You are in charge of Amtrak: Politics aside, what do you do to keep it alive?

[tohowalk]

I'm not sure how it would be possible to leave politics out of this. Many posters have mentioned continued or new subsidies as part of their plan. Unfortunately, many people lose sight of the fact that any such subsidy is not government money, it is my money and your money, which we, as voters, have allowed the government to take from us and further allowed politicians to decide how to spend.

If I were King, I'd end the subsidies altogether - rail, highway, air, river, etc. Let each mode of transportation be priced for users according to what it needs to survive and let each user pay (or decide to not pay) the true cost of what they are using. Stop having everyone pay part of everyone else's costs. Sure, it's something that probably won't happen, but it's certainly an alternative that no one seems to consider.

[techguy57]

QUOTE: Originally posted by eastside

QUOTE: what do you do to keep it alive?

In the same way zombies are alive? As it is, I wonder how one could avoid politics when speaking of Amtrak. It's an entity that was created by politicians to address a political problem.

Well, there is truth to that. My thinking on starting this topic was to remove the political aspect that has helped to make Amtrak a convoluted business in the first place. Not an easy task and not likely to ever happen in reality. Still take that away and it could be run as a real business. Perhaps even with real profit.[:D]

As for the zombies, don't they feed on brains? Let's not get into speculating any further as to whether those currently in control would provide solid nourishment or not. That would have to be a stand alone topic on another forum altogether.[}:)][:-^][swg]

Mike

[techguy57]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Safety Valve


The NEC needs to be duplicated asap between partner cities or regions that support high speed rail. One area might be Little Rock/Memphis/Nashville etc.

An honest question: Is there enough constant traffic in that area to neceesitiate high speed? I'm thinking the West Coast might be the next logical spot.

QUOTE:
Buy up the rails to trails and examine the ROW's for potential rehabilitation for improved service.

Good thinking, but I'd evaluate first before buying.

QUOTE:
Train, equipt and pay the staff good wages for the service they provide to the passengers. Hold them to standards that are expected of aircrew. Make good service availible similar to the old "Pullman" of days gone by.

That would be wonderful.

QUOTE: Remove Chicago as the one area all trains must travel. For example If I wanted to travel to DC from Little Rock by rail; a day to chicago and then a second day to DC does not cut it at coach fare. no way.

I would sy not necessarily remove Chicago, but increase hub facilities. I agree that having to go to Chicago to get to DC is counterproductive. Why not uses Memphis as a hub? Seems more logical to me.

Evaluating the current system and making changes based on the data seems to be a common idea so far. Redistribution of resources also seems to be a big belief. Good. Now we're getting somewhere. Keep it coming!
[:)]
Mike

[Anonymous]

SWOT. Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats

Any effective plan to make passenger rail an effective player has to address the above. The political issues are to change the playing field so rail option is truly viable.

Amtrak or rails strengths include:
Potential for the most fuel effiecent service point to point.
Comfort
Scenery

Weaknesses:
Speed and reliablity
Inflexible route structure
Route structure overcapacity from freight trains
Excess baggage of various protectionest labor contracts
Required subsidy for both operations and capitalization

Threats
Freight rail does not want the hassle and liability of sharing track without profit
Taxpayer = congress & president resent paying subsidy

Opportunity
Revisit express service... but price to make a real profit
Auto ferry service... Must be able so serve intermediate points, not just ends
Global Warming & Rising Oil Prices... If we are serious about slowing use of fossil fuels, tax laws (oops politics here) changed to penilize oil and coal use would favor rail. Rail (including freight) could benefit both by increasing costs to road and air and by electrifing using wind, solar, and hydroelectric power which are very difficult for road and air.

Most likely rail would be the travel of choice 150-500 miles, road 0-100 miles, and air 750+. Long distance rail would be for nuts like us who like to go by rail and would link intermediate distance trains.

Karl

[dldance]

Let me expound a bit on my previously posted items #3 and #4. There is little benefit to the Federal government from Amtrak. However, there are large local, regional, and community benefits. Some states have recognized these benefits and assist with funding. Other local and regional areas need to be shown these benefits. Some of the ones I have observed are:
- reduction in highway traffic using commuter rail
- reduced pressure on the highway infrastructure - saving tax dollars
- all-weather regional transportation
- travel and tourism dollars into the communities

I'm sure there are others.

dd

[senshi]

The main thing that needs to happen is to get leadership of Amtrak out from under the government. Having worked in a federal agency I can tell you government does not know how to run a business as a business.

I agree that we need to get the Class 1's involved in the process more directly than they are now. It should be considered that maybe the class 1's or whoever should own and run the trains. A ferderal subsidy will still be needed no matter what (show me a country that doesn't have to subsidise rail) but the money will be going to the componies running the route to pay for upkeep and to help offset any losses or what ever they want to apply it to.

This could be a good way to start getting the railroads good PR, you think of them getting you to and from places instead of just blocking a crossing for 1/2 hr or if the NY Times decides to start their stuff again.

SC

[Simon Reed]

I'll slightly revise my suggestion of a sale to an experienced, able and qualified passenger operator.

My opinion remains the same - Amtrak will only work in the hands of an operator who actually understands what they're doing.

However, I have to slightly transgress the political boundary. Many States have a clear understanding of the importance of passenger rail and a willingness to underwrite it. Your Congress does not.

So - the only caveat is that once sold it should not be subject to CENTRAL Government interferance. State input should be encouraged, and would doubtless be more readily forthcoming for a demonstrably cogent and pro-active system.

Show me a European model where this supposition does'nt work to prove my model flawed.

[88gta350]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Safety Valve

Establish local service to and from each of the capital cities in each of the 48 states. Provide for at least a 100 mile radius service for commuters at a good daily rate.

The NEC needs to be duplicated asap between partner cities or regions that support high speed rail. One area might be Little Rock/Memphis/Nashville etc.

Buy up the rails to trails and examine the ROW's for potential rehabilitation for improved service.

Build dedicated high speed trackage free from lumbering freight trains.

Elevate trackage to european standards to preserve farmland and eliminate grade crossing accidents.

Add trains and increase sleeper service between cities 300 miles apart. Run them as dedicated trains while preserving the true long distance trains with higher level service.

Train, equipt and pay the staff good wages for the service they provide to the passengers. Hold them to standards that are expected of aircrew. Make good service availible similar to the old "Pullman" of days gone by.

Remove Chicago as the one area all trains must travel. For example If I wanted to travel to DC from Little Rock by rail; a day to chicago and then a second day to DC does not cut it at coach fare. no way.

Get the durn thing expanded, upgraded and improved outside in the USA. Dont sit there in the board room. Make it work and eat the initial costs. Everyone has been saying it's dead, dying or near dead these last 30 years. So, prove em wrong. Find the capital, discharge the patient from the nursing home and start proving the naysayers wrong or go home.

Finally, get highspeed rail into the rest of the USA. Make it fast enough to outrun airlines in regional service. Currently I can get from Little Rock to Baltimore very very fast for a few hundred dollars by air. Not 2 days via chicago and twice the rate for one way.

I recognize that there are immense barriers from property owners and zoning in the east, but out west, there are oodles of room for like... Las Vegas to Barstow, LA for example.

That's quite a wish list, and it would be nice if it would happen, but where would the funds come from? There's just not the political pressure in this country that would cause politicians to fork up the funds necessary for a project of that scope. What if you could pick three of the things you mentioned, and do those? Which three would you pick? What do you see as being the most important? (high speed rail corridors, expanding out west, paying good wages, running more 300 mile trains, eliminating grade crossings, dedicated high speed lines, 100 mile radius commuter service, etc...)

[Anonymous]

Establish local service to and from each of the capital cities in each of the 48 states. Provide for at least a 100 mile radius service for commuters at a good daily rate.

The NEC needs to be duplicated asap between partner cities or regions that support high speed rail. One area might be Little Rock/Memphis/Nashville etc.

Buy up the rails to trails and examine the ROW's for potential rehabilitation for improved service.

Build dedicated high speed trackage free from lumbering freight trains.

Elevate trackage to european standards to preserve farmland and eliminate grade crossing accidents.

Add trains and increase sleeper service between cities 300 miles apart. Run them as dedicated trains while preserving the true long distance trains with higher level service.

Train, equipt and pay the staff good wages for the service they provide to the passengers. Hold them to standards that are expected of aircrew. Make good service availible similar to the old "Pullman" of days gone by.

Remove Chicago as the one area all trains must travel. For example If I wanted to travel to DC from Little Rock by rail; a day to chicago and then a second day to DC does not cut it at coach fare. no way.

Get the durn thing expanded, upgraded and improved outside in the USA. Dont sit there in the board room. Make it work and eat the initial costs. Everyone has been saying it's dead, dying or near dead these last 30 years. So, prove em wrong. Find the capital, discharge the patient from the nursing home and start proving the naysayers wrong or go home.

Finally, get highspeed rail into the rest of the USA. Make it fast enough to outrun airlines in regional service. Currently I can get from Little Rock to Baltimore very very fast for a few hundred dollars by air. Not 2 days via chicago and twice the rate for one way.

I recognize that there are immense barriers from property owners and zoning in the east, but out west, there are oodles of room for like... Las Vegas to Barstow, LA for example.

[Simon Reed]

Sell it - whole - to one of the European Open Access Operators who will make it what it should be.

Drastic but simple - put it in the hands of people who know how to make a profit out of passenger transport.

The only caveat is that once sold it should never be subject to Government interferance.

[eastside]

QUOTE: what do you do to keep it alive?

In the same way zombies are alive? As it is, I wonder how one could avoid politics when speaking of Amtrak. It's an entity that was created by politicians to address a political problem. Why otherwise does it exist? The politician’s lip service was that something was needed to serve aviophobes, diversify the transportation network, serve grannies in small towns, and could still earn a profit (someday). I doubt that few people, especially on Wall Street, ever believed that.

I take it you mean reform Amtrak into a viable corporation. If politicians really wanted to provide the first 3 goals they could do it by selling off Amtrak’s assets and provide operating subsidies or tax credits.

[techguy57]

QUOTE: Originally posted by PBenham

I have said this before, but for the benefit of those seeing this subject for the first time here, I will repeat: The only way Amtrak can survive is to be a partnership between the big six railroads (KCS has no Amtrak trains) and the Government. The big six, BNSF,CN,CP,CSX,NS and UP no longer "need" the protection from passenger losses they and their predecessors (ancestors if you prefer) needed in 1971. The smaller carriers in Amtrak; Clarendon & Pittsford, Guilford,New England Central, Vermont Railway and others, likely will not be able to absorb the same fiscal responsibilty as the big six. For them, and other smaller lines over which Amtrak operates, having a stake in Amtrak would be wholly voluntary. The big six should be required to "invest " in Amtrak. The funds would derive from all federal taxes and fees the big six would pay to Washington, rather than passing into "general funds", which we all know is [censored].

PB-
Wow, interesting thinking indeed. If you make the big six responsible in a way for Amtrak it would definitely force some changes. I think delays caused by priority freight would go away altogether, seeing as if the passenger service was delayed the freight railroads would have to take the hit for lost revenue. Interesting.

Larry-
I was thinking the same things about the snowbirds. There are enough of them in my neck of Chicago alone to fill an entire train bound for Florida.

AG-
I don't know about that Anti-Gates retirement fund.[:D] Sounds like a front to me...

Mike

[88gta350]

The keys are simple... same as any business: Bring in new customers, then make them want to come back. First identify who your competitors are: In this case it's airlines and the automobile. Identify what your advantages are over your competitors, then advertise those advantages in forms and publications your potential cutomers are likely to see, and at prices that are competitive. Study which lines are not being used and what could make them get used. If nothing would work, look at dropping them. What lines are the most profitable, what could be done to maximize that profit? Which lines don't you currently have that customers want in numbers large enough to make it profitable?

Once you have the cutomers trying your service, you need to have a level of service that will make the customers believe they got their money's worth and will keep them coming back. Customer service is a big issue. Friendly interaction with your cutomers is a must. Clean trains are also important. And perhaps most importantly, the trains have to run on time. Amtrak must work with the host railroads to get it's trains through faster.

More government money is always good, and you shouldn't stop going after that. But that could become less important if you're putting a product out there that people want to use. That's what running a business is all about.

[Anonymous]

This was an interasting plan proposed many years ago great reading www.azrail.org/amtrak90

[cbq9911a]

Amtrak is stuck with the service levels and routes it has. Just do the job and do it well. Run the trains on time. Make sure they're clean. Make sure that service meets demand. Come down hard on people and companies who play games.

That said, if I were faced with serious losses, I'd eliminate all service to and from Chicago. This would eliminate most of the long haul trains, which are the money losers.

[PBenham]

I have said this before, but for the benefit of those seeing this subject for the first time here, I will repeat: The only way Amtrak can survive is to be a partnership between the big six railroads (KCS has no Amtrak trains) and the Government. The big six, BNSF,CN,CP,CSX,NS and UP no longer "need" the protection from passenger losses they and their predecessors (ancestors if you prefer) needed in 1971. The smaller carriers in Amtrak; Clarendon & Pittsford, Guilford,New England Central, Vermont Railway and others, likely will not be able to absorb the same fiscal responsibilty as the big six. For them, and other smaller lines over which Amtrak operates, having a stake in Amtrak would be wholly voluntary. The big six should be required to "invest " in Amtrak. The funds would derive from all federal taxes and fees the big six would pay to Washington, rather than passing into "general funds", which we all know is [censored].

[Anonymous]

Impose a $155.75 per shipping container import duty on all incoming freight from overseas, spend $100 of that on Antrak subsidies, $50 of that towards retraining american factory workers displaced by out sourcing, and put the remaining $5.75 per each in my favorite charity...the AntiGates retirement fund.

[chad thomas]

QUOTE: Originally posted by techguy57

QUOTE: Originally posted by edbenton

5. Expand services like the Auto Train to more cities.

Another good idea. Any cities you had in mind?

Mike

Perhaps weekend runs for LA (San Berdoo) to Las Vegas or on the bay area to Reno fun train.

[edbenton]

On expanding the Auto Train add Chicago, LA Seatlle and the bay area to the list. Also Denver and Houston may not be to bad.

[tree68]

QUOTE: Originally posted by techguy57

QUOTE: Originally posted by edbenton

5. Expand services like the Auto Train to more cities.

Another good idea. Any cities you had in mind?
Mike

Goes back to the market analysis - and shows just how broad it could be. It definitely calls for a lot of out-of-the-box thinking.

As for Auto Train - ever been up the Northway (in NYS). Ever notice that many of the signs are also in French? Try this concept (I'm not pitching it - but it's the type of thing that needs to be considered): How about seasonal service for snowbirds? Load up way up north (at the border, or maybe Albany) and unload at Sanford, and vice versa in the spring. Lease some AutoMaxs short-term. There might only be a half dozen trips each way, each year, but...

Like I said - Think outside the box.

[techguy57]

QUOTE: Originally posted by edbenton

5. Expand services like the Auto Train to more cities.

Another good idea. Any cities you had in mind?

Mike

[edbenton]

1. Figure out a way to repair all damaged equipment.
2. Add more sleeper cars to the trains they sell out first and bring in more revenue per passenger.
3. Restucture crew agreements for lower labor costs.
4. Go after the Freight hauling RR's that delay trains infavor of their own aka UP and CSX.
5. Expand services like the Auto Train to more cities.
6. Get rid of the current board of directers and bring back Gunn.

[techguy57]

QUOTE: Originally posted by dldance

1) Grow revenues. Amtrak's cost structure is very rigid and will take a lot of effort to shrink so growing revenue is the only short term alternative. I like tree68's idea of a true market study - but I would extend it to potential markets as well.
2) Increase the focus on equipment productivity. How many $/mile (or miles/$) is each class of equipment generating? What is the reliability of each class of equipment? How can I turn the equipment on the RIP tracks into revenue generators?
3) Strengthen public relations to develop a stronger constituency. I would focus more on mayors, governors and state legislators -- grass roots suuport communicates well to the Feds.
4) Leverage Amtrak's expertise in commuter rail operations to provide fee-based planning and support of new commuter rail services.

dd

I especially like #3 and #4. To go along with #3 I think a commitment to on time service would help in the public view of Amtrak as well. I know that is easier said than done but I think it'd go a long way to help create a reliable base of riders and on time service is never bad for PR.

Mike

[dldance]

1) Grow revenues. Amtrak's cost structure is very rigid and will take a lot of effort to shrink so growing revenue is the only short term alternative. I like tree68's idea of a true market study - but I would extend it to potential markets as well.
2) Increase the focus on equipment productivity. How many $/mile (or miles/$) is each class of equipment generating? What is the reliability of each class of equipment? How can I turn the equipment on the RIP tracks into revenue generators?
3) Strengthen public relations to develop a stronger constituency. I would focus more on mayors, governors and state legislators -- grass roots suuport communicates well to the Feds.
4) Leverage Amtrak's expertise in commuter rail operations to provide fee-based planning and support of new commuter rail services.

dd

[techguy57]

Larry,
Some interesting stuff I hadn't factored in. The scenery factor, for example, played a large part in my first Amtrak trip because my mom wanted me to be able to see as much of America as possible but she didn't want to drive. We were travelling fom Indianapolis to Seattle, so I got to see a lot and she got to rest rather than drive the whole way. I'll never forget waking up in ND to field upon field of sunflowers and coming out of the Moffat tunnel and seeing Denver at night all lit up and sprawled out in front of us. It is a priceless memory I couldn't have gotten on an airplane.

Also, I agree with the "but we want this route" thoughts. It would be a lot easier to make budgetary decisions based on their performances without the local politicians involved in every step.

Mike

[tree68]

1. Do a true market analysis. We're leaving politics out of the discussion, and it needs to be left out of the analysis as well. We want to find out:
>Who is using what services now?
>Who would use other services if they were offered?
>Is there a market we are not currently serving?
2. Do a true cost analysis. It's really easy to skew numbers. This should be as neutral as possible across the country. Again, we need to find:
>True costs of the services we provide.
>Potential costs of the services we could provide, based on the market survey.
>A value comparison between different modes (kind of analagous to the "good will" value of a business name.) Stuff like beautiful scenery enters into this value.

When we're done, we will (hopefully) have a true picture of what is and what could be, minus political (local, state, and national) influences.

Assuming the conclusions we reach don't consist of closing down the system, we now develop a business case for the national network. We also deal with the "but we want this route included" faction, although our research should help them decide how badly they want the route, especially if our (hopefully) unbiased research shows it to be a non-starter.

Now that we have a neutral picture of the services that should exist, and the costs involved (we can probably assume we'll never actually make money), we can make the case for appropriate funding. Unfortunately, now politics enters the fray.

Assuming the funding comes through, we need to get decent management in place, and let them run the company, without interference from meddling politicians.

[techguy57]

I'm liking the recent hypothetical question threads over the last couple of days so wanted to pose my own:

You are in charge of Amtrak: Politics aside (to help keep Bergie sane), what do you do to keep it alive?

What I'm looking for would be the business strategies you think would keep Amtrak afloat for now and what your long term plans for the railroad would be (ultimately scrapping it would be a proper answer by the guidelines here but I'm really looking for ideas to try to keep it). Please keep this discussion civil and don't bother responding if all you want to do is bash our current government administrators or Amtrak itself. The politics should be kept to a minimum. For example, if lobbying for increased funding/subsidy would be part of your business plan, that is perfectly okay. If removing the President (or any goverment member) from office is your strategy, it's not what I'm looking for here. Take it elsewhere please. Also please don't attack anyone else's plan. You may offer constructive criticism, but please don't simply say , "That'll never happen." It may never happen but then again what are the chances that anyone'll put me in charge of Amtrak?

Personally, I see four steps to making Amtrak a better service.
1.) Steamline the system and tear it down to bare bones. I envision running the system more closely to that how Southwest Airlines runs their operations or Greyhound runs. Trains that solely run coach, even on longer trips. Keep enough room to allow patrons to be comfortable but maximize the number of people who can travel on a given train. Observation/snack cars but no dining cars. Allow people to bring coolers that they can easlily acess or allow for slightly longer stops so people can bring their meals on the train.
2.) I'd lobby (probably unsuccessfully) for increased federal subsidy for rail trasportation. If the costs to the Class 1's decrease so should their charges to me. At least in theory.
3.) Ultimately increase the flexibility of the system, ie not less trains, more trains. Makes it more reasonable to connect with other trains without having to wait a whole day to do so.
4.) Work to form a partnership with airline,hotel, bus and rental car services. Offer discounts to patrons for utilizing that network. Essentially create a stronger travel agency. The airline and cruise companies do this with success already. Why not follow their lead.

That my initial basic strategy. I look forward to hearing your thoughts on the topic.

Mike