Amtrak Shutdown Will It Happen?

[Anonymous]

Jason, I don't think so, in fact I think a lot more needs to be spent to give the U.S. a REAL passenger rail system.

[Anonymous]

The problem with the UK rail network was (and is) that there were too many companies formed. Railtrack was responsible for maintainence, but had no maintainence department. Hence, it had to contract out for work, with the result that it was overcharged and had variable quality.

Also,it was assumed that Railtrack could make money through the stockmarket and other investors. This, obviously, did not happen. The Government has had to step in and bail them out.

The number of Train Operating Comapnies is something like 25. This is far too many. There are suggestions that the certain stations in London will have one train company only usingthem. So capacity is increased by reducing conflicting opertating schedules.

The government has also given funding to some Regional operators to ensure services that are for the benefit of rural communities continue.

In all, had British Rail been given half the money that has been wasted over the passed few years, then things might have been different. BR wanted to do some upgrades to the West Coast mainLine at a cost of around $3-4 billion. The cost now is over $10 billion and it is still not completed.

Consider this thought: there are 365.25 days in the year. At a minimum it would cost $1 million a day to run a rail network. $365 million a year. Of course, this would probably mean the number of services were reduced to a very limited number, and only the minimal renewal. As to allow for crashes, lind damage through floods etc, more would be needed. Therefore, to ensure investment and improvement, you are talking 3-4 times this amount at least.

Is $1.2 billion per year too much to ask for a national rail system?

Jason.

[Anonymous]

Well put Paul, the one sided transportation policy that this country followed for the 50 years needs to be corrected.

[Anonymous]

Amtrak simply needs to hire Roger Snoble away from Los Angeles....You would think GW Bush, a former resident of Dallas would think of it!

[Anonymous]

Paul,

I don't agree that the gas tax is only a feel good measure. It is a real tax. And it really pays to build the roads. How do I know? Whenever fuel sales drop off, road construction projects are delayed or cancelled. The auto and truck drivers are paying for road construction. Now if you want to debate whether the trucks pay their fair share, then you have something to talk about. But it is not accurate to say the fuel taxes are not paying for the construction of the nation's highways.

In my opinion, Amtrak is not essential to the country outside of the NEC. Also, the NEC states have the means to operate that portion of Amtrak without the rest of the nation pitching in. I think it would be best for everyone to allow Amtrak to sink or swim. I predict the outcome would be that Amtrak would stop running in the rest of the country and the NEC states would subsidize the NEC. That would be a reasonable outcome given the apparent situation Amtrak and the nation are in today.

If you want the level of passenger rail service they have in Europe and Japan, raise the fuel tax so fuel costs $4 a gallon and tear up the interstates and primary highways in the country. That would probably get you what you want. It would also get a lot of people to move back into our decaying downtown areas, but I digress . . .

Just because the government gives one industry, the airlines, a subsidy doesn't make it right for them to give another industry one, Amtrak, as well. I think the government should stop giving the airlines a subsidy as well. Aren't these publicly held companies? If that is the way it works, I want the government to start subsidizing NS and Microsoft because I have stock in those companies. - Ed

[Anonymous]

The government will eventually have to retake control of Amtrak, regardless, just saw on CNN where private companies have returned brit rail to gov.

[Anonymous]

The first thing everybody in this nation, including our leaders in government, needs to understand (just as every other industrialized nation in the world has with regards to public transportation in general, and passenger train service in particular) is that there is no more of a chance for Amtrak to survive without government funded subsidies then there would be for the airline industry to do likewise.

Picture in your mind what an airline ticket would cost if Delta or USAir had to build their own terminals and pave their own runways. Or for that matter... what if the trucking industry had to provide for their own highway system...

These are precisely the costs ALL railroads have had to face ever since the end of the Second World War. If a railroad needs to lay new rail, or build a new rail terminal, or upgrade existing facilities, those monies have to come from their own pockets. Airlines depend on government provided air traffic systems and controlers in order to keep things flying smoothly. Railroads have to provide their own systems and dispatchers to perform the same functions. And when was the last time a major trucking concern ever offered to foot the bill for a new highway corridor. Don't hold your breath, because that will NEVER happen!
Oh sure, every now and then a "transportation bond" comes up for a vote here or there. But realistically speaking, just exactly what percentage of that ever goes to the railroads.

And don't tell me about all the "highway use" or "gas tax" being paid out...all that is is nothing but "feel good" measures...and everybody and their uncle knows that!

The numbers speak for themselves. The amount needed to not only keep Amtrak afloat, but to actually improve equipment and expand services nationwide, would be only a fraction of what the government already allocates to the airlines and highway infrastructure.

The benifits for the environment alone would be well worth the cost, and our nations dependence on foreign oil would be drastically reduced. There are no sound, logical reasons why this country should not be providing the level of rail passenger service as is found in Japan and all across Europe.

The airline, highway, and automobile special interest groups, along with our elected officials, need to tone down their own self-serving agendas and come to terms with what is actually best for the good of our nation...a strong and VITAL nationwide railway system...and that includes Amtrak!

[Modelcar]

If you don't have a big family and use the water sparingly and sensibly, we can talk.....And if Amtrak is cut up in pieces, then people in that regon should be the ones paying for it. Personally, I don't think the transportation system we know as Amtrak will work and or survive as a regional carrier. IF that's the best we can come up with in this country for rail passenger transportation...I'm in favor to tra***he whole thing. Let others figure out how some of the corridors that are becoming so grid locked [freeways], figure out what to do. That part doesn't effect me personally anymore but just can't understand how people can get on such motorways each day and know what they face in traffic mess without yelling their head off for someone to fix it.....

QM

[Anonymous]

Don,

I could take this in two directions. Why are some rail lines funded by the federal government while others are not? -Or- Why can't Amtrak devolve into a regional system (similar, I may add to the break up of Bell telephone).

I agree that it is time for a change. It is time for Amtrak to operate the way your DFW rail company runs, not the other way around. - Ed

[Anonymous]

Don:

I really agree with you about night trains. These do well not only in Europe... but just over the border in Canada!

After all, if you compare the sleeper ticket with an air ticket plus rooms, it becomes more reasonable. And the time factor becomes less important. So perhaps the "Rocky West" could link to these hypothetical HSR systems with overnight sleeper trains.

Altho I personally think you could see, SOME DAY, a line along the ATSF Transcon, and along the EB GN route.. they are both the finest crossings of the Rockies there are.

Anyway. Regionally based HSR which actually interconnects with each other... sound like a great idea.

Alexander,
who's up way too late at night

[Anonymous]

All I know is that if they cut these 2 night trains down to one night trains, Amtrak could save a lot on labor. If the shorter routes appear as if they do better, than shorten these routes considerably.... Surely, some hide will be taken.

The more I think about the Sunset Limited, the more I think it should terminate in Dallas/Fort Worth, thereby giving it two big cities anchoring its west end, as two big cities anchor its east end..... With all these savings of Superliner trainsets, the Sunset Limited could become a daily, instead of a trice weekly train through the South, giving a daily train between Dallas/Fort Worth and Houston Texas so desperately needs.....if Amtrak ever wants to increase ridership and end the very poorly timed connection in San Antonio.

I also think the Capitol Limited could increase its frequency to twice a day, and the Lake Shore Limited could increase its frequency too to twice a day service, whereby the Cardinal would not be missed......

I will admit, until the recent changes due to a lack of cars, Amtrak could have killed the Twilight Shoreliner on the East coast to provide sleepers for other trains. It can be easily replaced by a red eye Acela trainset. The one Silver train, with better timing through the Carolinas, had ridership problems because of its very poor timing in New York City and Florida. Which probably leds to its downgrading, losing its sleepers already too.

As I have posted, if Amtrak is going to move to high speed rail lines, then these lines should be the one kept alive. I have ridden on most of these lines, and the California Zephyr loses a lot of passengers at Reno and Denver. The same could be said of the rest of this lot....

[Anonymous]

I think you are largely right. But it was my thought that it'd be the CZ not the SWC that'd go... basically because LA has more pull than SFO. Or am I wrong? Is it that LA being so Car concious, doesn't ride trains? Hmm....

Cardinal gone? Well, we'll never hear the end of protests from it's grandaddy, Mister Byrd. But I agree that it's ridership is too low.

What do you think about the Starlate's Chances? On one hand, ridership is not what it could be and performance is ****. On the other hand, it is the only West Coast Only train, and hits all the major cities.

I would specualte that MAYBE if the SWC and Sunset are gone, it might get cut back to SFO-SEA, essentially connecting up the EB and CZ. Then traffic to LA/ Diego would be an entirely CalTrans affair. Do you agree?

Lastly, these are probably not reforms/deforms we will see until, what? October?

Alexander in Oregon

[Anonymous]

In Dallas, we have a bus/rail system that is fully locally funded. And I cannot understand why the American people are funding their local rail systems......and not ours......It is time for a change!

[Anonymous]

I am of the opinion that all of the West coast trains will go, except for the Coast Starlight. Empire Builder, California Zephyr, Southwest Chief, and Sunset Limited are history as they are today. Amtrak will probably put a local on the routes to Minneapolis-Saint Paul, to Omaha, if not to Denver, to Kansas City, and more than likely cut service west of Houston, if not San Antonio.

We should also expect the Cardinal to disappear along with the Silver Star (now the Palmetto), both have either been downgraded or have lost their sleepers. More than likely I suspect one of these two will go to, either the Three Rivers or the Pennsylvanian. I also suspect the Twilight Shoreliner will go to, as it is no longer needed with all 20 trainsets of the new Acela trains running along that route. Virginia might pay for a local to Newport News......

However, I suspect the Texas Eagle will survive, along with the Silver Meteor and Silver Palm, the Lake Shore Limited, the City of New Orleans, and the Capitol Limited as is...

Having looked at the high speed rail network already in the works, there won't be any high speed rail over the Rockies, and whatever routes that can be saved east of the Rockies can be and should be saved....for the next generation of high speed trains on their routes......

As I said before on another discussion topic, the driving force is high speed rail. The one factor is that the trains have to go to large metropolitan areas, and not be so linear as they have been in the West , not going to any large cities for over a day's 24 hour run....

Well, what do you think?

[Anonymous]

QM,

I'd agree with you if it were operated as a regional utility. I don't want to pay into it until it serves my region. But if you would agree to pay my water bill maybe we can work out a compromise. - Ed

[Anonymous]

James:

You are only emphasizing my point. The Rs you point out are the exception not the rule. California is the home of Boxer, Feinstein, Davis. Hardly a Reupublican stronghold.

Ditto up here in the PNW, on the Cascade Corridor. In Oregon, the majority of our house reps are dems, and 1 senator is a dem... Dem gov.

Ditto Washington.... 'cept they got both senators Dems like you in CA.

So I stand by my earlier assesment. You can lose seats you don't even own.

[Anonymous]

uh, abcraghead,

Not all of the corridor trains are in the northeast. Nor are all the regional commuter lines that contract with Amtrak for running rights and/or operating personnel.

California has three corridors (Capitol, San Joaquin, and Surfliner), and I can name three commuter lines contracting with Amtrak off the top of my head (Metrolink, Coaster, and the venerable Caltrain) as well as parts of at least four intercity trains that I can name off the top of my head (Coast Starlight, California Zephyr, Southwest Chief, and Sunset Limited.)

While California does have twelve more Democrats in the House than Republicans, it also has some of the most intractably reactionary and social-Darwinist Republicans in the House, namely Chris Cox and Dana Rohrabacher.

[Modelcar]

If the system cannot survive and be rehabilitated into a workable transportation system....Shut the who system down...Not just a piece here and there. We keep hearing about this making a profit...Won't happen...It just has to be a utility that serves us and it costs money. I don't mind paying my share if it is done properly and run with good management.

QM

[Anonymous]

Rudy:

I wholeheartedly agree... Amtrak just doesn't touch enough people's lives to affect the elections... except perhaps in the NEC states.

I'd bet... Sunset Limited will go. And probably CZ, as I think the compromise will be to keep the SW Chief.

Bigger paring will probably occur in some of the midwestern routes, which I am not as familiar with.

I just hope the City of New Orleans doesn't go.

Alexander

[RudyRockvilleMD]

My best guess is Amtrak will not shutdown. According to the Fox 5 10 PM News this evening[June 24] Amtrak and the Department of Transportation are working on a way to get Amttrak the $200 million it needs for the rest of FY 2002. The main driver is the commuter service in the Northeast, Chicago, and the West Coast.

But I think the damage may have already been done in that some people who may have thought about using Amtrak for a trip this summer may use some other mode of transportation because of the uncertainty whether Amtrak would still be in business.

I doubt if any Amtrak cutback or liquidation would affect any of the House or the Senate electoral races.

Make no mistake about it Amtrak will have to cut some of their poorer performing routes, but I don't see any of these cuts coming until the fall at the earliest.

[Anonymous]

Just a heads up on this topic from the West Coast, folks!

As of Monday PM... basically every news organization is running the same AP wire story.... framing the qoutes with Gunn & Mineta "agreeing" on many topics...

But the Western dailies aren't putting this story on the front pages of their online versions.... it's buried, you can't even find it without using a search button.

NYT & WPost are putting it on their main pages.... but low down.

So still nothing great from the press coverage yet.

Alexander in Oregon

[Anonymous]

I think I'm echoing Ed's point above, but here goes:

Most Amtrak heavy states are allready represented by Dems. Therefore, no Republican losses there.

Most states w/o Amtrak are Republican, so no loss there.

Those states with some Amtrak and some Republicans? I don't think Amtrak has enough riders for anyone to care. The Unionized employee base is probably allready 80% Dem, and not enough travellers will be inconvenienced.

Most people will probably, (wrongly) cheer it on, because that's one less train that the gates on the highway have to go down for.

[cbq9911a]

I'd put my money on a shutdown lasting between two and three weeks. The Amtrak crisis hasn't really become a major issue. Time magazine doesn't mention it in their current issue (7/2/02) and the Wall Street Journal (6/24/02) gives the Republican line on the subject.

Regarding the number of Republican congressmen who lose their seats in November if Amtrak shuts down, there will be lots of them. And state legislators as well.

[Modelcar]

Rush Limbaugh got his jollies today at the expense of our Passenger rail service...."The government to give Amtrak [ha, ha, ha]...Folks, they want 200 million..!!! I'll tell you where they'll have to get it from...Social Security...!!" an on an on...he went. [Paraphrasing]. I supposed he laughed all the way to his black Mercedes on his way out.

QM

[mnwestern]

Not enough, obviously. Actually, even Amtrak's last management team, which I agree left something to be desired (They should have never promised Congress it could be self-sufficient. I wonder which drugs they were on? Maybe it is those drugs President Bush's father allowed in when he was CIA chief to fund weapons for the Middle East,) said months ago they did not have money to get through the fiscal year, but no one believed them. Now it has come to pass.

[Anonymous]

How many Republicans are in NEC states? How many Democrats?

[Anonymous]

Personally, I'm all for starting a betting pool, on the number of days an Amtrak shutdown will last (ranging from 0, meaning no shutdown at all, to infinity, meaning liquidation).

Given such a pool, I'd bet heavily on 1 day.

And in the event of liquidation, I think I may want to start another pool. On the net number of Republican congressmen who lose their seats in the next election.

[Anonymous]

Well... not necessarily the result that we would like... but I think what Amtrak ought to have done is shut down the worst routes and conectrated their cash on their best ones. I know this means the "system" would no longer exist, but maybe by concentrating their cash on just a few lines they could have provided the rail service needed to prove they can be a world class company. And prove that they are still relevant, or could be.

[Anonymous]

My guess is that last minute emergency funding will come through. However,I think that Amtrak's longterm future is cloudier than ever. I don't think that this crisis will lead to the kind of critical examination and decision making necessary to come up with a rational and economical operating plan for the carrier. It looks to me that Amtrak will remain the political football it's always been.