Reader comments
A new train of thought

Great ideas. We need a rail renaissance. I was thinking this while driving from Salt Lake to Ogden yesterday afternoon. What horrible drive that was, bumper-to-bumper, road construction everywhere, and then I drove by Ogden's train station... their downtown looks nice.

Fifty years ago, America had the best passenger rail service in the world. Today we're down around the level of Albania, lagging far behind most of Europe and Japan. This is something we can, and should, do.

Yes Yes Yes! Why don't more of our politicians understand that a major part the solution to our problems with energy independence and degraded environment lies in railroading? That freight railroads have come back largely as a private venture is evidence of railroading's viability. Let's quit starving transit systems and Amtrak. The time is long past to act!

Me too, Me too, Me too!!! I'm all in favor of a railroad renaissance. It's one mode of transportation that seriously makes sense. We took a scenic train ride in Alaska and it was AMAZING. (Not simply the scenery, but the dining, gift shop and entertaining conductor, too) Just wish the rest of the country had something similar.

Passenger rail works in Europe because the place is so small, so it makes more sense to take the train than to fly.

The US is more spread out. Some of our counties are the size of European COUNTRIES!

Two friends and I recently drove from SLC to Grand Junction, then took the train back. The trip down cost about $75 (gas and lunches) and took 5 hours.

The trip back cost us $128 for train fare, $30 in the dining car, and took 7 hours. The train arrived after 11:00 PM, and the cab the rest of the way home was $30. Total cost was OVER TWICE as much, and it took half again as long as the trip there.

To be fair, if I had been traveling alone, the costs would have been about the same, and it's a nice, scenic trip. But traveling with a family, or going a longer distance, and the scales tip way over in favor of the car.

Well, "won't work" I think it depends what parts of the country you're talking about. For purely transportation purposes (not touring) the current Salt Lake - Denver route is a non-stater, too slow and too unreliable. But in the midwest, Texas, east coast, Amtrak makes a lot of sense, and would make even more sense with more capital investment in rail corridors - that's what these editorial writers are getting at.

It's a fact that steel on steel moves stuff more fuel efficiently than rubber on asphalt. The only reason the trucking industry is so big is the government subsidizes highways, but not rails. If we raised the tax on diesel to pay the true cost of the roads, railroads would make sense without any subsidies.

Only "Won't work" gets it right.

This is a different century from that which brought succcess to privately built trains. Some of my great-granduncles and a great-grandfather built some of Utah's fine rail and trolley lines...over a century ago!

Shipping efficiency for trains is diametrically opposite to that of passenger trains.

UTA is using locomotives that, if the transmissions and engine controls were changed, would do a great job of pulling trains carrying 4,000 tons of freight between far-flung stations. But, UTA has them hopped up and geared up and is using them to pull trains carrying only a few dozen tons--on average--of people, in a jack rabbit stop and go process to stations only a few miles apart. 3,600 hp locomotives are great for freight and foolish for passengers.

The frontrunner is supposed to reduce congestion at a few pinch points located near the points of the mountains North and South of the Salt Lake valley. But these train extend 25 to 40 miles beyond these points of maximum utility. This is like designing a claw hammer 6-foot wide to pull a few 16-penny nails.

"Passenger trains", like typewriters & adding-machines, are museum antiques. Come back to 21st-century.

This was one of the better, intelligent contributions I have seen made to the opinion page in a while.

The idea is terrific, and makes sense and saves cents.

All the more reason it will take a lot of support to catch on, I'm afraid.

Mr Packard makes some valid points regarding Frontrunner's diesel electric technology, but such actually lend credence to the editorial writers. Ideally, Frontrunner should have been straight electric, like Amtrak Acela or Bamberger. Straight electric Bamberger covered the 37 miles between SLC and Ogden in one hour 20 minutes with up to 16 scheduled stops plus flag stops! But we aren't prepared yet to pay for straight electric commuter trains, so we got the diesels instead. The has come to adequately fund rail options, getting the right equipment for the job. I believe in private markets but clearly government has to be part of the rail capital movement, as the editorial writers advocate.

Here's abetter Idea:

How about stop looking backwards and start looking forwards.

There are modes of travel we have not even contemplated or imagined yet.

I believe, as a conservative, that the deterioration of our railroads is a failure to be laid at the feet of private enterprise. When oil was cheap and seemingly of infinite supply and flying was glamorous and trucking convenient, we abandoned our rail system. Now reality is returned and trucks and planes no longer seem to be a replacement for old fashioned rail. If we as a nation had put as much money into upgrading our rail systems as we have into maintaining Air Traffic Control, airports, freeways to and from airports, highways strong enough for heavy trucks and other infrastructure, I wonder what rail would be like today? And you can't blame the rail failure on government. Short sighted free-enterprisers who bitterly fought government supported rail have brought us to this pass.

Mr. Jeppson, you missed some points.

FontRunner is a terribly inefficient/expensive tool to correct congestion at pinch points near salt lake because it extends so far beyond and costs just as much to operate far beyond SLC as near.

UTA is misleading you again about FR-ridership. They are "building ridership", The-New-Fashioned-Way, by giving it away with heavily subsidized/free pass programs. The Leg audit last January condemned this as violating UTA's principle mandate from the legislature when set up.

$3/4-billion FR is a terribly expensive way to reduce congestion in/near SL-County. The FEIS noted it would only impact regional trips by 0.6% in 2030; this is analysis of "NET" impact, measured in linked trips, nearly-comparable to car trips. But, UTA misleads the public by reporting gross ridership in unlinked trips which inflates the impression of actual transportation utility. The Leg. Audit condemned this UTA practice of reporting ridership in unlinked trips, too.

Dr. Michael Ransom, the Chairman of the Economics Department at BYU, has calculated the average cost per new rider is about $13,000 per year. You can multiply out the 30-year cost of such a costly train for yourself to see the long-term taxpayer cost per person.

The history of transportation and technology and economics offer many examples of projects being overturned or killed by sudden changes in conditions.

The run-up in diesel cost means Frontrunner will burn perhaps a billion dollars in fuel in its lifetime. Right now, the intelligent observer will note this is a foolish enterprise to continue, unless it is immediately converted to electric catenary at an added half billion dollar, or more, cost.

UTA should make it plain now, that they have the professionalism to accurately analyze and anticipate cost trends in this project by admitting that everything has been changed about the FrontRunner project by the ongoing and likely accellerating fuel price surge.

They won't, because UTA is directed by masterful spin-artists who practice the old military-industrial game of, "Build it broke..and bill the government for more" mentality. The well intentioned citizen-Board Members who are immersed in transit industry groupthink, cannot get control of this beast.

F.R. will go onward, wasting billions, even though it shouldn't.