NARP release on Bush attack on Amtrak

[Anonymous]

Here is NARP's take on the insanity of the Bush Administation. It breaks some of the myths associated with the "money-losing trains."

Interesting, Bush says eliminating Amtrak will lead to a "big bang" in developing rail corridors. Huh? How would that happen without federal money, like the fed funds that are used to build highways and airports.

NARP says a balanced approach is needed. Like short highways connect with the Interstates, the LD trains help the corridors and vice-versa.
--

National Association of Railroad Passengers
900 2nd St., N.E., Suite 308, Washington, DC 20002-3557

2006 DOT BUDGET WILL ELIMINATE ALL INTERCITY PASSENGER RAIL SERVICE

For Immediate Release
Monday, February 7, 2005 - #05-02
Contacts: Ross Capon, David Johnson

The Administration's Fiscal 2006 Department of Transportation budget
proposal eliminates all funding for Amtrak. The National Association of
Railroad Passengers condemns this proposal as radical and irresponsible.

It would end virtually all intercity rail passenger service in the
nation, including through service on the Northeast Corridor between
Boston, New York and Washington, D.C. This places the burden of funding
intercity passenger rail entirely on states that do not have the
financial resources to assume such an unfunded mandate.

States with limited resources would place first priority on saving the
commuter operations within their borders. The $360 million the
Administration proposes to make available directly to states may not be
sufficient to maintain even these operations much less through trains
that cross state lines. Past experience demonstrates that any
expectation of the states cooperating to fund such service is
unwarranted and unrealistic.

Administration claims that an Amtrak bankruptcy would eliminate
"inefficient operations" and lead to the emergence of a "more
rational"
passenger rail system that served routes where there is "real ridership
demand" and "support from local governments--such as the Northeast
Corridor" are false.

Clearly they are targeting Amtrak's long distance services and
misrepresenting crucial facts.

*Far from lacking demand, the long distance routes handle more
travel volume each year than the Northeast Corridor (NEC) -- nearly 30%
more than the conventional trains and five time more than Acela Express
and Metroliner.

*Far from being inefficient, the long distance network costs
less per passenger mile to operate than either of the NEC services. It
is a common misconception that the long distance trains are "money
losers" while the NEC trains are "profitable." None of them is,
including the new high speed Acela Express.

*The amount of operating support needed to operate the long
distance network is not significantly greater than it is for the NEC.

The Bush Administration misleads the public when it states that a
"restructuring" based on zero federal support "should lead to
the
development of short-corridor routes between major population centers."
On the contrary, the existing system has provided the framework and
infrastructure for the significant corridor development we have seen on
the West Coast, the Midwest, and in upstate New York.

Eliminating Amtrak would put in jeopardy many of the improvements we are
seeing, and would preclude the possibility of improvements elsewhere.
It completely disregards the nation's growing need for the rail travel
alternative.

NARP is a non-partisan organization funded by dues and contributions
from approximately 16,000 individual members. We have worked since 1967
to support improvement and expansion of passenger rail, particularly
intercity passenger rail.

[Anonymous]

My Question is?
What will "REALY" happen if there where "NO MORE" Amtrak in this country?

[greyhounds]

QUOTE: Originally posted by BNSF railfan.

My Question is?
What will "REALY" happen if there where "NO MORE" Amtrak in this country?

In most areas of the country, the elimination of Amtrak wouldn't mean a thing. If its trains were worth their keep, then the people using the trains would pay for their use.

In some parts of the country, such as the northeast, "external" cost and benifits present themselves. These externalities, wich include such things as reduced highway congestion, may justify government payments from general tax revenues in certain locations. These benifits, if they are indeed real, are local in nature and, as such, should not be financed by the national government.

These externalities are virtually non-existant on the long distance trains and I have seen no, none, zero, nada, justification as to why the users of these long distance trains, the passengers, shouldn't have to pay the full costs of their operation.

NARP is just another special interest group trying for some pork. Like Lucifer, they can cite chapter and verse to justify their treachery and averese.

[Anonymous]

overall, there will be not much affect if we lose Amtrak, but for someone who hates to fly, then you have a problem, then would now have to take Greyhound, and I wouldn't wi***hat on my worst enemy. If there was a way to reduce costs on Amtrak, but keeping the same amount of trains, that would be good. They don't need to have a coach attended for every car or sleeper, and they could get by with only one conductor, they don't need an assistant. Plus, they don't need to have so many waiters in the Diner. I am sure that there are other ways to cut costs as well, they don't need more than two station attendents in small stations for example, one to loan the baggage, and one to write tickets.
Brad

[Anonymous]

If NARP is truly concerned about rail passenger service in general and not just a pro-Amtrak group, they would do well to press for a continuation of the right of access over the Class I railroads for alternative rail passenger service providers should Amtrak's operating subsidies be eliminated. I have a feeling they look at this situation in black and white, e.g. either keep Amtrak operations, or all is lost. There are private and other public entities which could offer some degree of rail passenger services if only the right of access were meted out.

Case in point is the Montana Rockies tour, which had to cancel its 2005 season due to not being able to access the Spokane WA market. If MR could get access over BNSF between Sandpoint ID and Spokane, they could expand their customer base enough to support this private rail passenger operation. It is not inconceivable that there are other such markets for private rail passenger operations who only need an Amtrakesque right of access.

[conrailman]

What do mean we need less people working on Amtrak. They always need 1 person in each sleeping car to do all that work and on most Amtrak trains they is only 2 waiters in the diner Now,I don't want to wait all night in the diner for my Supper with only one person working the diner.[2c]

[DSchmitt]

I would not believe the NARP if they told me the absolute truth [:o)] I believe their overall agenda is not good for America. They claim to represent a large number of people, but the majority are member because of the benefits they provide and pay little attention to their positions on issues.

[Modelcar]

...If the money from our government stops to Amtrak....I want it all to shut down and let those {in the administration}, involved to be the ones to fight the problems....I hope D. Gunn pulls the plug the very day the money stops...

[DSchmitt]

How about shutting down Amtrak and putting the money into a national bus system (or subsidize Greyhound). Heck, the only "train" service to my town now is the AMTRAK bus, even though there are two railroad main lines. One line even has a passenger train, but it doesn't stop.

They could buy more luxurious buses, run them on more frequent schedules at higher over all speeds than the train, and go to places the trains can't go. This would provide better service to more people for less money.

[Anonymous]

To most of you I looks like it just might happen.
I think that we have just seen the last gasp of Amtrak.
Amtrak will be no more.
The people who rely on Amtrak are in serious trouble now more than ever.
We have seen the final erea of Amtrak,It is very QUICKLY approaching!
Once the money STOPS!
Well you all know what comes next.

[dldance]

the NARP release is long on rhetoric and short on facts - if long-distance Amtrak is really revenue positive and the NEC is revenue negative - I for one would like to see those numbers.

dd

[Anonymous]

Contact Washington now to let them know how you feel. I really wonder how strongly the freight carriers are lobbying to Congress to get Amtk off their rails? Roads like UP have gone on record saying so and we all know what they have done to the Sunset Limited.

[Anonymous]

Sammy: I completely disagree that the freight carriers want to get rid of Amtrak. They have not said so that I have ever read. They have only said they want Amtrak to pay its own way, and every time Amtrak has had the money to do that -- like in the corridors in California, Washington, Oregon, Illinois, etc., the freight railroads have welcomed Amtrak with open arms. I don't think the UP has much choice on the Sunset Limited, unless they just want to quit running their own trains. There isn't enough track for the traffic, and the traffic isn't paying enough for UP to add more track. UP is between a rock and a hard place.

All of the Class Is would like Amtrak to start paying its way. If it paid its way, they'd be fine with it -- why not? It's not a moral libertarian thing or a macho thing, it's a money thing. They're tired of subsidizing Amtrak. Amtrak is paying on a incremental cost basis, not a fully allocated basis. If I have a railroad that can handle 40 trains a day, and the traffic will only fill 20 freights, adding a couple of Amtraks on an incremental cost basis is a wash -- it helps my cash flow and gives me a little more revenue. But when the traffic available would fill 46 trains a day, and I'm giving away two of my 40 slots to Amtrak for pennies on the dollar, I understandably get kind of unhappy and I see this as a big fat subsidy to Amtrak. Amtrak's continued presence on a incremental-cost basis on any congested route is grinding down the freight railroads and costing them a lot of money they could use to buy more track, more equipment, and more employees. Eventually Amtrak is going to be squeezed off these routes just because it won't be able to tolerate the delays. The STB is not going to force the UP, CSX, or anyone else to part the waters just to move Amtrak. It's unreasonable, and illegal. Amtrak will either have to move at 20-40 mph like everyone else, pay for more capacity, or get off the track.

OS

[Anonymous]

The Europeans have seen the need to upgrade their railroads into HSR. As long as Amtrak remains in its status quo, without any insight towards the future, Amtrak will not survive......

Its time to sell the nation and move on to something better, HSR..... A line between New York City and Chicago, plus an extension of the NEC southwards is warranted and would probably turn a profit..... not to mention a line in California between the Bay Area and LA.....

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by donclark

The Europeans have seen the need to upgrade their railroads into HSR. As long as Amtrak remains in its status quo, without any insight towards the future, Amtrak will not survive......

Its time to sell the nation and move on to something better, HSR..... A line between New York City and Chicago, plus an extension of the NEC southwards is warranted and would probably turn a profit..... not to mention a line in California between the Bay Area and LA.....

Just HOW is Amtrak supposed to do that when it has its hands tied every year?
I don't mean to picky here, but give an organization crumbs and expect a luxury meal?

Amtrak has been right to stay away from HSR. Imagine the howls and cries from
the nagging critics when they see the price tage - $ BILLIONS.

Thnk about it - Amtrak can't get barely enough money to run the trains it has without constant whines, screams and nagging from people who can't think outside of the box. The jet-set crowd only cares about one thing- themselves and no one else. They grab all the subsidies for THEIR travel while telling others they're on their own.

The problem is Congress and the White House. The infrastructural investments come first (fed funds to build the Interstates, airports, air traffic control systems, etc.) then comes the increases in ridership. It's never worked the other way around.

Keep Amtrak hamstrung by ORDERING THEM to only one one train a day (in each direction) to most U.S. cities (Denver, Minneapolis, Atlanta, Dallas, Memphis, Indianapolis, Salt Lake City, etc) and don't be surprised if ridership doesn't increase.

Amtrak wants to expand but good old Norman Mineta and Bush ordered it to stop any expansion. Makes sense, right?

The NEC doesn't make any money, thanks to high infrastructural repair charges which from what I've read run into the billions.

Corridors aren't cheap. They're also lightly patronized relative to the investment.

The DENVER POST shortsightedly opined that investment in a Denver to Pueblo route would make more sense than running the California Zephyr. NARP agreed that trains are needed on that route but pointed out that the cost to upgrade the tracks to run trains tehre would easily exceed $300 million. That's more than what it costs to run the 18 LDs yearly.

Those LD trains aren't expensive. They're efficient, generate higher passenger loads, pricier tickets and longer trips.

Regarding NARP, I trust their figures more than Bush's. NARP - which was around when the freight RRs wanted to get out of passenger service - is the experts on this subject, much moreso than the think-tanks that only want to dismantle Amtrak.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by O.S.

Sammy: I completely disagree that the freight carriers want to get rid of Amtrak. They have not said so that I have ever read. They have only said they want Amtrak to pay its own way, and every time Amtrak has had the money to do that -- like in the corridors in California, Washington, Oregon, Illinois, etc., the freight railroads have welcomed Amtrak with open arms. I don't think the UP has much choice on the Sunset Limited, unless they just want to quit running their own trains. There isn't enough track for the traffic, and the traffic isn't paying enough for UP to add more track. UP is between a rock and a hard place.

All of the Class Is would like Amtrak to start paying its way. If it paid its way, they'd be fine with it -- why not? It's not a moral libertarian thing or a macho thing, it's a money thing. They're tired of subsidizing Amtrak. Amtrak is paying on a incremental cost basis, not a fully allocated basis. If I have a railroad that can handle 40 trains a day, and the traffic will only fill 20 freights, adding a couple of Amtraks on an incremental cost basis is a wash -- it helps my cash flow and gives me a little more revenue. But when the traffic available would fill 46 trains a day, and I'm giving away two of my 40 slots to Amtrak for pennies on the dollar, I understandably get kind of unhappy and I see this as a big fat subsidy to Amtrak. Amtrak's continued presence on a incremental-cost basis on any congested route is grinding down the freight railroads and costing them a lot of money they could use to buy more track, more equipment, and more employees. Eventually Amtrak is going to be squeezed off these routes just because it won't be able to tolerate the delays. The STB is not going to force the UP, CSX, or anyone else to part the waters just to move Amtrak. It's unreasonable, and illegal. Amtrak will either have to move at 20-40 mph like everyone else, pay for more capacity, or get off the track.

OS

OS,

You must remember though that when Amtrak first came on the scene, there was a lot of rail capacity available, and charging Amtrak on an incremental cost basis made sense. As for today's situation, there are two things to consider:

1. Is it feasable to suggest that Amtrak's right of access is "Grandfathered in" on lines that now are experiencing capacity problems? Wasn't that part of the deal when rail passenger operations were taken off the hands of the Class I carriers?
2. In many places there are still alternative lines available that have unused capacity, and it wouldn't be too much of a long shot to suggest moving LD Amtrak (or the subsequent right of access for an alternative rail passenger operation) off the heavily used lines and onto the less used lines, even if it means slower speeds and longer schedules.

The key factor in all this is the question of maintaining the right of access to the Class I properties for any rail passenger operation that shows up, be it a private operation, public/private, or public operation. If elimination of the Amtrak subsidy means a loss of this right of access, it will spell doom for any other possible rail passenger operations to take Amtrak's place.

It is imperative that rail passenger advocates lobby for a continuation of the right of access for rail passenger operations to utilize Class I tracks. They need to stop feeling sorry for themselves over Amtrak's presumed demise and start fighting for the alternatives.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: [i]
Those LD trains aren't expensive. They're efficient, generate higher passenger loads, pricier tickets and longer trips.

Regarding NARP, I trust their figures more than Bush's. NARP - which was around when the freight RRs wanted to get out of passenger service - is the experts on this subject, much moreso than the think-tanks that only want to dismantle Amtrak.

You hit the nail on the head regarding LD trains. They are basically tourist trains, and as such have the ability to charge a premium that not only should cover incremental costs, but possibly the fully allocated costs. Of course, from a privatized perspective, you are going to want to only access those corridors which have the excess capacity so that only incremental costs are charged.

It is interesting that in all this hype about Amtrak, people tend to forget that private tour trains have run over some lines when allowed, and have done so without subsidies. If it is possible to do that, why not rather expand on this privatized sector of rail passenger operations and give them the rights of access to the Class I corridors currently used by Amtrak so that they can access the larger markets and really make a go of it?

[Anonymous]

The first post of mine you respond to, FM, and in your first three words you manage to presume to know what I've learned and what I've forgotten. I got to hand it to you.

Is it feasible to suggest that Amtrak's incremental-cost trackage-rights is grandfathered? Sure. Suggestion is free. Will it matter? Not a hill of beans. The Amtrak legislation won't hold the freight railroads' feet to the fire on how expeditiously Amtrak is handled. The law never did, it was never meant to, and it never will. Everyone involved in this back in 1970 knew that this problem lurked in the future. But there was nothing anyone could do about it in 1970, either, not without declaring a dictatorship. Congress and the Nixon Administration were not going to pay a full-allocation trackage rights deal for Amtrak, the ICC couldn't break the law to allow train-offs where there really was a public need, and the freight railroads had to get out of the passenger business or cease business. It was this deal, or no deal, and no deal was worse by far.

2. Just what alternative lines are you imagining that Amtrak will use? What alternative do you propose to the Sunset between El Paso and Los Angeles? Or the Santa Fe between Dalies and Los Angeles? Or the CB&Q between Chicago and Lincoln? Or the IC between Chicago and New Orleans? And where were you planning to get the money for the additional trainsets, at $20-30 million a pop for long-distance trains, to make up the slower cycle times and still have the same number of departures?

OS

[conrailman]

Amtrak need 30 Billions Dollars to get the Northeast Corridor into A shape, and Amtrak Need alot of New Car 500 to 900 New Cars. Amtrak Need 350 New Cars for Northeast Corridor, New Diners and Dorms for the Eastern Trains, also need Coaches for Eastern trains, and about 500 New Superliners cars. Superliners 1 are 26 years old built in 1979 and the Superliners 2 are Built in 1995-1996. Put the 2 on standby in Case the Train are 12 to 50 Hours late like the Sunset this past Summer. Put 2 sets each in Seattle, Oakland, La, Chicago, Superliners 2 on Standby. That my Amtrak Plan.[8D][:)]

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by O.S.

The first post of mine you respond to, FM, and in your first three words you manage to presume to know what I've learned and what I've forgotten. I got to hand it to you.

Is it feasible to suggest that Amtrak's incremental-cost trackage-rights is grandfathered? Sure. Suggestion is free. Will it matter? Not a hill of beans. The Amtrak legislation won't hold the freight railroads' feet to the fire on how expeditiously Amtrak is handled. The law never did, it was never meant to, and it never will. Everyone involved in this back in 1970 knew that this problem lurked in the future. But there was nothing anyone could do about it in 1970, either, not without declaring a dictatorship. Congress and the Nixon Administration were not going to pay a full-allocation trackage rights deal for Amtrak, the ICC couldn't break the law to allow train-offs where there really was a public need, and the freight railroads had to get out of the passenger business or cease business. It was this deal, or no deal, and no deal was worse by far.

2. Just what alternative lines are you imagining that Amtrak will use? What alternative do you propose to the Sunset between El Paso and Los Angeles? Or the Santa Fe between Dalies and Los Angeles? Or the CB&Q between Chicago and Lincoln? Or the IC between Chicago and New Orleans? And where were you planning to get the money for the additional trainsets, at $20-30 million a pop for long-distance trains, to make up the slower cycle times and still have the same number of departures?

OS

The trainsets would be purchased or leased by those entities willing to provide the service, be it private or public (e.g. regional or local authority). Granted, not all current Amtrak routes would be retained by a private or public operation, due no doubt to capacity concerns. An example of a passenger rail reroute would be taking the Empire Builder or its subsequent replacement off the BNSF High Line and reroute it onto the MRL/ex-NP corridor. Then the only stretches where the operation would need to access a highly used line would be between Spokane and Sandpoint ID. The reroute would be taken off the BNSF line between Spokane and Pasco and put on the UP line between the two cities, since the UP line still has excess capacity. Then the train would be rerouted onto the ex-NP Stampede Pass line for the same reasons.

It would be logical for such operations to take over routes that are still accessable via excess capacity, and have the entity take out an insurance policy to be paid to the ROW owner should capacity suddenly become constrained.