Amtrak must be overhauled or junked, Secretary Mineta says

[Anonymous]

Amtrak must be overhauled or junked, Secretary Mineta says

By Seth Borenstein, Knight Ridder Newspapers

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration's message to Amtrak is simple: Change or die.

If Amtrak isn't dramatically overhauled, the Bush administration is prepared to essentially junk it and save only the commuter-rail segments, Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta (news - web sites) said Wednesday. That's preferable, he said, to spending about $1 billion a year in subsidies to keep the cross-country passenger-rail system alive.

In its 2006 budget, the Bush administration proposes eliminating Amtrak's annual subsidy, which is $1.2 billion this year. The idea is to force Congress and Amtrak to institute sweeping change. Bush would limit Amtrak to owning and operating trains. Others - including state or local governments - would own the rails, stations and physical property, much as private businesses run airlines but the government maintains airports.

Every other mode of transportation has changed dramatically since the 1970s, when trucking and aviation were deregulated, but not Amtrak, Mineta said.

Amtrak, which was created in 1971 when the government took over bankrupt private railroads, carries about 24 million passengers a year. In addition to cross-country and inter-city rail lines, it operates commuter services for several regions. It operates rails over 22,000 miles of routes and owns 730 miles of rails, mostly between Boston and Washington. The company has more than 500 stations in 46 states, all but Alaska, Hawaii, South Dakota and Wyoming.

Under the Bush plan, states along a given line would pay for rail upkeep. If a state wouldn't pay, stations along the line in that state would be closed and trains wouldn't stop in them, Mineta said.

The Department of Transportation is discussing the sale of Amtrak infrastructure, said Jeffrey Rosen, the agency's general counsel.

If Congress continues to balk at Bush's vision for Amtrak, the Bush administration would pu***o spend only $360 million to keep commuter-rail systems alive, mostly in the Northeast, Mineta said at a briefing.

But if Congress and Amtrak adopt the Bush plan, the administration is willing to spend about $1 billion a year in grants to state and local governments to help run the former parts of Amtrak, Mineta said. That money isn't in the president's budget, but would be part of a supplemental spending request. The grants would have to be matched 50-50 by state and local funds.

Amtrak officials and supporters called the administration's plan irresponsible.

In a message to employees last week, Amtrak President David Gunn said Bush officials "have no plan for Amtrak other than bankruptcy."

Amtrak supporters voiced confidence that Congress will keep providing the money the system needs even if Bush won't, as has been true in the past. Federal subsidies have increased from $520 million in 2001 to $1.2 billion in each of the last two years.

"Amtrak will be back and it will get barely enough to survive," said Michael Dukakis, former vice chairman of the Amtrak Reform Board and former governor of Massachusetts. "The states have no interest in this."

"The federal government has never adequately invested in passenger rail; it's always been on a starvation diet," said former Amtrak Board of Directors Chairman John Robert Smith, the Republican mayor of Meridian, Miss. "It's had a lot of near-death experiences. ... To pu***he company to bankruptcy ... is a dangerous game to play."

While Rosen said separating infrastructure and operations "might produce increased opportunities," Dukakis said it would be a disaster.

"Anybody who runs a railroad - and I have, because the governor runs the MBTA (Boston's subway system) - knows when you divide the responsibility for operations and infrastructure you're asking for trouble," Dukakis said. "This Balkanization thing is preposterous."

Dukakis pointed to what he called a successful rail system throughout the Northeast under Gunn as proof that it can work well if properly funded.

Critics say that's not true.

Joseph Vranich, former Amtrak spokesman, ex-High Speed Rail Association president and the author of a new book, "End of the Line," said the Bush approach might be the dose of tough love that a badly managed Amtrak needs.

"Congress is like a doctor on drugs, and they've got a patient on the table that's hemorrhaging," Vranich said. "What the doctors want to do is pump it up with blood. What the Bush administration is trying to do is slap that doctor awake so he can do the right thing."

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=2270&ncid=2270&e=4&u=/krwashbureau/20050216/ts_krwashbureau/_bc_amtrak_wa_1

[Modelcar]

....I believe a better plan would be to get rid of yes man, Mineta....He hasn't supported rail passenger service since installed into the Transportation Sec. position.....

[Anonymous]

More rhetoric from Mineta...

LC

[daveklepper]

Amtrak needs to be fully funded and brought up to snuff. That is the basic reform that is needed.

[Junctionfan]

Why is our countries cursed with thease no guts bleeding heart liberals who don't take a stand and just let things flow with the river of hypocracy?

This Mineta is no different then alot of our politicians I am sorry to say.

[tree68]

I think the parallel with airlines and airports is telling. With all of the discussions of subsidies we've been having, this would be very logical - Airlines pay for space and landing rights at the government (usually a local municipality/authority) airports. They don't directly pay for the infrastructure between the airports (you and I do).

If the people and their states want Amtrak service, they'll have to provide a "landing spot" (station) and try to get Amtrak to "land" there. As stated, if nobody in a state wants the service, they won't get it.

[Anonymous]

Sorry, I'd hate to see any Rail system fail and be disolved, but Amtrak's been a black hole of our tax dollars to many years now. it's about time a politican stood up and said "straighten up or die", instead of "hey you with money give me it and i'll ignore that black hole we have".

Amtrak is in need of serious reworking, the only thing they got working right is the commuter lines in the NE. For years now people have been asking, "why doesn't amtrak Use already subsidised places, like airports, instead of building and maintaining new buildings". really, if they were to hub together at least 1 major airport per state, forgoing any other stops for now, They could seriously save billions a year in operating costs. Dedicated track, built for Amtrak and only amtrak, could allow high speed, non-stop travel between these points.

they need to radically cut their fleet size, they have litterally hundreds of cars being maintained that hardly ever see the rails. They have to cut the number of car shops down to a reasonable number, there's way to many stations right now, that when you take into account the operation costs of them, they exceed the income produced by those stations.


If 911showed anything to use, it was how helpless we were without air travel. We need a national rail system that can suppliment and, if needed, replace the air travel. Amtrak needs bold new leadership and need to look to national intrests, they need to look to being on par with any other mass transit system out there. Our National budget doesn't need more "black hole" programs, we need to start plugging the holes and get our tax dollars used more wisely.

[Modelcar]

Steamer Fan: Does Dave Gunn know about all the "hundreds of cars being maintained that hardly ever see the rails....". Something doesn't sound right with the above statement. Amtrak is almost starving for equipment to run the routes in place now.....??

[Anonymous]

Although no one asked, this is my plan for a "new Amtrak". Trains should be ONLY long distance. For example, The Capitol Limited leaves Chicago, stops ONLY at Cleveland, Pittsburgh, and Washington. Wasn't that what "limited" meant, anyhow? All the intermediate stops can be operated by individual states or a consortium of states. Another example, the Empire Builder. Leaves Chicago, stops in Milwaukee, St. Paul, Fargo, Havre, Sandpoint, Spokane, and Seattle. Again, intermediate stops can be operated by teh states they serve. I have ridden both trains quite often, and have noticed that several stops (especially on the Cap. are also served by commuter agencies. This is an unncessary duplication of services.

This may relieve Amtrak of running short distance trains to connect with the LD trains. As of now, all short distance trains are scheduled to meet in chicago for connections to LD trains. The dream is to free up capital to purchase more LD cars, for greater frequency, and esaier connections at more major cities than Chicago. I'm sure there are many, many flaws to this plan, but al that is missing is the political will to do this.

[Anonymous]

I have tried very hard to stay out of this debate but here goes...

Amtrack has been in danger of shutting down since the first day it was created. At first it was equiptment barely adequate for long haul. I recall some locomotives could not even provide heat to the passenger train in the western winters.

The North East Corridor is vital to the United States. The French may have the TGV and fly at world record speeds mph between Paris and Lyons but we have Washington DC and Boston and the smog choked, gridlocked traffic filled rusting hundreds of miles in between. Theoratically you can get up at 5 AM get shaved and fed go to work 200 miles away and come home in time for dinner thanks to the NEC.

Now the rest of the nation either revives Trolley Lines as Little Rock just did, builds Light rail as Baltimore did or imrpoves subways and bus links as Washington did. And everyone else in between the east coast or west coast have a commuter line here and there and perhaps a amtrack station here and there.

I live near a mainline that goes into Little Rock. There are about 5 communities with old depots along that double tracked mainline between me and Little Rock. It would not be difficult to get a passenger train to take workers into downtown in the morning and bring em home at night. You would need to find parking, infrastructure and associated links to feed this passenger system. I dont think the Union Pacific is going to take the time and trouble to run a passenger train for my area and perhaps trains between Little Rock and Memphis/ St Louis including all the little towns in between. This costs money and personel.

I dont think we can ever go back to the glory days of the Heavy Weight pullmans and service at every town like we used to before Airlines and interstates were common.

There are projects on going to replicate the north east corridor in different areas of the USA. For example High speed between Houston and Dallas. Turn a 6 hour drive into a 1 hour and half train ride. By the time they get it all negotiated, permitted, zoned, designed, built, tested and running it might be done by 2050. If at all.

Note that I did not use the word "paid for" our children's children will grow up to become congressmen and women, they can deal with the bill.

Japan, France, Germany and England are loaded with trains. Some high speed and others not so fast. They have kept the lifestyle where trains took people to work, shopping and social functions every day. We Americans kind of lost that when we started to use the private Auto, Airlines and Greyhound.

Those Greyhound buses do a really good job of getting people to and from places. But I have ridden enough Grey hound to know that I dont want to do so again. If we build passenger service to go into towns for everyone to use daily then we need to keep it up and be willing to support it. Otherwise we would just do without.

[daveklepper]

Again, a lot of very nice people will be made into second or third class citizens without long distance stop at hamlets trains. I don't think they should get this kind of discrimination. I think we should insist that Mineta ride one of the long distance trains, like the CZ or the SWChief and talk to the people riding. He may get a very different impression. I still think long distance trains are as vital for the USA as they are for Canada. The Canadian governmet realizes that fact. Why not Bush and Mineta?

[CG9602]

I think as well that this focus on limited stops, larger sities, etc. is just another version of a theme many passenger rail supporters have seen before. If you eliminate stops, you also eliminate ridership. Trains make stops in certain places because the stops along the mid-points of routes create as much business ans the endpoints. In the cases of some routes, such as the Empire Builder's route, 80 - 90 % of riders embark or disembark at stops other than Seattle, Portland, or Chicago. When you eliminate stops, you eliminate service and reduce the overall ridership.

What would be possible would be to create a second train, running at a different schedule, having different stops along the same route. Each train would overlap the other.

[oltmannd]

At face value, I think that Mineta's speech provides an interesting starting point.

I'm not sure the funding it state by state is a good thing, particularly when so many trains travel thru more than just a state or two. But, trying to shift some of the funding to localities could be useful.

And, I was intrigued that $1B might be available for grants, on top of the $360M for NEC infrastructure, to operate trains on a 50-50 basis. If you could negotiate a bit from this point - say to 80-20 funding, we could actually wind up with more and better train service than we do now.

The Bush admin's tendency has been to throw proposals out and then let the political process (and I use the term loosely) hammer them into something else. As long as the final product bears a little resemblence to the original proposal, the bills get signed.

If the discussion evolves into "status quo or nothing", I'll bet we wind up with the same, underfunded, inefficient status quo. But, there is a chance that something different could evolve and it may even be better than the status quo.

I'm not so niave that I take Mineta's speech completely at face value, but neither am I so cynical that I see deep, dark hidden agendas, either. I think they truly want some reform so that Amtrak is more palatible to the conservatives while still providing the public service Amtrak's contituents expect.

If nothing else, this will be fun to watch!

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jwieczorek

Although no one asked, this is my plan for a "new Amtrak". Trains should be ONLY long distance. For example, The Capitol Limited leaves Chicago, stops ONLY at Cleveland, Pittsburgh, and Washington. Wasn't that what "limited" meant, anyhow? All the intermediate stops can be operated by individual states or a consortium of states. Another example, the Empire Builder. Leaves Chicago, stops in Milwaukee, St. Paul, Fargo, Havre, Sandpoint, Spokane, and Seattle. Again, intermediate stops can be operated by teh states they serve. I have ridden both trains quite often, and have noticed that several stops (especially on the Cap. are also served by commuter agencies. This is an unncessary duplication of services.

This may relieve Amtrak of running short distance trains to connect with the LD trains. As of now, all short distance trains are scheduled to meet in chicago for connections to LD trains. The dream is to free up capital to purchase more LD cars, for greater frequency, and esaier connections at more major cities than Chicago. I'm sure there are many, many flaws to this plan, but al that is missing is the political will to do this.

Uh, airplanes do the major city to major city thing a whole lot better and cheaper than Amtrak can. Where the LD trains are sucessful is when they connect those little places you want to skip (what, to save 30 minutes on a 24 hour schedule?) with the big cities. For example, the Crescent does great business between the Northeast (including Alexandria and Manassas) and Charlotteville. You want to skip Alexandria or Manassas?

Speeding up equipment turns is a great idea, but skipping some stops won't do it.

[Anonymous]

Great idea CG9602. Kind of like when they ran the North Coast Hiawatha with the Empire Builder. Thanks Dave for finding the flaw in my plan (I knew it sounded too good). At least we are starting some kind of reasonable dialog with decent ideas. Thank you all for your consideration.

[Anonymous]

Like I had said earlier, I think that this could be a great idea. If the states get matching funding, that will promote more of them to put in money for the system, than put up nothing. They would then be able to take it out of the highway funds. Put it this way, Amtrak could make it so that they would get 2 billion instead of one with just federal funding. That is a good thing, and we will see if it can be done.
Brad

[daveklepper]

Problem is states are very uneven. Some give great support to intercity rail, like Washington and California, some are mediocre, like New York and Connecticut, and some won't even consider helping. Fopr some time, New Hampshire has been getting a free ride off of Maine and Massaachusetts, with their helping with the Boston - Portland service (not that trains are in such great shape overall in Massachussetts either), and finally they are being convinced to chip in. A national system can distribute the burden more equitably, in my opinion. Canada has Province supported commuter trains, like GO Transit, but the VIA system is national.

[Anonymous]

but why should people in hawaii or alaska pay for Amtrak, neither of those people, as sell as anyone in idaho, wyoming, north dakota, and many others who don't get the service have to pay fot it. The difference in Canada, is that they are a socialist society, we are not.
Brad

[Anonymous]

If anything should be "Junked", it should be Mineta. This guy understands transportation issues about as much as Bush understands Fiscal Responsibility!!

[RudyRockvilleMD]

Secretary Mineta's ideas for reforming Amtrak are seriously flawed.
1. Leaving thru long distance passenger rail service up to the states the trains run through raises the question, what happens if an intermediate state refuses to commit funds for operating the train? You don't stop the train in that state? yeah right.
2. The concept of separating train operations from infrastructure was tried in Great Britain, it was a collossal disaster

[RudyRockvilleMD]

Secretary Mineta's ideas for reforming Amtrak are seriously flawed.
1. Leaving thru long distance passenger rail service up to the states the trains run through raises the question, what happens if an intermediate state refuses to commit funds for operating the train? You don't stop the train in that state? yeah right.
2. The concept of separating train operations from infrastructure was tried in Great Britain, it was a collossal disaster

[CG9602]

Here's another issue: Many large cities in our country are located close to a state border. How would service extend across state lines if one of the states opts not to have service? technically speaking, service in, for example, the Twin Cities area, or the Cincinnati area would involve more than one state.

[MP57313]

QUOTE: Originally posted by goduckies
but why should people in hawaii or alaska pay for Amtrak, neither of those people, as sell as anyone in idaho, wyoming, north dakota, and many others who don't get the service have to pay fot it. The difference in Canada, is that they are a socialist society, we are not.

The US has plenty of "socialist-leaning policies" too. Ranchers paying below-market rates for grazing on federal land; subsidies to tobacco farmers (since tobacco was the US's first cash crop for export); Archer-Daniels-Midland receiving subsidies for ethanol. {No I'm not anti-agriculture. Those folks must have really talented lobbyists}.
You are correct Amtrak does not serve Alaska, Hawaii, or Wyoming. But the Empire Builder does travel through Idaho and North Dakota.

[Junctionfan]

For those who ask "Why should I pay for Amtrak" and the case is that they don't use it etc; the answer is that

1/ The people who use it are Americans too and need it. It's not just about you; and it's not as if a few people use it either.

2/ The economy survives with decent commuter service like the NEC and the Cascade class corridor services because thease business folk tend to spend money in the U.S because they have jobs to and often will create new jobs if the business community can get to their place of work. Rural areas build up with construction of homes and commercial enterprises which mean decrease of homelessness, decrease of welfare payments (thease folk have jobs now) and increase in revenue from taxes that more people can now afford which mean the government now has more taxes to fund things that matter to all Americans like healthcare, education, homeland security, etc.

The province of Ontario helps pay for GO trains in Toronto which doesn't do me any good directly but indirectly, more people are coming into or often nearToronto because they have the commuter service they need to get to their place of work. People don't take jobs they can't get to and Toronto property taxes are so high, there is a good portion that won't even live close to Toronto but will take the train into Toronto to work.

Now their is about 7 million people in Toronto now and alot of jobs around the area it surrounds. A thriving commuter service means more people have jobs and are not receiving welfare or unemployment insurance, the highways are more clear and so maintainance needs go down a little and are safer, the need for more highways and roads decrease and so allow urbanization where needed which allows a decrease of homelessness and attracts more taxpayers to Ontario, and many other benefits.

It is not so much that Canada is a socialist country then we believe more towards smart growth for revenue then just taxes or cuts to balance a budget and maintain the land and its people.

[AntonioFP45]

Same old government rhetoric as before. Amtrak will likely survive again. More people are using it inspite of the cutbacks in the past 10 years.

Looking at it realistically,

Every Amtrak train in the U.S could run "Jammed Pack" for a year and will not make a profit, so again all Mineta would point to is that "it's a money loser". So the fact that many citizens in the U.S would use it if service were expanded is irrelevant.

Our leaders priorities are already set. Rebuilding Iraq (including their railroad!), the Tsunami relief (we'e donating the highest $ amount), foreign aid to countries that practice deceitful trade practices against us, take precedence over improving passenger rail and securing our border to Mexico (where it is suspected that terrorists will or already have sneaked through.)

Go Figure![%-)][D)][%-)][%-)]

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by RudyRockvilleMD

Secretary Mineta's ideas for reforming Amtrak are seriously flawed.
1. Leaving thru long distance passenger rail service up to the states the trains run through raises the question, what happens if an intermediate state refuses to commit funds for operating the train? You don't stop the train in that state? yeah right.
2. The concept of separating train operations from infrastructure was tried in Great Britain, it was a collossal disaster

Did you read Don Phillip's latest column? Apparently, we'd be happy to have the "disaster" of Great Britain!

[Anonymous]

what everyone must remember is that the conservatives care about anyone but themselves . this countrybecame great because its people were willing to do that which

[Anonymous]

was good for all .now its only what is good for me .we have become selfish and teh way down is swift

[Anonymous]

oops, I fogot about tha little part of ID that juts up there. And I thought they went throught ND, not SD, my bad. That tells me I need to take that train again!
Brad

[Sterling1]

Gov't ought to pry Mineta with some C-4 or TNT or dynamite because of this ridiculous "unfair advantage" given to federal transportaion systems that drain this country's economy . . .