing productivity. The free hours were there to claim; all that was left was one's choice as to how to spend them.

When dealing with conventional technologies and speeds, the overnight trip (back to the "Pullman" concept) can work quite well. Today, there are still a handful of routes and services which might appeal to the business traveler of a certain mindset. Dallas to St. Louis is a current example: board your train toward the end of a business day, relax, have a leisurely dinner, perhaps a night cap or two, sleep in a real bed, complete your morning toiletry rituals and enjoy a nice breakfast before arriving just as the new business day begins.

If a traveler is engaged in activities which are important to one's own health and welfare (such as a good meal, a decent night's sleep and a place to prepare for a new day), why should it be necessary to justify the completion of those tasks while moving?

Oh, but justification is necessary! After all, this is the 21st century.

Ultimately, we may be discussing a problem which can only be solved through targeted marketing. A completely new generation of people must be convinced that passenger train travel is not only a desirable option in itself, but is also not hopelessly old fashioned. It's the latter notion which tends to undermine perfectly useful concepts. [Not very long ago, I literally offended a friend by asking if he had seen the morning papers! This man is so enamoured with technology and the latest in electronic gadgetry that the very idea of reading a physical newspaper is anathema.] The ability to move beyond this societal bias and see conventional passenger trains as something besides historical artifacts is absolutely mandatory.

Unfortunately, contemporary realities don't help very much in this regard.

The problems inherent in North America's existing network of passenger trains are legion. Use of the term "anemic" is far too kind. Most major city pairs enjoy no direct connecting services, whatsoever - and those that do are fortunate to see one train per route, each way, daily. "You can't get there from here" is trite, but true.

Even more depressing, however, is the fact that the city pairs which are still connected usually have trains operating on far slower schedules than those which existed 50 or 75 years ago. This makes the service (and utilization of equipment and infrastructure) much less efficient than it should be. What we might call "the need for speed" is present along every line - not just the short- and medium-haul routes.

Consider Amtrak's Chicago to Los Angeles run via the former Santa Fe. To many people, the basic question is "why take 40 hours for a trip when you can make it in 4:30"? Perhaps more to the point, if you are willing to dedicate 40 hours (or, traditionally, thirty-nine-and-three-quarters-hours) to the trip, what difference would it really make if your journey ended up taking a few hours more? You've already decided to spend around 10 times longer to travel by train instead of jet airplane; to fret over the nominal details seems silly.

However, with that 40-hour journey, only one full day is spent en route. Not three days, mind you (as in Monday through Wednesday, for example), but two nights and one full day (or Monday night through Wednesday morning), with the entire business day available at both the beginning and ending of the trip to use in whatever way you choose.

I realise this may sound incongruous. It might not seem necessary to trim point to point running times on a cross-country service (although we should never forget how long-haul lines actually exist as a combination of interconnecting and overlapping corridors, dependant upon their several intermediate stations for health and vitality).

It’s just that the longer any of this stuff takes, the harder it is to justify.

This is also one of the main reasons why restoration of mid-continent gateways, such as St. Louis, is so imperative. As we've already discussed, total trip time depends upon more than over-the-road speed; it also depends upon time efficiency - and that is partly reliant on things like routings and junction points and connections.

Back to "two nights and one full day" for just a moment:

There's no reason why it should take more than one full business day to travel by train from Dallas to New York. However, without eastbound service in place via the St. Louis gateway, passengers from Dallas are required to go all the way into Chicago to effect their east coast connections. That fact, combined with the overall lack of service and (at times painfully) slow speeds, successfully turns a one business day trip into a two business day trip. In one fell swoop, we go from "it might be fun, if I can ever swing it" to "that's ridiculous; I can't even consider it!"

Of course, what the New York Central System was able to do between New York and Chicago with private money and two sets of equipment now takes Amtrak public money and four sets. A 20% reduction in running time along the Water Level Route (not an outrageous goal, by any means) would make a world of difference - especially if the cars which suddenly became available for reassignment were used to double the frequency along that same line.

It may be a smoke dream, but the logic is sound.

Is that logic, however, enough to justify investment? I believe it is - as alternative modes continue to become less viable due to their own shortcomings. Call it transition by attrition.

In the meantime, that general impression of passenger-trains-as-societal-anachronisms looms as a veritable fortress.

I can't help but recall an older couple (of the Korean War generation) I met briefly a few years back while serving as Director of Operations at Dallas' Museum of the American Railroad. The family in question lived in Terrell, around 30 miles east/southeast of Big D (and now essentially considered a Dallas suburb). Terrell is also a station situated along UP's former T&P main - the same route used by Amtrak's Texas Eagle.

As we engaged in polite conversation, I discovered their daughter, son-in-law and precious grandchildren were living in Springfield, Illinois and that they visited them as often as possible.

Naturally, I asked if their travels ever involved the use of passenger train service. I may as well have been speaking in unknown tongues, for the couple acted as if they didn't even understand the question. Perhaps they honestly did not.

I reiterated my query and they responded by saying no; they had always used commercial airline services and never even considered the train.

Determined to make sense of this, I prodded them for additional information. "Oh, how does that work?"

"I beg your pardon?"

"Well, you obviously can't purchase an airline ticket from Terrell to Springfield, so how do you complete your trip?"

The answer was nothing short of profound. In fact, it not only depressed me at the time; it was memorable enough to recall, in detail, today.

Their standard routine was to get into an automobile, then drive approximately 60 miles west to the Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport. Not only did they begin their journey by heading in the opposite direction of their final destination; but, because of potential traffic problems, they always completed this first leg the night before their scheduled flight! The next day, after 18-sum-odd hours away from home and a net loss of mileage, they finally boarded an airplane bound for St. Louis and rented a car at Lambert Field for the (minimum) two hour drive north to the state capital.

I was flabbergasted.

"You know, there's a train," quoth I, "from Mineola (about 45 miles east of Terrell via a safe, mellow country highway) which goes directly to Springfield. No connections required - and all the requisite dining, lounge and sleeping car accommodations are included."

"How long would that take?"

"Well, about 16 hours, or so; it's a simple overnight trip. It'd certainly be less time than you're spending now and..."

"Oh, my gracious! 16 hours on a train? That seems like an awfully long time. I'm not sure we could handle that!"

(sigh)

And you know, maybe they couldn't.

The following story may be apocryphal, but it makes a valid point:

Supposedly, during the latter part of the 20th century, an audio production group became eagerly involved in the creation of a new radio drama series - complete with professional actors, live music and sound effects. Full of hopeful anticipation, they hired a marketing research firm to determine the best time for their broadcasts.

After studying the matter, the agency returned with a simple answer: "1937."

The Cotton Belt conundrum

Garl B. Latham — Fri, 30 Mar 2012 21:39:00 GMT

I really hate this.

I can count on one hand with fingers left over the number of times this has ever happened to me: a passenger service initiative which I'm not only unable to support, but find myself actively opposing. Worse yet, it's a proposal that honestly looks good - at least as a line drawn on a map.

I also hate it that knowledgeable planners have inadvertently worked with unknowledgeable elected officials, effectively placing me in this position.

The Transportation Department of the North Central Texas Council of Governments, under the direction of Michael Morris, is universally respected. It has earned that respect. Regrettably, its primary goal regarding this proposal has nothing to do with the movement of people.

Instead, it's an experiment designed to see if a new type of financing arrangement might be cobbled together which would provide the money necessary to construct and - are you ready? - operate regularly scheduled passenger train service.

Their plan is called the "Innovative Finance Initiative" (or "iFi" for short - presumably pronounced "eye-fie." Cute, huh?).

In quick summation, the basic idea is to incorporate "value capture methods" into the government sponsored rail-based transit/regional passenger service world. The "iFi" concept involves transferring a portion of the revenue obtained from real estate/transit-oriented development along a service corridor back to the operators of the transportation line, itself.

And why not? After all, T.O.D. is a proven methodology for the effective use of properties adjacent to a new transit line, especially the areas around stations. Why shouldn't a public transportation agency or a railroad (or some other private company) stand to benefit from the increased commercial value, since it was the proximity to trains which caused the increase? There are many historical examples where such a scheme has worked well for our industry. Combine the logic of T.O.D. with other sustainable development patterns and we may have a winning formula.

Sadly, however, major compromises in the planning and design of the railway line itself have been made, simply in an effort to get this specific project to the point where the "iFi" concept can be implemented.

The route of which I speak is the Cotton Belt corridor, basically designed to tie the Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport directly to downtown Fort Worth and Dallas' northern suburbs.

Named for the line's former owner (Espee's St. Louis Southwestern Railway), the route is not necessarily the next logical step in restoring rail-based passenger transport to the region. Other lines-on-a-map could also make the grade and offer far more transit benefits. Moreover, adequate plans were never made for connecting services to interface with the route. The junction point with DART's Green Line in downtown Carrollton is bad enough; the plan for Red Line interface in Plano is ridiculous.

The equipment of choice (perhaps I should say "by law") has remained a real thorn in my side. One of the reasons I wrote Oh, to be compliant was because of the rolling stock being touted for this service:

"DART has committed itself (and anyone else wanting to play) to use...passenger equipment...which will combine some of the least desirable characteristics of light rail technology (size, comfort and cost among them) with some of the least desirable characteristics of commuter train technology (weight, flexibility and motive power among them). Their stated wish is to develop, as part of the combined project, an F.R.A.-compliant hybrid, to be called the 'North Texas Regional Rail Vehicle' (a.k.a. 'L.R.N.T.' or 'Light Rail New Technology')."

http://myprogressiverailroading.com/blogs/gblatham/archive/2011/01/12/oh-to-be-compliant.aspx

The closest thing on the market today is Stadler's Gelenktriebwagen (or G.T.W. for short), which is not fully compliant with existing F.R.A. regulations. Even with route-specific wavers in place, we're still not discussing a car which can ever be "a one-size-fits-all, go-anywhere/do-anything self-propelled railroad passenger vehicle, able to 'cross all track barriers: commuter, freight, and light-rail' (according to one of the local documents)."

We've discussed this before. "What DART will probably end up with is a new vehicle which, by definition, will be far more costly to build and far less comfortable to ride than its conventional commuter train counterparts, unsuited for long trips...and, due to its unique nature, difficult and expensive to maintain."

So, why would such a decision regarding equipment (or any other decisions, for that matter) have been made prior to the completion of preliminary engineering work?

In a word, ladies and gentlemen, it's politics. Surprised?

Everything we see regarding the planning and execution of passenger service along the eastern half of the Cotton Belt is happening with but one thing in mind: keeping a few home owners in far north Dallas placated.

The City of Dallas (and, in a sense, DART) has basically committed itself to a bad plan in an effort to gain tacit support of various residents along the corridor. For years, City Council members representing the most vocal district have been elected, in part, on the basis of how they stood regarding this singular issue...from Sandy Greyson to Ron Natinsky, author of the so-called "Natinsky Plan".

According to Natinsky, locals have been primarily concerned with "vehicle technology, design and corridor safety" (which is very interesting, since all I ever remember hearing them scream about was their "property values"). You know, it makes me wonder: If these folks think trains are such a bad thing, why did they purchase houses next to a railroad track in the first place? Of course, I've had some look me right in the eye and seriously claim they never knew traffic levels might increase! Even if that's the unvarnished truth, why should this entire region suffer because these home buyers never heard of "due diligence"?!

Specific aspects of the Natinsky Plan - a 2006 resolution to which both the City and DART agreed - include the absolute elimination of common carrier freight operations within the district in question (and, therefore, all through service), limiting the route to a single main line (regardless of operational requirements) and placing the trackage inside a long trench (which just happens to be in a 100-year flood plain).

With me so far?

Okay, then. Let's get back to our original topic: fancy financing.

It all started with a seven-digit-figure study, naturally.

I say "naturally" because almost nothing is done in the domestic railroad passenger transportation world today with out a study or two (or three or four). These studies are often not for something substantive (like project engineering) but something far more nebulous (like project "feasibility").

Well, here's a truism, free of charge: throw enough money at a project and it'll magically become "feasible."

Unfortunately, money usually isn't available to simply throw around. In fact, as we've already discussed, with the Cotton Belt project, the entire study deals with ways to secure the necessary financing. Feasibility is presumed (although it shouldn't be).

So, how does one entice private firms to invest in an industry segment which, overall, hasn't made much profit (if any) for at least the past 85 years? That's a fair question, too. After all, passenger train services tend to lose money: individually or as a group, by route or system, from local transit to intercity express, they lose money. Worse yet, in the short-haul world, the more people who're willing to ride and the more trains that are operated, the larger the deficits incurred. The financials remind me of the Penn Central school of economics: we may lose money on every car load, but we'll make up for it in volume.

In fact, a private company could be given the needed infrastructure, along with brand-new equipment and beautifully designed station facilities - with a guaranteed source of "free" cash to maintain the lot - and that company would still walk away from the deal, since passenger fares would not even begin to cover operations.

It gets worse.

For the past couple of years, Peter M. Rogoff of the Federal Transit Administration has been trying to tell Cotton Belt route proponents (and anyone else who'd listen) that simply emulating the toll road industry by encouraging private investment in railway passenger service is a financial dead end. Whether it's the (deserved) reputation of passenger trains as loss leaders or the U.S.' recessionary climate (or both), most private firms have lost interest in the concept of doing for trains what they've done for automobiles.

When asked for details, Rogoff explained that the "F.T.A. has had a mixed experience with public-private partnerships." Risk transfer, crucial to almost all turnpike deals, is notably impotent in many rail-based proposals. His agency has noticed that "the private entity wants to take on little to no risk and take something off the top, when the public sector and the transit agencies still bear the vast majority of the risk of cost overruns or the risk of ridership not materializing as envisioned."

In the rare instances where private firms might indicate a willingness to accept up-front risk in passenger schemes, Rogoff believes transit agencies must structure agreements with great care. "You have to have hard guarantees as to frequency of service and reliability of service and have to be able to really not just finance the project but also require ... [the private firm] to operate the project for a real period of time," he said. "Then you need to hold that partnership accountable for delivering."

But why would any private operator want to be "accountable for delivering" when they have no say-so in how a given project is designed and precious little input in the way it's built?

Ay, there’s the rub.

The Cotton Belt route's biggest flaw - its fatal flaw - has nothing to do with that single line on the map or what it represents. It's not how our local Metropolitan Planning Organisation is attempting to find alternative means of financing. It's not any of the usual vacuous arguments against mass transit (especially the rail-based kind).

No; as it now stands, the Cotton Belt service proposal is doomed to failure because it's been designed by politicians for political purposes.

Period.

For a long time, I looked at this proposal from both a passenger's and railroader's perspective. In doing so, I completely lost track of reality. The Cotton Belt project exists as a political animal, designed to generate jobs and score points. If it actually serves the train riding public, so much the better; but, that's not what it's ultimately designed to do.

During my tenure at DART, I was blessed with two wonderful superiors: my boss and his boss. It was my boss' boss who occasionally reminded me how applying logic to agency matters could be a very dangerous thing.

While considering the realities of the Cotton Belt proposal, I forgot to also consider his wisdom.

I forgot that DART's Public-Private Partnership (3P) agreement stipulates the service should maintain "the same type of vehicle and operating characteristics on the entire corridor" (including Fort Worth Transit Authority's proposed downtown to D/FW International Airport "TEXRail" service) and that DART's resolution can (and probably will) force all DART-owned segments of the Cotton Belt to use the new LRNT vehicle (however that ends up being defined) - even though DART has previously stated that the operational "conditions [which caused the need for their LRNT vehicle in first place] are currently specific only to the north Dallas section of the corridor between Addison and the Red Line."

I forgot that a major driving force behind the development of a North Texas Regional Rail Vehicle is the prospect that the builder of the winning design will set up a manufacturing plant in this area, with the transit agencies and the R.T.C. dutifully requiring all future lines to use the new product. [Anyone who has seen a real commuter railroad at work, like Metro North or Metra or Caltrain - forget about it!] We should just remain thankful that the Trinity Railway Express is already in operation! [Suddenly, the corridor's preliminary estimate of 6,000 riders per day through far north Dallas makes a lot more sense!]

I forgot that the project stands to be quite entertaining, in a macabre sort of way. The possibility rail fares will be high and parking will cost money and the "private" side of the project will demand a PROFIT (the fourth "P"!) all lends itself to a major-class spectacle - especially once reality sets in and the operator(s) realise(s) the United States still doesn't have a national transportation policy in place and that the feds will still be competing against passenger train service through all their direct and indirect subsidies toward roadways. Profits will be privatised and losses will be socialised and we'll end up holding the bag.

It all makes for quite a conundrum; even some sort of Gordian Knot. Unfortunately, this one will not be solved by simply applying outside-the-box thinking (a la Alexander's sword), since it has been outrageously ineffective and potentially disastrous outside-the-box thinking which has brought us to this point in the first place!

Yes, I forgot...but it's all coming back to me, now!

And I really hate this.

CorridorVision (Grid and Gateway, part 3)

Garl B. Latham — Tue, 27 Mar 2012 21:57:00 GMT

There are several fallacious arguments related to the (re)development of domestic passenger service that just won't go away. And, to be fair, perhaps they shouldn't. After all, ideas like high density development and congestion mitigation and airline-competitive scheduling certainly have merit on some level.

Problem is, a lot of folks want to end the debate at that point, eschewing all other possibilities and, in the process, any alternative approaches to the above-mentioned trio.

One of the reasons the Pennsylvania Railroad (The Standard Railroad of the World) was able to do so much with their New York/Philadelphia/Washington main line (today's Northeast Corridor) stems form the fact that, as a private company, they fully understood the concept of "good enough."

For the company's shareholders (beneficiaries of Wall Street's longest running dividend record), the Pennsy's penchant for serving northeastern cities with long, heavy trains at high speeds (but not true "high speeds") paid quite well. It was only when the High Speed Ground Transportation Act of 1965 was enacted (followed in short order by the creation of the U.S. Department of Transportation) that what we now know as the Northeast Corridor came into being, complete with Metroliners and TurboTrains.

Billions of taxpayer's dollars later (over $4 billion in direct federal funding under the Northeast Corridor Improvement Project alone), Amtrak emphasises speed and frequency (which is fine, if your primary target audience is the commercial airline traveler), leaving congestion relief to the local commutation authorities (and the intercity motor coach - which is another topic, altogether).

Even at that, overall terminal-to-terminal running times really aren't that spectacular. According to Amtrak's current timetable, the fastest Acela carding between New York's Penn Station and Washington, D.C. is 2:42. This unfavourably compares with the advertised two-and-a-half hour non-stop run of the first Metroliners some 43 years ago. [Granted, both PC and AMTK consistently found literal "non-stop" corridor trains to be far less profitable than those willing to call on Newark and Philadelphia and Baltimore.] Even the Congressional of 1935 behind the venerable GG-1 locomotive made the trip, with several stops en route, in 3:35.

The former NYNH&H shore line between New York and Boston has seen greater improvement in running times, but that's due as much to the completion of electrification beyond New Haven (and the corresponding elimination of the required engine change) as it is to top speeds. The Merchants Limited of 1949 made the trip in 4 hours, flat. The new Turboliner of '69 (still serving Grand Central) took 3:44. The best Acela time in 2012 is 3:25.

Although such an outlook is really too simplistic, one could hardly be blamed for believing that a lion's share of the multi-billion-dollar price tag did nothing but buy us 19 minutes of time.

So, if U.S.-style corridor construction and operation tends to offer negligible benefit when balanced against a project's sheer expense, what alternative(s) do we have?

The PRR approach to high density "corridors," with long trains operating at sufficiently fast speeds to handle express traffic, is certainly one way. But, today's N.E.C. is a unique situation, serving a market which has been in existence for a long time, supported by infrastructure which no contemporary government body would try to justify duplicating.

At least I can't imagine it.

No, we need to honestly look at the various ways moderately busy corridors, connecting city pairs of moderately large size, can be served along the rights-of-way already in place. One might safely presume that additional trackage, newer signaling systems, improved (or eliminated) junctions and the like must needs be budgeted; still, our starting point involves the conventional "steam road" plant. We don't build from nothing, we build from where we are.

That being said...outside of the Megalopolis, what would the railroads do (or, more precisely, what did they do)?

Let's go back to visit the Pennsylvania for a moment. Oddly enough, I think of them (and the Central, for that matter) every time I see the proposed Midwest High Speed Rail map (a.k.a. the Chicago Hub Network). With the exception of a route indicated from Cincinnati to Cleveland via Columbus (for which "starter" funding was shot down by Ohio Governor John Kasich), the entire system is just as the name intimates: a hub-and-spoke arrangement, with Chicago at the centre.

Years ago, I had reason to travel between St. Louis and Indianapolis upon occasion. Naturally (knowing me), I always took the train. Both the PRR and the NYC offered direct, multiple daily departures via long haul services. The Pennsylvania route survived the Penn Central merger and, to the end, advertised four hour running times. Some of the trains continued east out of Indianapolis to Pittsburgh and others to Cleveland. All of them, operating at conventional speeds, made the direct run faster than anything but a true Shinkansen-type H.S.R. train could ever do if traveling by way of Chicago.

The Santa Fe effectively owned the Chicago/Kansas City market. That Railway offered a wide variety of choices well into the 1960s, averaging one train every three hours, 'round the clock. Even as late as the day before Amtrak was born, the AT&SF carded 5 services (with two usually combined into one train) - all of them sporting modern equipment, hot food, cold drink and easy riding. One run went to Texas, the remainder to the west coast (via two different routes). All were long haul trains; all covered several vitally important intermediate "corridors."

Today, California has become quite the success story. Of the top 5 Amtrak corridors (after the N.E.C.), three are located in California: the Pacific Surfliner (San Diego/Los Angeles/San Luis Obispo), the Capital corridor (San Francisco Bay/Sacramento) and the San Joaquin Valley service. None exceed 79 miles-per-hour, save for some 90 m.p.h. running in Orange and San Diego counties. Furthermore, the entire Capitals route and the Surfliner north of L.A. are part of established long haul ("national network") lines. They've made a sizeable dent in the market (and numerous fans) by fielding clean, comfortable, frequent trains, supported by connecting motor coaches.

It is postulated by some that the best way to generate political support for passenger train service - a vital necessity in our current age - would be to concentrate investment upon large cities and congested markets. There may be some truth to that idea; but, such an approach would also be the most expensive and time consuming, replete with NIMBYs and BANANAs, and burdened with myriad arbitrary limitations regarding the passenger train's ultimate role.

Let's not attempt to decorate the branches before the trunk has been established! A national network of even modest size could act as the foundation for comprehensive growth, enabling all the needed corridors to develop while offering some semblance of service to the continent as a whole.

Some people are drawn to the promise of "new-and-improved" as a moth is to a flame (or as a child, mesmerised by a TeleVision screen, is drawn into a vacuous world where imagination and critical thinking skills prove unnecessary).

If we allow ourselves to be swayed by CorridorVision, we'll have lost sight of what's best in terms of our budget, the logic of true incremental growth, the needs of multimodalism (yes, and true intermodalism) and the things which will make our railroad industry become the willing, cooperative partner it must be - presuming any of this is going to happen in the first place!

The Pennsy was right. So was the Santa Fe.

There's a lot we might learn, if only we'd allow history to teach us.

Old King Coal

Garl B. Latham — Fri, 23 Mar 2012 22:55:00 GMT

The history of coal production goes back even farther than the history of railroading. Here in North America, the first commercial mine began operation around 1730, approximately 100 years before the first common carrier railroad - the B&O - ran its first train (which, by the way, was powered by oats, not coal).

Still, it's certain those two industries came to maturity together. After all, it was the power of coal which fostered the Industrial Revolution.

Coal has been integral to the fortune and fame of many a domestic road. My youngest daughter, Phoebe, is well aware of that. Just ask her about Anthracite!

A major shot in the arm came with the development of Powder River Basin reserves, now the single largest source of U.S. coal and one of the biggest in the world. Once emission control standards made sub-bituminous, low sulfur dioxide coal attractive, a few western roads, led by the Burlington Northern, came to realise what that might mean to company coffers. It took a lot of guts, but the end result speaks for itself. After all, it's hard to argue with segments of quadruple-main line.

Down here in Texas, some of the earliest unit trains sported reporting marks like UFIX (Houston Lighting and Power) and SATX (City Public Service Board of San Antonio). SATX always seemed the most profoundly apropos to me, even though I knew the suffix "X" was due to private car ownership.

You know, it's a beautiful thing to see a long line of clean, new aluminum bathtub hoppers (I can hardly bring myself to call them gondolas!) strung out along the undulating profile that is Texas prairie, providing a valuable service and making some serious money. When giving such a consist a roll-by, I often think of the late, great John W. Barriger. As the story is told, during his time at the helm of the Pittsburgh and Lake Erie (a New York Central System subsidiary), he was riding on the rear platform of his business car along the Hudson River's east shore. While overtaking a manifest equipped with Pacemaker boxes, he exclaimed, "Look at those high cars roll! Finest sight in the world."

Oh, yes; our railroads are still indebted to coal and its revenue stream. The lading seems ideally suited to this industry. We're talking heavy bulk commodities shipped over and over again between two points with a fixed consist (let's call it a "unit train"). Reasonable transportation alternatives are practically non-existent - and the stuff never complains about temperatures or humidity or dust.

Overall, North American railroads derive more than one-third of their operating profits from coal. It's pretty impressive.

There is one wee problem on the horizon, however: U.S. industry, especially power plants (which account for over 90% of consumption), are beginning to use less and less coal.

In fact, coal consumption at the end of last year stood approximately 10% below its mid-'08 levels.

Surely, some of the blame rests with the availability of an even more environmentally sensitive (and increasingly abundant) alternative fuel: natural gas.

Back to San Antonio for just a moment. Today's C.P.S. Energy is greatly benefiting from Texas' Eagle Ford Shale development, one of the most active gas fields on the planet (and one of the greatest beneficiaries of the modern production method known as hydraulic fracturing, or "fracking"). The Eagle Ford development (pronounced "eaglefurd" in the petroleum industry, as if a single word) has the potential, as one wag put it, to maintain a "chronic oversupply" of product for the entire life span of anyone reading this tome.

Last week, C.P.S. made public its decision to purchase an 800 mega-watt combined cycle natural gas generating plant, which will replace the energy output of its oldest coal facility. The utility said that, based upon "expected" environmental regulatory changes (please note), necessary upgrades to the coal plant would have cost them over one billion dollars more than the new plant's purchase price.

According to C.P.S.' press release, "natural gas makes up 23% of the U.S. power mix. ... Thanks to the discovery of the shale plays, and the advanced technology to safely and responsibly develop them, this affordable and stable energy source is [now] available..."

Ending their blurb was an interesting (and possibly prophetic) statement: "The CPS purchase signifies a growing trend of large utilities making the switch to cleaner and more efficient natural gas."

Far from coincident, A.A.R. stats indicate the coal business is down five times more than the overall decline in this year's traffic levels.

Granted, we're far from the panic stage. Some (such as CSX) have publicly pinned hopes on increased intermodal and merchandise traffic to help offset the decline in coal. I wonder if that's realistic. What of our New Panamax reality?

Tighter environmental regulations (of the existing sort) on coal fired plants will force some to close - and force some serious changes in direction.

David Vernon of Bernstein Research estimates that a net 15% of the current coal-fired power plants will shut down production in the next three years; equivalent to 106 million tons or 10% of current demand.

So, what does the long-term future hold for our old king, coal? I honestly wonder.

Will tonnage eventually stabilise at a decent (but far from spectacular) level? Will something else come along to claim coal's preeminent position? Will that new king be as railroad friendly?

It's hard to say. Someday, though, we'll likely be crying out, "The King is dead; long live the King!"

We just don't know who it will be, yet!

Heresy! (Grid and Gateway, part 2)

Garl B. Latham — Tue, 20 Mar 2012 10:11:00 GMT

The city of Pecos recently made the news.

That friendly west Texas municipality, seat of Reeves County and centre for ranching and mineral production, was categorised as number two on Forbes' list of "America's Fastest-Growing Small Towns." Famed for its canteloupes and its role in the development of professional rodeo competition, Pecos is like so many other communities scattered throughout the North American continent: it's too small to be a "real" city but too big to dry up and blow away; too far from everything for most cosmopolitans to take notice but too important to be ignored.

Interestingly, some other cities which made Forbes' list are Wyoming's own Laramie and Gillette, and Williston, North Dakota.

Gillette, primarily known among rails due to the success of Powder River Basin coal, could easily be a stop on a passenger train route even today - and there's no reason why Laramie (UP's Overland Route) and Pecos shouldn't be. Williston, along the former GN, already is (courtesy of the Empire Builder).

Alas, expansion of Amtrak's national network doesn't seem feasible in the current political climate. Even conservative system growth appears beyond the scope of those at the N.R.P.C., the U.S. D.O.T. and its F.R.A., and elsewhere in Washington.

Williston maintains an Amtrak link on its web site and the Chamber is quite up-to-speed regarding trains past and present. Nonetheless, you'll never see mention of increased frequencies or additional routes. It's as if residents consider themselves fortunate to have one daily train operating on one route. The last thing they want to do is jinx it.

Without those in leadership positions actively pushing for more trains to more places, inertia reigns supreme. Pecos townsfolk certainly don't have a clue that passenger train service is a theoretical possibility, much less something to be desired. I know; I've spoken with community officials before.

Yet, the only way Pecos, Texas will ever enjoy any connections to the outside world (apart from those using the town's highways) is if passenger train services are reestablished.

As Lisa St. Aubin de Teran once observed, trains are society's great equaliser (all you need is a ticket!). Even the smallest of hamlets can enjoy city-level service. The same trains that call on Dallas, Phoenix and Los Angeles can also serve Pecos, Abilene and Big Spring.

Most of these places will never have a commercial airport. Currently, the nearest one to Pecos is in Midland: approximately 85 miles to the east and, essentially, inaccessible but by private automobile.

Ah, but UP's former Texas & Pacific main runs right past the Midland International Airport's front gate. Anyone for intermodalism?

There's no reason to ignore downtown Midland, either. Regrettably, no depot buildings remain in Midland or Odessa; but, looking on the bright side, that might make planning even easier!

Sadly, just as in Pecos, Midland officials haven't a clue. In 2007, the city released a study concerning downtown redevelopment: a wishful, well crafted document which primarily serves to indicate how difficult it is to reinvigorate central cities without rail-based transportaiton, yet has nary a word to say about trains.

Midland has even composed a "Master Plan 2025" for the region. There's still not one mention of trains.

To me (what with my personal biases running amok and all), it seems nothing less than ridiculous to not allow for - not even consider the possibility of - passenger train operations of any kind in tomorrow's world. Failure to include even a cursory glance toward railroad operations in official transportation plans carries profound implications which remain difficult to ignore.

Why shouldn't we interconnect various intermediate points with conventional, long distance trains? Surely, one might use such a conveyance running from El Paso to Dallas for a trip between El Paso and Dallas. One might also use it to ride from Pecos to Midland, then board a commercial airliner there to reach Dallas (or Chicago or New York City). The reasonable nature of such an endeavour becomes evident when we remember that trains do not call upon terminal points, alone - and this is the only way Pecos (or Midland, for that matter) might be served.

Part of the problem, of course, is that passenger trains have been out of the public's consciousness for too long (at least a couple of generations) and there has been no one in a position of authority willing or able to pull society's coat. The general population is innocent in this matter. After all, ignorance and stupidity are not synonymous.

I fault our "leaders" for failing to explain how long haul (a.k.a. "national network") railway routes actually exist as a series of interconnected/overlapping corridors, quite similar in many ways to an Interstate freeway. I fault our elected officials for pandering to U.S. citizens, making it easy for them to blindly stroll toward the abyss. I fault professional politicians for spending far more time running for reelection than they do attempting to tackle important issues. I fault transportation bureaucrats for ignoring logical alternatives and pretending the staus quo can be indefinitely maintained. I fault all-of-the-above for attempting to convince people that the consideration of passenger train technology is only reasonable in regions with a high population density - and then only if true high speed services along dedicated infrastructure are established.

Maybe cheap, plentiful, high-quality oil will last for the rest of our (and our children's) lifetimes; maybe it won't. Maybe autocentrism will continue to be a primary driving force in this society; maybe it can't. Maybe the next generation of electric vehicles will enable travelers to continue plying the Interstates at 70-miles-per-hour-plus over long distances with the radio blaring and the air conditioning operating at full blast.

Maybe that's all a smoke dream.

We can't afford to write off the towns and cities of 5 and 10 and 25 thousand people, even though our de facto national policies seem to force us in that direction. Forbes doesn't think that's logical, or supportable by hard, cold facts.

After all these years of ignoring the possibilities and believing the propaganda, it may sound bizarre to suggest that real, live, conventional passenger trains can truly be productive; that a locomotive-hauled consist of coaches, sleeping cars and miscellaneous non-revenue equipment could efficiently provide basic transportation; that such an approach might be the best solution for a number of towns, cities and regions across the North American continent.

But they are.

It may indeed sound like heresy to claim so many learned people were so wrong about so many things for so long.

But they were.

Far be it from me to judge those who were fighting for our railroad's lives at a time when regulation was rampant and financial losses staggering. I'm not saying our industry had a reasonable opportunity to search for solutions when the patient was dying.

The operation of passenger trains can't be justified as a purely business venture. That was true then; it is true now. However, we can justify a serious look at what might be of interest and convenience for the public today - and of necessity tomorrow - when using public funds. Taking cash from the community's coffers makes sense if we soberly review our alternatives and, with determination, properly prepare this world for our children to inhabit.

Making the trains worth leaving

Garl B. Latham — Fri, 16 Mar 2012 21:54:00 GMT

I spend far too much time worrying about passenger service, I suppose; but, somebody's got to do it.

Besides, my biggest problem isn't losing sleep or developing ulcers. It's knowing in my heart what could be, yet is not.

I recall Amtrak's first advertising campaigns. According to the newly hatched quasi-public corporation, they were choosing to keep the best of existing rolling stock. They were creating gourmet delights for their diners. They were developing credit card sales protocols and simplified ticketing procedures and a toll-free telephone reservation line.

All accompanied by this nebulous assurance: "We're making the trains worth traveling again."

Of course, there were many trains back in 1971 which were already "worth traveling." Several roads, even those who had essentially given up on the concept of passenger train operations under existing rules, took offence at Amtrak's unconscionable effrontery. Furthermore, there were two companies which, at the time, went on record saying they would have opted out of membership in the National Railroad Passenger Corporation had they been given a fair opportunity to do so: the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway, and the Seaboard Coast Line Railroad.

Enter Amtrak - and reality. Much of the best rolling stock was lost to higher bidders (since those in Washington seemed to honestly believe there was no market for it apart from the N.R.P.C., despite the existence of several independent class Is and auto-train and Mexico). The promised "gourmet delights" fell to the budgeter's axe (since they couldn't even maintain what they'd been GIVEN). The Santa Fe had already begun accepting credit cards; the Penn Central was experimenting with computerised ticketing; the Burlington Northern's WATS line for information and reservations was up and running.

Even Amtrak's promise to make the trains worth traveling again was soon diluted by an alarming suffix: "All we ask from you is a little patience."

The N.R.P.C. eventually realised (after-the-fact) that it took a LOT of money to market "plate glass and varnish" - so much so that every one of the trains which member roads had been attempting to discontinue immediately prior to the passage of the Rail Passenger Service Act of 1970 was abandoned by Amtrak. Adding insult to injury, our own government (by way of the Interstate Commerce Commission) had previously required those trains to be maintained with private capital (something about the public interest, convenience and - get this - "necessity"!). The bankrupt PC had been fielding four through trains from Chicago to New York along their former Pennsy main right up 'til the day Amtrak was born. The 'trak immediately reduced that to one. Now, there are none.

Back to the Santa Fe and SCL for just a moment:

W. C. "Bill" Burk, then Manager of Santa Fe's public relations department in Chicago, vividly remembered the Amtrak takeover. "[President John] Reed didn't want anyone running passenger trains across Santa Fe but Santa Fe. Those trains were the pride and joy of the railroad - the pride and joy of the nation, as far as he was concerned." The AT&SF knew it wasn't the fleet leaders which caused the greatest fiscal damage; it was the trains few people used or, really, even wanted around.

SCL's President Tom Rice was far more direct: "If we had been permitted to cut service to the level that Amtrak has cut it - we never would have joined Amtrak."

It's funny how so much of this is still so fresh and poignant after all these years. I can't bring myself to blame our railroads for making business decisions (since they are, after all, businesses) and, as the years go by, I find it increasingly difficult to imagine the Grand Manner surviving the past four decades completely unscathed.

On the other hand, it's pretty easy to point fingers at Amtrak: an inept government operation with a fairly abysmal record which, from the outset, has possessed an intolerable holier-than-thou attitude.

"We're making the trains worth traveling again," my clavicle!

So, why did all this come to mind over the past couple of days? No special reason; just another example of the way(s) our private railway industry could manage to make things work while Amtrak consistently fails.

It's a long story, involving back room deals with the UP and regrettable conciliations by Amtrak President Joe Boardman and crew. Suffice to say that the storied Sunset Limited, the oldest name train service in the world, still running only three days-per-week and sans through service east of New Orleans into Florida, is returning to its traditional post-late 1960s timetable. This includes an early morning westbound arrival into Los Angeles.

Unfortunately, "early morning" will now be defined as 5:35.

Yes, that's 5:35 A.M.!

Amtrak, with (barely) a nod toward its "first class" passengers, has stated it will allow occupancy of sleeping car accommodations until 6:30.

Mighty generous of 'em, eh?

Can any of you who, like me, are old enough to have experienced the Grand Manner first-hand even IMAGINE this happening during the railway age?

"We're making the trains worth traveling again. Now, GET OUT OF YOUR ROOM! It's almost dawn!"

Right now, I'm attempting to discover if there are any reasonable explanations for this arrival plan. For example, is there an issue concerning track and/or platform capacity (or the lack, thereof) during weekday morning rush hours at Los Angeles Union Station - something which might prevent a set-out car or two from being tethered to hotel power for a few hours?

Please; all I'm asking for is an excuse that makes sense! ANYTHING but "it's easier this way" or "we don't want to break up the consist in the depot (or before we reach the coach yard or unless we have to)" or "it shouldn't/doesn't (?!) really matter to our [cough] 'guests'."

A long-haul Limited arrives at its terminal point in a city which, quite often, doesn't awaken before the sun is warm.

The Limited's passengers, many of them vacationers, are unceremoniously kicked off before the sun has even risen!

It's enough to make a fellow give up.

The Grid and Gateway proposition

Garl B. Latham — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 23:57:00 GMT

I don't set out to be negative (honestly!) and I've never wished to concentrate upon what I conclude may be wrong in the world of railroading while ignoring possible solutions. No matter how badly things may be going, it's not right or fair to continually pick on others if I'm unwilling to share a few of my own proposals in a public forum.

Regarding the design and implementation of new and restored passenger services, I have developed several ideas which revolve around a central proposition I believe to be the most logical and cost-effective way of reintroducing the concept of intercity train travel to our modern society.

I call this the Grid and Gateway system, mainly because the phrase is so descriptive - and because I've always enjoyed alliterations!

I began working on this plan during the waning days of the 20th century, first offering a basic outline to railway passenger supporters through a post on the All-Aboard electronic mailing list (now part of Yahoo! Groups) in the year 2000. An article entitled "Wordplay and Passenger Trains" appeared in the January 2001 edition of the Western Rail Passenger Review and was subsequently picked up by various advocacy organisations, including the Arizona Rail Passenger Association, the Southwest Railroad Historical Society and MobilityDallas.

Eventually, the National Association of Railroad Passengers embraced this general notion. With my permission, NARP adopted the phrase "Grid and Gateway" (occasionally hyphenated thusly: "grid-and-gateway") to use in conjunction with the release of their 40th anniversary "Vision for the Future" proposal in 2007. Groups such as the Kentucky Public Transportation Association and the North Carolina Alliance for Transportation Reform endorsed the scheme.

Unfortunately, my recommendation of a Grid and Gateway system has never really captured the public's imagination. Maybe it sounds too technical. I certainly wouldn't hesitate to re-brand the overall strategy, presuming a satisfactory marketing term could be developed. In the meantime, High Speed Rail and Higher Speed Rail (followed, naturally, by Almost High Speed Rail and Nearly Sort-of High Speed Rail) have commanded centre stage.

Oh, well. "What's in a name? That which we call a rose / By any other word would smell as sweet." I sincerely appreciate Shakespeare's genius, and would like to think my idea might retain some sort of "that dear perfection" by any other name.

I feel that might be the case. After all, I'm not necessarily original; I just know a bit about history and have been blessed with a (usually) reliable ability to accurately judge a good plan. Ofttimes, it is only a predisposition to be supportive of rail-based initiatives which undermines my objectivity!

The Grid and Gateway is simply a modern day adaptation of what once was - and what, with the proper support (both by the general public and our industry), could be once again. It also builds upon the work of the late Dr. Adrian Herzog of the United Rail Passenger Alliance. URPA's Route Matrix theory (another barely marketable designation!), based upon Dr. Herzog's brilliant work, is a classic example of the beauty of pure and straightforward mathematical logic, as appiled to our transport mode of choice.

Today, we often hear of airline-styled hub-and-spoke services as an approach worth emulating in the railway passenger field - especially when discussing tomorrow's systems; however, historically, it was quite unusual to see a hub-and-spoke operational pattern in the railroad world outside of local city streetcar lines and a handful of interurban roads.

Instead, common carriers perfected another routine which served (and could once again serve) the public much more efficiently, exploiting the train’s strong points and accepting its limitations. Rather than forcing customers to rely upon hub-and-spoke traffic configurations, long distance trains were run as part of a grid-type route matrix, interchanging passengers not only at their terminal points, but also at certain intermediate stations. The places where these interchange points were located became collectively known as "Gateway Cities". These gateways, from Cincinnati and Denver to Manly, Iowa and Effingham, Illinois, provided railroad travelers, many times by way of true "Union Station" facilities, the opportunity to transfer from one train - and one company - to another.

The railroad’s proven "grid-and-gateway" pattern is infinitely more logical for today’s passenger train operators to have as a guide. If long distance trains are to truly work as a viable means of public transport - and they can indeed do so - then a railroad-minded scheme must needs be applied to their operation, which demands the traditional Grid and Gateway approach!

In lieu of high-dollar, new-from-the-ground-up corridors designed to impersonate earth-bound airlines, railway passenger services of the next generation must be reliant upon existing infrastructure, remain operationally self-sufficient (or effectively so) and share guideway space with other (commuter/intermodal/freight) traffic. They need to be planned and executed in order to offer a viable alternative to the de-facto monopolies inherent in today’s travel world (due to the United States’s lack of an overriding energy/environmental/transportation policy).

It is also imperative that we embrace a multiple number of inter-corridor, long distance routes as an integral part of any railway system developed for the North American continent. That's the only possible way to achieve a fair and equitable distribution of transportation services.

For a "reasonable" (read: "minimal") financial commitment - tied to an esoteric understanding of railroad operations - a rebuilt, revitalized system of intercity passenger trains could once again exist; trains that would effectively serve a diverse passenger base with safe, comfortable, reliable, cost-effective transportation. The railway alternative, far from being outmoded and unnecessary, should be considered a foundational part of our total transportation network - a true 21st century solution to a contemporary need!

End of sermonette.

What I'd like to do, in an occasional series over the next couple of months, is delve into the Grid and Gateway concept and review a few of the reasons why it WOULD work - presuming our nation ever gets to the point where the reestablishment of a comprehensive network of efficient and saleable intercity passenger train services is an honest desire and not simply a campaign promise.

With your support, I will do so.

The definition of insanity

Garl B. Latham — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 23:52:00 GMT

In the business world, one of the classic "oops" moments of recent memory has to be the fact that, during MF Global's death throes, the financial giant seemingly "lost" (misplaced?) 1.2 billion dollars.

Yes, that's $1,200,000,000.00.

According to the verb du jour, those assets simply "vaporized."

Most of us can't even imagine seeing such a stash of money in the form of good ol' American greenbacks. We simply have to accept its existence by faith.

Granted, federal regulators are digging through reams of physical and electronic records (and, presumably, coat pockets and brief cases). So far, they've reportedly recovered approximately 72% of the money which existed in U.S. customer's accounts at the time of MF Global's bankruptcy filing. Still, as one trader recently said, even though he tries "to be optimistic, ...as it drags on longer, you become leery."

Former Governor of New Jersey Jon Corzine, erstwhile C.E.O. of MF Global, is not surviving unscathed; however, I'm wondering if his failures will eventually be attributed to ignorance rather than misconduct.

Does it really matter? I mean, from a purely business perspective, should it?!

Often, I've lamented how most folks who hold the power over federal transportation issues seem to be either idiots or liars - or both. Amongst those three choices, if any one is answered in the affirmative, that should be enough to cost them their job.

Today, Congressional Transportation Committee Chairman John Mica formally unveiled an anticipated measure to double the size of many controlled access roadways, begin charging tolls for express (H.O.T.) lanes and allow for longer, larger and heavier commercial trucks to operate along those routes. His proposed legislation, entitled the "American Energy and Infrastructure Jobs Act," is a five-year, $260 billion transportation bill - one which he says will fund "road, bridge, and rail improvements."

I guess that officially makes it "multi-modal"...although I'm not quite sure where the "rail" part comes in.

Mica's office pointed out that "transportation and engineering experts" (gotta love those experts) are saying "the United States is woefully behind on infrastructure spending, especially on [highway] bridge repair." Therefore, he has developed a proposition which would increase the size of the vehicles causing the majority of road damage while reducing the percentage those operators pay to cover maintenance costs.

At the same time, he's naturally refusing to address (or even consider) an increase in gasoline taxes.

According to Mica, individual states, which rely on federal reimbursements to satiate their thirst, have been "clamoring for direction from Washington on how to plan and pay for big-ticket projects."

Read: "big-ticket road projects."

This action seems to dovetail quite nicely with last week's State of the Union address by Barack Obama. The administration suggested that a portion of money which has been used for military spending be reallocated toward infrastructure development. Regrettably (but, sadly, not surprisingly), Obama made no specific mention of passenger train services of any kind, much less true H.S.R., during that speech.

It's both interesting and encouraging that Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois issued a statement following the release of Mica's proposal. "Unfortunately, the House of Representatives is pursuing a transportation bill that will cut passenger rail programs. These policies will make it harder for our nation to achieve a truly multimodal transportation network and I urge you to reject all House attempts to cut passenger, freight and multimodal programs."

So...is our national "infrastructure" still little more than concrete and asphalt?

Seemingly so. The future is still on hold; nothing has changed.

You know, the general public would like to trust its "leaders." They'd love to believe elected officials have the "common man's" best interests in mind.

When they observe these same "leaders" - time and time again - refusing to alter their approach regarding transportation issues, most citizens will think it's because those in power have considered the various alternatives and are still confident they've made the best overall choice.

And why wouldn't people make that conclusion? What reasonable options to the status quo might there be? How else would our society function?

All they've ever seen is America as an autocentric nation. What could be done differently?

All they're told is that our country's "infrastructure" needs can be adequately supported without raising taxes on gasoline. Why shouldn't they believe that?

All they witness is more sprawl and more pavement and more traffic. Why wouldn't they consider this normal?

And, all the while, they're indoctrinated from an early age with the claptrap concerning our "love affair" with the automobile and how "trains won't work here." What are they to think?!

After all, the people saying all these things wear impressive titles and are addressed as "honourable."

In their corner, we see all the "experts" who have long strings of initials after their names.

These are our wondrous "leaders." The ones who make the big bucks. Acting as if they're idiots or liars - or both.

Doing the same thing over and over and over again.

But, hey...this time, it'll work!

And that, my friends, is the definition of insanity.