Amtrak reform council should be liquidated

[jsanchez]

After reading up on the Amtrak reform council, I realized what a fraud and a sham this is. I believe the main goal of this council was to get rid of Amtrak right from the begining.
I know one of the members, Wendall Cox, is the leading highway lobbyist in the country, he makes his living traveling from city to city, trying to stop lightrail, passenger, and commuter rail projects. He often uses misleading info and tries to twist all his studies to show increased highway spending is a better use of taxpayer dollars. He basically tries to convince folks that railroads, lightrail, rail transit are all outdated and failures and that highways are the only way to go.
This sham needs to be stopped, please write call, e-mail, visit your representives before Amtrak is killed by the highway lobby and the dishonorable Wendall Cox.

America needs trains more than ever,
James Sanchez

[thirdrail1]

Gee, I thought it was John McCain and the airline lobby that wanted to get rid of Amtrak - especially after Sept. 11. There is an article in the morning paper here (Panama City News-Herald) about how the airlines plan to raise rates and make air travel once again the preserve of the rich and priveleged. First, though, they have to get rid of Amtrak.

[BRAKIE]

Gregg: What might really kill Amtrak is the big lie of 1971.That is Amtrak could make money in passenger trains where the railroads failed.As we all know amtrak has been loosing money hand over fist since 1971.As you are aware Amtrak just mortage Penn central station for 3,000,000,dollars,just to stay in operation untill fy 2002.We all know that Amtrak is in serious financial trouble.Yes,Amtrak must be saved as America needs Amtrack.But How?

[jsanchez]

My suggestion is dedicated funding on both the federal and state level, it works for highways, airports, and waterways, why not rail. I believe one of the proposals that John Mc Cain killed was to give Amtrak 1 cent of the federal gas tax per gallon of fuel sold. This would have taken care of all of Amtraks needs and allowed for substantial expansion. I agree if Amtrak would have never been expexted to make a profit in the first place, things might be different now. The federal subsidy for an Amtrak passenger is around $23 per trip, before Sept. 11th the Federal subsidy for airline passenger was $34. I can't imagine what it is now, not even counting the multi-billion dollar bailout that has just been passed.

James

[Anonymous]

Whatever happens to Amtrak, the powers-at-be need to look at what happended here in the UK with the separation of infrastructure from operations.

The company responsible for track and stations etc was called Railtrack. It was supposed to make money on the stock market, so as to encourage invest. Sadly, it put profit for shareholders before investment. And it STILL had to go to the government for money! If the government is going to fund rail programmes, then it may as well own them!

The Train Operating Companies (TOCs) were often owned by bus companies. They, generally, only had limited tenures. Virgin had a longer tenure to run trains; that was because it set-out to run 140 mph trains up the West Coast Main Line.

However, with the collapse of Railtrack, the 140 mph upgrade needed has been put on hold.

America, you have been warned.

JD.

[thirdrail1]

Just as in the US, there is politics involved in the passenger rail business. Railtrack's failure was as much or more due to the socialist-communist attitude of the Labor Minister of Transport as Railtrack's management failures. I will most heartily agree though, that the UK situation should serve as a warning at to why the concept of "unbundling" most emphatically does NOT work in the railroad industry. Amtrak breaks even or possibly makes money on the NEC, which it owns. Its main losses are where it operates over others' track ("unbundled"). My word, the initial concept of the railway in Pennsylvania was as a "toll road" owned by the Commonwealth and open to anyone's trains. This was found unworkable 165 years ago. What makes anyone think it will work better now???

[Anonymous]

Unfortunatly, the government gives more money to the airline industries than Amtrak. Mainly because they know it will give them money back, but in the same sense, if the government increases funds to Amtrak they will defenatly improve. How could they not? The main player in Amtrak's cyrnet finnacial defeat is the media, I mean, when was the last time you heard something positive about Amtrak on the news? About the only time Amtrak is on the news is because of a derailment. And you know they can't wait to interview people who were involved in the incedent. Usually thier fisrt question is "What was it like," thier second? "Will you ever ride Amtrak again?" Nine out of ten of them them will say no, and Amtrak loses business, even though passengers are rarely injured. When an airplane crashes, even though the stories are well covered, and even tough everyone on board usually dies, everyone meaning anywhere from 100 to 400
No one cares and the airline business continues to grow while Amtrak's shrinks. NOW WAIT A MINUTE!!!!! Plane crashes happen more often than Amtrak derailments, kill up to 400 more people, and even after September 11, Amtrak is the one to lose business? It's impossible to explain. It's insane to risk your life to arrive at your destination a few hours earlier by plane, when you can travel by rail and greatly reduce your death risk, unless the traveling matter is urgent. If you really think about it can make you really think why people really fly. I'd never put my life on the line to arrive at my destination at 12:00 rather than 4:30. If Amtrak does eventually fade away, We'll know whos fault it is.

[Anonymous]

I am sick and tired of traveling on the airlines. The airline people are rude, arrogant, and disgusting. They treat passengers like we are their worst enemies. When I mean airline people, I mean ALL of them---reservationists, gate people, ticket counter people, stewardesses( I beg your pardon, flight attendants).

I flew to NJ on business about three months ago. What a terrible trip. Flew from Phoenix to Baltimore. I was cramped in a small seat for almost five hours to the point that my legs and back were in pain. Those lousy flight attendants were rude and horrorable. I got up from my seat to stretch my legs and was told to sit down a couple of times. I tried to explain to this snotty "flight attendant" that my legs hurt from that small seat. She told me to fly first class next time. I asked her if she wanted to pay the additional charges---she really got mad at me. She threatened to tell the captain that I was creating an "air rage" situation and I could be arrested when I arrived in Baltimore. Can you believe it?

When I got to Baltimore, I boarded an Amtrak train to complete my trip to NJ. What a difference! The entire crew on that train was friendly, helpful and exremely pleasant. That two hour trip was very enjoyable. I was free to walk to the lounge car, speak to other passengers. The conductor of the train was very nice. I asked him about his job and he said that he loved it. He said that every day was different and he loved going to work.

The Amfleet equipment was very nice, comfortable and spacious. They are very beautiful trains.

Airlines should look to Amtrak for lessons in making travel pleasant. Amtrak knows what they are doing. I hope they can hang in there! I will never fly the airlines again, unless forced to do so.

Steve Bouchier

[Anonymous]

As a moderate I'm amused that this debate seems to boil down to an "evil,conservative,big business/airline lobby plot" or an "evil,liberal dominated media plot" to destroy Amtrak. I think that many passenger train fans see this as sort of a political Rorshach test,but I digress.
I feel that the future of intercity passenger service in the United States lies in the development of high speed,regional corridors,which have a chance of competing both with regional/commuter air routes and with the interstate highway system. This is particularly crucial in areas such as the Northeast where the existing transportation infrastructure is pushed to capacity. However there is no question that implementing this will require significant investment in public funds at the municipal,state,regional,and yes, the federal level. This is a tough sell,if improperly implemented it can be seen as a "build it,and they will come" boondoggle. The allocation of infrastructure funding in the United States strikes me as one of the most wildly illogical parts of our public policy,coming down in many cases to a dual of competing lobbyists(politically powerful big labor vs. politicaly powerful big business,although that is somewhat oversimplified).
I also agree with the argument that Amtrak was set up to fail,because there was no political will to develop a comprehensive transportation infrastructure plan,and that as a result Amtrak has been the red headed stepchild of American transportation ever since.
These issues faced us before 9/11/01,they are with us now ,and they will be with us in the future.
I would however maintain that attempting to exploit public fear over recent events to promote rail travel is extremely misguided. While it is true that traveling by rail is safer than air travel(I'm aware of the safety and security issues which have long been underaddressed),both of these modes of travel are statistically far less risky than every Americans favorite mode of travel,the Automobile. In the long run convenience and economics(not panic)will ultimately decide the future of rail travel in this country,as they will the future of other modes of transportation. For Amtrak to not just survive but prosper those of us who understand the importance and potential of passenger rail service within the total transportation outlook must sharpen get our message out,not just to our elected officials but to the public and the industries involved.

[RudyRockvilleMD]

This is for Jonathan and Steve the last two respondents to the topic,"The Amtrak Reform Council Should Be Liqiudated." I don't think all passenger trains are doomed as a result of the Amtrak Reform Council's Finding that Amtrak will not become self-sufficient by December 2002. I agree High-speed passenger trains are the long term solution for passenger rail service, however, they have to be run in corridors that make sense. Traveling by high-speed trains can be competitive with flying timewise on a portal-to-portal basis.

Regarding the flight from Phoenix to Baltimore where a rude flight attendant was encountered. If you were told to stay in your seat with your seat belt fastened because the seatbelt sign was illuminated then you really had no complaint; but, if the seatbelt sign was out you were free to move about the cabin. The best thing to do when you are treated rudely is to do what you are told, but get that attendant's name, and write a letter of complaint if you were treated wrong. Even before September 11 most of the airlines'business was suffering so they would pay attention to a complaint.

[Anonymous]

It would work because it is the model for every other transportation system in the US. Airlines pay a 'toll' to use airports and pay through tax on their fuel as well. So, too, trucks pay a wieght mile tax for the priviledge of road use, plus liscencing, plue gas tax on deisel fuel to pay for maintenance. Ships pay to use dock that are publicly funded. This system of government owned and maintained infastructure and private operations on top can and does work, every day. If there is any reason it doesn't it's because politics gets in the way.

As for Amtrak, the main reason freight roads couldn't make money on passenger service was twofold. One, other modes like highways and air, both using government infrastructure, were makin the competitive feild too tight- fly in four hours, or take two days to get from coast to Chigcago, which do you think will win? No contest, rail can't do it, so it became the Greyhound of the rails with Amtrak. (Automat cars, need I say more?)

The second reason passenger rail didn't work was the ICC. Political decisions on who or where gets service, and not profitability, ruled.

Now you might say, if it were all determined by profit only, then passenger rail would've died a long time ago. And you're right. But to say you can't make a profit is not true- even in ICC era 1960s, the Bulrington was profitable on it's passenger trains, but only after the infrastructure costs were removed from the accounting. So it can be done. But whether it will be, given that Congress and government and politica have more to do with all this than common sense railroaders, is very unclear.

[Anonymous]

And one last thing- don't liquidate the ARC. Beleive it or not, they are more likely to save the passenger train than kill it. Just make sure you keep the heat on your congressman to support a system that works, so we don't have to go through this ridiculous affair all over again!

[thirdrail1]

First, you say the Burlington made money on passenger service without infrastructure costs. I don't for a minute doubt it. But, that's like saying "I'd be very rich if I didn't have to pay my mortgage or rent, and the government provided me a free house."

Railroads CANNOT be operated as a toll road, There are a limited number of "paths" available for trains (airlines are somewhat similar in that), but that presupposes that trains operate at a uniform speed, which they do not. Economics dictates that coal trains not be operated at passenger train speeds for example, as the increase in fuel consumption of several orders of magnitude to achieve that cannot be absorbed in the freight rate. Unless the owner of the track is the same as the operator of the trains, the most economical operation gets thrown out the window. Having spent a career in railroad pricing and economics, I am aware that the passenger train, like the ocean liner, died because of the huge capital and human investment required to operate them as opposed to airliners. The "Broadway Limited" for example, required 125 people to handle it from New York to Chicago and took 16 hours. A DC8 (used at the time) required 9 people and made two round trips in the same time! The capital investment was comparable.

Don't get me wrong, I LOVE passenger trains (and ocean liners). They are the only civilized means of transportation. But, I cannot find economic justification for their continued operation outside of certain areas.

[Anonymous]

Okay, let me try this for you.

As far as speed and slots go, it's irrelevent. The idea that, first, coal and unit trains must share the same track as high speed passenger is flawed. How many routes are there, say, between Chicago and LA? Let's say 4 to be conservative. Must each have a high speed passenger route on it? No. If there is a need for four trains they'll all be on the same route, while slow traffic could use alternate routes.

But this also ignores something else: RRs currently do what you say cannot be done. BNSF just ran it's UPS test train at a near record time of about 59 hours. Yet, is there no slow traffic on the BNSF main? No locals, no drag freights? That's what we have sidings for! And anyway, I don't know what others have proposed, but you are right in this- dispatchin and operations would have to be centralized to make it work. Just like air traffic control, really. And also, airline don't operate all at the same speed either. Nor cars, nor trucks.

So I disagree. Railroads CAN BE OPERATED as toll roads. There is no logical reason that they cannot. But if you have another, please give it to me.

As far as the competitive factors that killed rail passenger travel, yes, they are one of the leading causes. And I find it hard to beleive the Empire Builder will ever be a major competition for Seattle-Chicago traffic again. But regulation, too, was a cheif factor in it and other train's demise. The problem is too much politics and too litle business sense.

Now, as far as costs go, and as far as your analogy to the house with no mortgage, I understand your position but am unsure whether I can agree with it. If we were talking about a 'regular' business, like a factory, I'd say, yes, a subsidy would be unfair. (Unfortunately it happens all the time- reduced property taxes as incentives to build, but that's another story.)
But as far as transportation goes, every other mode has it's infrastructure costs subsidized by government money. Operations? No, not usually. But infrastructure capital costs? Freeways, bridges, train stations, ariports, docks, etc.... all public, all government, with few exceptions.

I guess what I'm saying is why should rail be treated the same way as all other modes? I'm not asking that rail receive an 'unfair subsidy' for political or social reasons. But if rail cannot be allowed to have government money for it's infrastructure, then to be intellectually honest, neither should airports, neither should roads.

So I'm suggesting that if ALL MODES ARE TRETED EQUALLY, then Passenger Rail is competitive enough to sruvive and thrive, even in long corridors, but never again as the lead mode.

Finally, I'm not saying I am right and you are wrong and that is an end to it. If you can logically prove your case, I will concede it. And thank you for your arguments- it's refreshing to talk to someone about this who deals in facts and not rhetoric. Too bad Congress can't do the same.

[thirdrail1]

As far as "unbundling" or separating the ownership of the track from the operator of the trains, one has only to look at the UK and the failure of Railtrack. First, the Train Operating Companies (TOC's) were granted so many slots that Railtrack had no time to maintain the track. After several horrendous wrecks, Railtrack was forced to cut down the number of "slots". Since passengers vote and freight does not, EW&S, the freight operator was the one that lost the most slots, plunging it into the red and Railtrack into bankruptcy while the TOC's played at musical franchises. Not my idea of a system to emulate.

Second point, ask any dispatching center about operations over trackage rights on Amtrak or another freight railroad. Ask NS about using Amtrak in the NE Corridor, or BNSF about using UP between Sacramento and Salt Lake City, or for that matter Amtrak over CSXT and NS..... The "tenant" better have loads of patience and planty of extra crews! The vast majority of rail lines in this country (90% +) are single track with passing sidings, even many that used to be double track, so volume is limited. There may to more than one "path" between Chicago and Los Angeles or New York, but that same "path" is the ONLY route between many intermediate cities. Are these cities to be denied freight service so that New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles can have fast trains??

You forget one fundamental, the most basic one of all --- airplanes operate in three dimensions, back-forward, left-right, and up-down, highway vehicles operate in two dimensions, back=forward and left-right, making it possible for vehicles to pass one another without construction of infrastructure limiting where passing can occur, but rail vehicles are single dimsnsional, operating back-forward only, requiring considerable investment in passing tracks and limiting the opportunity to pass one another to those points. Free access to such a system is unworkable or dangerous or both.

[Anonymous]

First, neither I nor the ARC are proposing to unbundle ownership. The tracks taht are there now remain there, in the hands of who owns them, the private RRs. The exception to this is the NEC and other pure Amtrak routes.

As for bootsing freight off passenger routes, Amtrak allready did that in the NEC almost twenty years ago.

However, that is not being rpoposed either. Who says freigth and passenger could not or would not share the same track? They do now, and I beleive they always will, unless we build something so advanced that it becomes impractical, ala TGV.

Anyway, do you really beleive taht little, intermediate points will really be missed in todays world? Increasingly centralized business locales make that logic untenable. No one cars if Muncie Indiana is on a freight route excpet Muncie Indiana. It's a cold, cruel, capitalistic world out threre.

However, I digress. I do agree there is not enough capacity at this time. However, there was much more capacity once, and the ability to build it out is still there. Routes which went from doulbe to single track with CTC iunstallation can always go back. It's an issue of mone yand time not immovable objects.

Host vs Tennant railroad conflicts are historical, but there are alos major excpetions. The joint line in Colorado is one example. The combined joint line from Portland Oregon to Seattle Washington is another example. Dealys will coccur, but this is by no means a fatal flaw.

What you say about three diemnsions of air is true. Ifrastucture for the airplanes themselves need not be built, noly terminals. But what about highways? The auto is still the prime mover of passengers, not air. That's fully one half of the transporattion equation you've left out of your rebuttal.

The fundemental argument of the ARC is that building a better infrastructure allows trains, all trains, to run faster and more efficiently, and creates an environment in which sustainabaility and even profit will some day be possible. Whatever successor to Amtrak emerges will only have to worry about running the trains well.

Most of your arguments, in summary, are regarding open access, and not Amtrak, though many corss over. If that proposal, (Open Access) were the one on the table, I agree, we could be in for major trouble. But we are only discussing that issue in regards to Amtrak owned property, a minorit of the routes served. A more accurate picture would be that the ARC is proposing spending government money to build up private railroads in exchange for passenger access.

But others put it better than I can. Read the article Bill Stephens posted on the newswire, titled "Barges, off all things, hold passenger rail solution." This is perhaps the clearest picture of the AARC point of view.

[thirdrail1]

1. You missed what I said about the highways. Highway vehicles operate in two dimensions (that is they can pass each other almost at will) while rail vehicles operate in one dimension only.

2. I believe General Motors would not be happy to lose its plant in Muncie, nor would the Ball Corp. The major industries of this country are NOT in the biggest cities, just the most self-promoting industries. I was actually thinking of cities like Pittsburgh, Buffalo, and Cleveland, not Muncie.

3. The purpose of the majority on the ARC was not to build a better transportation system, but as envisioned by several devotees of John McCain, to destroy rail passenger transportation outside of commuter operations to give their favorite airlines an opportunity to lose even more money.

4. Bill Stephens article on barges is excellent, but misses the point in that barges still receive huge subsidies. We have a river here where I live, the Apalachicola, that is being destroyed by the Corps of Engineers to permit barges to reach Bainbridge and Columbus, GA, at a subsidy of over $20,000.00 per bargeload!!!

5, Enough - we are not going to convince the other.

[Anonymous]

James

Welcome to the realization that our Government LIES. It's the whole "second agenda" thing in living color, and you don't have to tune in "The x-files" to see it in action. It's everywhere!!

Whether you are speaking of the "progenitor" of injustice then called "Manifest Destiny", or the current buzz word of "The Greater Common Good", or the evolving term of "Globalization" they are all just wimpy Ivy league "PC" terms to cover for the fact that someone is going to get screwed, in the "bigger picture" With said picture painted so as to enlist popular support of people too lazy to peer under the surface of the spin piped into their livingrooms on the 10 o'clock news.

As a short side note, remember when the economy was booming, and the "buzz" was that we must open our borders to starving latino's shackled to poverty, and let them undermine the wage rates here in their queest for survival? And if you did not agree, you were deemed a racist? You think they are starving any less today? You think WTC is the only reason why no one cares anymore? Bahhh!! The real deal was that the economy was booming, like it had not in 30 years, and the laws of supply and demand were about to swoop to the favor of the wage earner, and permit a lot of lost ground to finally be made up, at the level of the middleclass wage earner, unless something drastic (like plundering the labor market with cheap labor) was done. There is your second agenda, complete with a "PC" coverstory of "If you don't endorse this concept, you are "the ugly 'R' word", plain and simple.


Along these lines, I think the contributing editor to trains magazine has hit it square on the head with his assertion that the way Amtrack was created and conditioned, it was intended as a path to an end to "unburden" the freight railroads with the passenger services no one was supporting with fares, but which also at the time was seen somewhat of a "public utility" to the extent outright elimination or passenger rail would have resulted in an uproar. So, AMTRACK was (IMHO) a burning fuse, or a stall tactic, to get the focus of blame off the otherwise viable railroads.

Also (IMHO) I think that with the events of 9/11, Amtrak's future is assured, since however dishonest our elected officials might be in promoting "trojan horse" politics, they are smart enough to realize that you can't hijack a train and crash it into the landmark property of your choice, so it makes a safer alternative to air travel during uncertain times, both from a riders perspective, as well as from a national administrators point of view.


Am I saying Bin Laden Inadvertantly saved Amtrak, well,...though I'm no fan of Bin Laden,.. yes That's what I'm saying.

[Anonymous]

Well, Greg, I agree- we'll never convince the other, so I won't argue any further. Still, it was a fun argument, which is rare for me.

Only one last thing. I am NOT A MCCAIN SUPPORTER. I know you didn't say I was, I'm just goping on the record. I think he's wrong. However, I thought that you might have been, considering your arguments about trains not wroking outside of selected corridors.

I guess I'm just guilty of mostalgia in wishing for days when passenger trains were run by private companies at a profit. It did happen once, but you may be right, I concede this, that it may never happen again.

Only don't blame me if I don't give up hope.

Sincerest wishes for your Holidays and the New Year,

Alexander Craghead

[Anonymous]

You have it sooo right. So many of the politians at the time thought they could use the liquidation of Amtrak as a way to show they could save the taxpayers some money. Suprise, more goes into every other form of moving people than Amtrak. Yes, there are self appointed people out there who claim to be experts and will use any figure to 'prove' that rail travel is obsolete.
Now we have seen that rail passenger service is needed both nationally and locally in America.

You're right, liquidate the Reform Council, they're not making a profit for America, only themselves.

[Anonymous]

I agree Kelly Potts

[Anonymous]

wendall cox sounds like ww2's top general he hated railroads. after the war he said to the railroads you done a good job i got a gift for you .the interstate highway system.

[Anonymous]

These days just about everybody thinks that passenger train travel is a dying part of our transportation system, but what they don't realize is there will always be that uncertainty, when they get on that plane, that there will be some disgruntled Arab or other foreigner that could blow them all to kingdom come. As far as Amtrak is concerned, their best move would be to become independent from the government, so that they won't end up like Conrail. But, for the first few years of high speed rail, there should be government support. Once off the ground, the high speed rail system should be self sufficient. It would be capable of providing fairly competitive service w/air. The last time I flew, the plane had a flat tire on the landing gear, making me an hour and a half late to Atlanta. That made me get disgusted because I could have been in bed in Louisville, KY, but I was stuck in Atlanta until the wee hours of the next morning. By the way, maybe we should just put those senators on a train and then put them on a plane and ask them to compare body space, comfort, and reliability. The last time I checked, trains weren't able to have flat tire. Trains are the backbone of America's transportation systems. If it weren't for freight or passenger trains, America would be in a world of hurt. Sooner or later, hopefully not too late, people will remember the pleasures of train travel that their parents and grandparents talked about at one time or another.
Maxwell