KCRag Forum

Thanks for the detailed writeup. My wife, one kid, and I took the Chief home from Chicago in October 2021 when, stop me if you've heard this before, Southwest had system issues and cancelled our flight home. I wouldn't want to ride it much longer than CHI-KCY but for that segment as you said the times are good and the length of journey is very manageable. Even in coach with the space and outlets it's a very comfortable ride especially if you plan ahead and pack some food. We're taking the whole family of 5 round trip this March for a spring break trip as the cost will be half to a third of flying and just easier than driving for a well connected transit city like Chicago.

Amtrak has convinced itself it's just like an airline... but only when it comes to boarding at some locations outside of the NEC. Basically, you're a terrorist if you want to stand on a platform to wait for the train to arrive like everywhere else in the world (including commuter rail services that share platforms with Amtrak).

They did finally place a stanchion at KC and a tiny sign indicating the morning train numbers, which is the only time you'd be confused about which train you're taking there. It's a crew-change stop, so you'd be forgiven for questioning why the conductor comes into the station to check tickets rather than have his many car attendants do that at the door of each coach car (which they end up doing anyway to manually make seat assignments).

When pressed, Amtrak staff has told me that basically boarding in most of the country is a local decision -- which explains KC, but certainly not Chicago (where they control all aspects -- the building, most of the tracks into/out of the station, and the adjacent real estate).

Anyway, just expect you will be disappointed and cross your fingers the train leaves on time (because that's less likely with everyone queuing INSIDE the station)! Bummer you missed the dining car because on most "western" trains it has actually improved.

Amtrak's Canadian counterpart offers reserved seats and in-seat meals on some trains. Not rocket science!

Matt Yglesias has talked about these issues a lot and I've come around to his view on it. Not sure we’ll ever have the political power or will to fix rail in this country.

Shame we never kept the investment in our once very robust and pleasant traveler train service. The infrastructure in car & plane travel left rail way behind, except for commuter type travel connecting the major cities in the North East and Mid-Atlantic. The government owning/running Amtrak when they bailed it out is never good.

Plus we have a pretty archaic system of rail road right of ways, who owns what, etc. that makes any improvements/updates a nightmare. I mean we are running off 100-150 year old rights and documents in some cases.

Obviously developing high speed rail is very expensive but should be considered as non-stop service between major cities, connecting those cities to ease air traffic and car traffic. Ideally an alternative high speed rail option from KC to STL, no stop that can get you there in like an hour or 90 mins would be great. KC to Chicago in 4 hours, something that makes it reasonable not to drive, give you somewhat of a time gain. But until that happens throughout the country most train service will be very lacking especially as you get outside of the Eastern Seaboard.

dukuboy1 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 28, 2022 10:36 am Obviously developing high speed rail is very expensive but should be considered as non-stop service between major cities, connecting those cities to ease air traffic and car traffic. Ideally an alternative high speed rail option from KC to STL, no stop that can get you there in like an hour or 90 mins would be great. KC to Chicago in 4 hours, something that makes it reasonable not to drive, give you somewhat of a time gain. But until that happens throughout the country most train service will be very lacking especially as you get outside of the Eastern Seaboard.

I don't know if rail actually makes sense in the United States, sorry to say. When you can get to Chicago in 1.5 hours for a little over $100 how do you justify spending billions on a highspeed train there? The distances are just greater than in Europe to where the cost of travel is more efficient and price leading to move back to rail.

It would make sense if they federalized the tracks and stations and just let the operators run their equipment and service efficiently -- just like we do for aviation and for rail in some countries around the world.

Rail will do fine in some key US markets where there is density and multiple destinations that are too short to efficiently serve with flights -- Florida, Northeast, Chicago, California, PNW, Texas. So why not keep a system that connects them all with one or two trains a day as a safety valve for the rest of the system?

beautyfromashes wrote: ↑Wed Dec 28, 2022 11:08 am I don't know if rail actually makes sense in the United States, sorry to say. When you can get to Chicago in 1.5 hours for a little over $100 how do you justify spending billions on a highspeed train there? The distances are just greater than in Europe to where the cost of travel is more efficient and price leading to move back to rail.

Consider the increased time it would have taken me to get to KCI, plus a cab that would have been 3+ times as expensive as the one I got to the very nearby Union Station. More airport dwell time than the train. Arriving at O'hare and dealing with that as opposed to being dropped in the center city. Even though our destination was not the center city, transit to our final destination was available very nearby. It was the difference between a one seat 40 minute ride on a heavy commuter train and a 1 hour 40 minute bus ride with a transfer, certainly I'd be biting the bullet and paying for an $70 cab in that case. Also we were traveling with a lot of luggage due to taking some gifts to give etc, no paying 30 dollars per bag.

The train ran on time for us. If it runs on-time it is already a better option than driving. If travel speeds could be improved by between 20-50% and free WiFi was on every train car, I would probably opt for the train over flying every time. I think you're right in the sense that Chicago to KC is probably about the limit of distance where rail is attractive to many people when compared to flying. But that just leaves so many corridors in the US where rail could make a ton of sense if we could just get it together to do it right.

DaveKCMO wrote: ↑Wed Dec 28, 2022 11:40 am It would make sense if they federalized the tracks and stations and just let the operators run their equipment and service efficiently

So, go to Union Pacific or KC Southern and tell them you are taking over the tracks they built with no recourse to them?

dukuboy1 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 28, 2022 10:36 am Shame we never kept the investment in our once very robust and pleasant traveler train service. The infrastructure in car & plane travel left rail way behind, except for commuter type travel connecting the major cities in the North East and Mid-Atlantic. The government owning/running Amtrak when they bailed it out is never good.

Privatization hasn't gone well for the UK it seems.

Rail passengers have been delayed or disrupted on more than half of all train services departing from 15 of Great Britain’s busiest stations in the last year, Guardian analysis shows, exposing what has been described as a “broken” railway system that cannot easily be fixed.

Experts said the figures – which show rail services in the north and Midlands as the hardest hit – demonstrated the impact of two decades of privatisation, which had increased costs and public subsidies, combined with labour shortages exacerbated by the pandemic.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... disruption

Government does own the highway and road system though.

Amtrak became necessary when private railroads went bankrupt or struggled to remain financially viable running passenger service. Air and car travel competed with private railroads which had to pay for their own infrastructure. Passenger trains also lost a lot of revenue when the US Postal Service switched to trucks, airplanes, and freight trains. The competing forms of travel were very heavily subsidized by public dollars, and still receive the vast majority of public tax dollars.

The other thing to keep in mind is that the American public was made to lust after automobiles using advertising on billboards, magazines, newspapers, radio and television to such an extent that a family's esteem (mostly men) derived from what car they had. Families devoted often excessive percentages of their income to vehicle ownership.

beautyfromashes wrote: ↑Wed Dec 28, 2022 2:38 pm

DaveKCMO wrote: ↑Wed Dec 28, 2022 11:40 am It would make sense if they federalized the tracks and stations and just let the operators run their equipment and service efficiently

So, go to Union Pacific or KC Southern and tell them you are taking over the tracks they built with no recourse to them?

Keep in mind that the government gave most of the railroads free land, usually in excess of what they needed for track right-of-ways. Extra land was often given to the railroads to sell to pay for track construction.

FangKC wrote: ↑Wed Dec 28, 2022 4:17 pm Keep in mind that the government gave most of the railroads free land, usually in excess of what they needed for track right-of-ways. Extra land was often given to the railroads to sell to pay for track construction.

Yeah, but you can't just go and take it back. That'd be like our city taking back the convention center hotel and making it a public entity just because we gave TIF funds for it's construction.

beautyfromashes wrote: ↑Wed Dec 28, 2022 5:08 pm

FangKC wrote: ↑Wed Dec 28, 2022 4:17 pm Keep in mind that the government gave most of the railroads free land, usually in excess of what they needed for track right-of-ways. Extra land was often given to the railroads to sell to pay for track construction.

Yeah, but you can't just go and take it back. That'd be like our city taking back the convention center hotel and making it a public entity just because we gave TIF funds for it's construction.

I didn't say 'don't compensate them', but the logic is that you treat it like air and highways -- something the government is already doing at great expense, leaving the private sector to focus on service.

DaveKCMO wrote: ↑Wed Dec 28, 2022 5:10 pm I didn't say 'don't compensate them', but the logic is that you treat it like air and highways -- something the government is already doing at great expense, leaving the private sector to focus on service.

It would literally cost trillions! of dollars to buy the track that Amtrak runs on, and I'm not even sure what you'd get from it. I guess you'd have more track priority, but you'd also have the upkeep and maintenance. Plus, if you want highspeed train, you'd have to build new track anyway.

beautyfromashes wrote: ↑Wed Dec 28, 2022 5:08 pm

FangKC wrote: ↑Wed Dec 28, 2022 4:17 pm Keep in mind that the government gave most of the railroads free land, usually in excess of what they needed for track right-of-ways. Extra land was often given to the railroads to sell to pay for track construction.

Yeah, but you can't just go and take it back. That'd be like our city taking back the convention center hotel and making it a public entity just because we gave TIF funds for it's construction.

Oh, yes they can. There is precedent in American history for taking things. Just ask Native Americans who had their ancestral lands taken and had those treaties broken.

Is the convention hotel not publicly owned? The parcel viewer shows the LCRA as owners

TheLastGentleman wrote: ↑Wed Dec 28, 2022 5:31 pm Is the convention hotel not publicly owned? The parcel viewer shows the LCRA as owners

Many of the development programs use a Sale - Leaseback structure to provide the incentive.

I transfer the site to LCRA for the period of the incentive. Then LCRA will transfer it back to me after. LCRA

Nationalizing some railroads and some oil companies would be a good move IMO.

FlippantCitizen wrote: ↑Wed Dec 28, 2022 7:12 pm Nationalizing some railroads and some oil companies would be a good move IMO.

Honestly just the infrastructure would be enough IMO. Treat it all like roads or airports, have private companies operate on public ROW infrastructure. It’s where the gov gets the most bang for their Buck in spending anyways

FangKC wrote: ↑Wed Dec 28, 2022 5:21 pm Oh, yes they can. There is precedent in American history for taking things. Just ask Native Americans who had their ancestral lands taken and had those treaties broken.

Not a very good precedent. Private ownership of property without threat or actuality of government theft of it is the basis of our society.

At one time, it wasn't though. The whole country was built by taking land from people living on it and enslaving, or exploiting other people to build the economy.