Another example of Amtrak improvement...
Amtrak has best year in Michigan
(The Associated Press circulated the following article on November 18.)LANSING, Mich. -- Soaring gas prices pushed more travelers onto passenger trains, making the fiscal year that just ended the best ever for Amtrak in Michigan, state transportation officials said.Statewide ridership and revenue for passenger rail service reached an all-time high, Michigan Department of Transportation director Kirk Steudle said in a news release. He said higher gas prices and increased marketing efforts by local communities helped people "discover the convenience and comfort of Amtrak."Overall, 664,284 passengers rode Amtrak trains on three Michigan routes from Oct. 1, 2005, to Sept. 30, generating $20.3 million in revenue.The route from Port Huron and East Lansing to Chicago, known as the Blue Water, saw a 10.9 percent ridership increase and a 21.7 percent ticket revenue increase over the previous fiscal year, with revenues hitting $3.4 million.The Pere Marquette route from Grand Rapids to Chicago showed a 5.7 percent ridership increase and a 20 percent gain in ticket revenues, to $2.6 million. Ridership on the Wolverine route from Pontiac and Detroit to Chicago increased by 7.9 percent, while ticket sales increased 22 percent, to $14.3 million.The Pere Marquette and Blue Water routes are supported by the state.The state contract for the two routes was renewed for the fiscal year that began Oct. 1 at a cost of $6.2 million, a 12 percent decrease from the previous total of $7.1 million. Greater ridership and revenue allowed the state's share to shrink.
Monday, November 20, 2006
Alphas has a point. But there is a question of what kind of face does the USA wish to present to the World. Missing from the entire argument is the question of access to the entire USA for elderly and handicapped. Long distance bus travel, even if upgraded with overnight stays in good hotels and stopovers at decent restaurants, is simply not acceptable to such people. I remind you of the disabled |Korean War veteran living near Alburquerque NM who visits his children and grandchildren in Dallas once a year by using first class Amtrak via Chicago. How do you want foreign tourists to enjoy seeing the country? It isn't for nothing that Amtrak uses the Moffat Tunnel route rather than Sherman Hill and its saving of some five hours. Then there is the Empire Builder and its providing a life line for towns and areas that simply don't have any other transportation during winter's snows.
Again, there are laws in effect forcing theater owners to provide facilities for the handicapped and hard of hearing. This costs money and reduces occupancy. I think that the National transportation picture should do the same. And a robust Amtrak long distance service is the most economical way of doing it.
This is basic Judeo-Christian morality as far as I am concerned. Also preparation for the possible return of A-cards and gas rationing when and if the area around where I live continues the march posed by policies that reward terrorism. And continue to do so. And preparation for another Katrina.
This professor is anything but ivory tower. He is one one of the more highly known consultants in regards to America and international railroading. But he is a professional so that means he put's his own personal preference for the railroads aside when it comes time to recommend action. As for the former head of the PA highspeed rail commission (now deceased), he spent most of his life working his way up through the ranks of railroading until he reached a high position and then retired to an even higher administrative position at a major university (although he also taught transportation classes par-time). He did his best to try every which way to come up with a way that state-wide high speed rail would work in PA but it just wasn't there. The Pittsburgh area just wasn't populated enough to make it work and the state politicians just couldn't keep their noses out of running it.
As for buses, my friend tells me that susidizing mid-distance and long-distance bus fares in most of the US gives far more bang for the buck than subsidizing the normal once a day or twice a day train. The roads are already there and much of them are interstate or interstate quality, the salaries are currently much less than Amtrak's with less work rules, there's more scheduling opportunities, and the service is normally faster. He doesn't claim bus service is more travel friendly--the train is still the best for comfort and less troubled by weather. But from a financial standpoint, its a better deal for the taxpayers. Remember, I'm not talking about the NE and CA corridors that everyone keeps mentioning or commuter operations--just most geograpical mid-distance and long-distance non-air and non-personal vehicle travel. What he is advocating on the national level as the best deal overall when it comes to government financing is to keep the corridors where the impacted states and communities are willing to help the feds subsidize frequent and quality passenger rail service, then turn to subsidized bus transporation where a subsidized passenger rail system just can't be justified. In other words, a national plan that utilizes both types of transportation for land transportation.
MFIllini5 wrote:The U.S. should condemn all railroad rights-of-way in the country with no compensation to the railroads. The rights-of-way would be public as they should be. The U.S. could then tax the railroads for their use of the now public right-of-way, just as we pay gas tax and other taxes to fund and use public highways. Once the government has the rights-of-way under its control and this logical source of funds, they could look at the system comprehensively and determine which rights-of-way are redundant and which need to be improved, expanded, realigned and which need to be created altogether for both freight and passenger services, high-speed or not. If no private companies choose to run passenger service in the system, the government could create a separate company to run passenger trains and just build it gradually over time on the routes that demand the most passenger service.
Marx would be proud..........
MichaelSol wrote: By Paul M. Weyrichweb posted February 21, 2005 "Among the reforms which we at the Amtrak Reform Council advocated, and which were picked up by the Administration, is to create two separate corporations. One would own the infrastructure now owned by Amtrak in the Northeast Corridor from Washington D.C. to New York City and also New Haven, CT to Boston as well as a 70-mile stretch in Michigan. That corporation would be responsible for the maintenance and upkeep of the property owned by Amtrak. In addition, it would assist the freight railroads for that portion of the system now leased to Amtrak. Under such a system the Commuter Rail lines, which run many more trains over the Corridor then does Amtrak, would have to pay their fair share of upkeep. A second corporation would only run passenger trains. "Presently, because Amtrak is involved in so many businesses, it is not possible to find out exactly what it costs to operate a given train." ------------------ Michael Sol: I spoke a number of years ago with Marty Garelick about this. He and Paul Reistrup agreed back in the 1970s that Amtrak was attempting to straddle two entirely separate core competencies -- the NEC, and all the rest. As private sector guys, they saw both the financial and managerial obstacles inherent -- absolutely inherent -- in attempting to effectively manage under one Board and one management team such divergent operating and business models. Congress takes with Amtrak very much the same attitude that it does with the Staggers Act -- it won't act until something falls completely apart.
By Paul M. Weyrichweb posted February 21, 2005
"Among the reforms which we at the Amtrak Reform Council advocated, and which were picked up by the Administration, is to create two separate corporations. One would own the infrastructure now owned by Amtrak in the Northeast Corridor from Washington D.C. to New York City and also New Haven, CT to Boston as well as a 70-mile stretch in Michigan. That corporation would be responsible for the maintenance and upkeep of the property owned by Amtrak. In addition, it would assist the freight railroads for that portion of the system now leased to Amtrak. Under such a system the Commuter Rail lines, which run many more trains over the Corridor then does Amtrak, would have to pay their fair share of upkeep. A second corporation would only run passenger trains.
"Presently, because Amtrak is involved in so many businesses, it is not possible to find out exactly what it costs to operate a given train."
------------------
Michael Sol:
I spoke a number of years ago with Marty Garelick about this. He and Paul Reistrup agreed back in the 1970s that Amtrak was attempting to straddle two entirely separate core competencies -- the NEC, and all the rest. As private sector guys, they saw both the financial and managerial obstacles inherent -- absolutely inherent -- in attempting to effectively manage under one Board and one management team such divergent operating and business models.
Congress takes with Amtrak very much the same attitude that it does with the Staggers Act -- it won't act until something falls completely apart.
I am not going to attempt to get into what business model might or might not work. Some had the view that those kind of splits would do nothing more than shuffle deck chairs. Fact is that the NEC needed and still needs a big infusion of cash. As reported by Weyrich, OMB's Kaplan only said that if the reforms are enacted, "we might look at restoring some money." Now that is a commitment that is going to get congress to move!!
So it has been a year since Dave Gunn was fired, allegedly for his resistance to the NEC spin-off. You would think by now that Bush appointed Amtrak Board, with their guys in the president slot would have a ready to go plan on the table. Fact is, I think that they have backed off on the idea. Do you suppose that the train running part of Amtrak might find themselves facing the same kinds of conflicts as a tenant on the NEC as they do as a tenant on the freight railroads?
As to what it cost to run each train, I am not sure what Weyrich's problem is. I can look at the Amtrak monthly financial and look at numbers for each train under a variety of "what is included" for each train. Maybe he has a problem understanding the difference between "cost" and the reduction in expenses that result from the elimination of a train.
I worked for Paul Reistrup, and I think he is smart enough to run most any complex business. I think a good part of the problem was not so much as to how to manage, but more in how to explain the complexities to everybody involved in putting up the money. Dave Gunn put it up fairly well-both the NEC and the non-NEC businesses need government money. It is just a matter of what you call the expenditure. The NEC needs big bucks for capital investments, the rest of the place needs less bucks for for operating deficits. However, I would also submit that compared to this day and age, Reistrup and Garelick had to work at a time when communication and information/data collection technology was only one step past non-existent.
"We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics
"Larry Kudlow of CNBC asked me if it were true that I did not advocate destroying Amtrak but wanted to reform it. I plead guilty. I am pro-rail.
"I believe we demonstrated after 9/11 that it is prudent to have a national passenger rail system. However, Amtrak is spiraling toward death. The Administration has recommended not a dime.
"In Ronald Reagan's budget Amtrak was also zeroed out. Back then the President knew full well that Congress would restore the money. It was one of those "wink-winks" which take place in Washington. Reagan satisfied a part of his conservative constituency by pretending to be against Amtrak funding while his Office of Management and Budget (OMB) people planned for the restoration of the money.
"I probed the Deputy Director of OMB as to how serious the Bush Administration is about not funding Amtrak. Specifically, I asked him if the Congress restored the Amtrak money, would he recommend a veto to the President, assuming a separate Transportation Appropriations Bill had been passed by the Congress. (Reagan always excused himself on the Amtrak issue by pointing out that Congress sent him what is known as a "CR," a Continuing Resolution, wherein several appropriations bills are rolled into one. He felt he could not veto the Continuing Resolution without endangering the nation's defense). OMB Deputy Director Joel David Kaplan said he was not in a position to recommend a veto. He finally showed the hand he was dealing the Congress when he said, "We have laid out reforms three years in a row. Congress has ignored these reforms. If they will consider and enact reforms we might look at restoring some money."
"That view was confirmed by Secretary of Transportation Norm Mineta, who in response to a question from our Free Congress Adjunct Scholar Tom Till, said, "Enact the reforms and then we'll talk money."
"As usual, the media has set up the choice of continuing the status quo vs. zeroing out all funding for Amtrak. That is not, in fact, the only choice. There is zeroing out funding vs. passing reforms and restoring money.
I agree with Michael Sol that Amtrak has faired better under Republican administrations. Unfortunately the pattern of more favorable support under Republicans didn't follow through to the latest administration. It was almost a perfect storm. A combination of White House budget people with options limited by powerful leaders in the military/defense sector and entitlement programs, a Secretary of Transportation (yes, a Democrat) that had no initiative on his own and a Republican Congress that generally went along with the administration's bidding almost got Amtrak tanked.
I think it is realistic to say that Dave Gunn, himself a Republican (or a Tory, when he wears his Canadian hat), held the place together rather well. Interesting that the unlikely bedfellows of Paul Weyrich, a conservative political activist and former Massachusetts Govenor and Democratic presidential candidate Mike Dukakis recruited and persuaded Dave Gunn to take the job. I don't really think that anybody in administration wanted to take the rap for losing Amtrak and so the line was to put the job on the states or in private hands, i.e., somebody else that could be blamed when rail passenger service did not survive. Gunn's key strength was convince enough people in congress that there was nothing close to a well thought out plan to support that type of change and to try to force a change by simply cutting off funds would result in nothing more that the end of the service.
In the year that Gunn has been gone from the job, little more has been done other than to implement programs that were under development or started by Gunn in the four years he was at Amtrak. Unaudited, but here are the latest results for the 11 months of FY2006 through August as reported on the Amtrak web site. Revenue, excluding $445.4 million Federal support for operations: $1.824 billion. Expenses, excluding interest, taxes, depreciation and other post employment benefits: $2.233 billion. Revenue is 82% of expense. Add interest: $99.6 million, depreciation: $497.1 million and OPEB's: $69.7 million and the total expense is $2.899 billion. Revenue is about 63% of that number.
I don't know how those numbers compare to the percentages reported in Michael's post, but given the rather intractable opposition by the Bush administration, I don't think they are too bad.
Quentin
Yep, I remember Thomas Downs. We were hit with the "Downsizing" of Amtrak and here on the Florida west coast we lost the Silver Meteor and are now just left with one northbound and one southbound train a day (Silver Star).
George Warrington seemed like a likable guy, but from what I've read his emphasis seemed to be on the NEC and not on the LD trains.
It's interesting that some believe that the LD passenger train is obsolete, yet ridership continues to grow.
As I've stated so many times....long distance bus travel is far less comfortable than passenger train travel. Buses having to meal stop at "choke & pukes" (as truckers used to call them) or at fast food resteraunts sure doesn't compare to having a dining car or a lounge car with snacks in the consist. Paying the extra dollars for a relaxing meal on the rails seems worth it.
"I like my Pullman Standards & Budds in Stainless Steel flavors, thank you!"
SFbrkmn wrote: One of the biggest cutbacks in history took place in 1979 when four long distance trains were abolished in early Oct that yr. I was in high school and remember it all quite well. This took place with a Democrat President working with a Democrat Congress. Carter proposed a 0% funding for fiscal 1980.
Strong Amtrak presidents have generally been Republican appointees for whatever reasons. Paul Reistrup, for instance, was appointed under Gerald Ford, and was a skilled railroader who in turn brought in the highly experienced Marty Garelick as COO. Sharp railroaders all around.
Under Carter, Amtrak enjoyed about the same degree of success as everything else under that President. When the Republicans came back in charge under Reagan, it was the strong leadership of the legendary F. Graham Claytor at Amtrak, John Riley at FRA, and Elizabeth Dole at DOT -- all Amtrak supporters -- that led the renaissance of Amtrak, restoring Congressional favor by being able by 1989 to generate 72% of its own budget, up from 41% in Carter's last year in office.
Under Clinton, Amtrak again became a political appointment. Instead of a strong, experienced leader like Claytor, Amtrak got saddled with Thomas Downs, whose primary achievement had been massive delays and huge cost over-runs on the Capitol Union Station project as the city adminstrator of Washington DC. It was Downs who began to promise to Congress self-sufficiency for Amtrak -- creating wholly unrealistic expectations that continue to contaminate the discussion to this day.
Rather than lengthen my already long post above I thought I'd add this separately, from RAILPAC:
The Bay Area and Central Valley led the charge, with the Sacramento-Oakland-San Jose Capitol Corridor line increasing 9 percent over October 2005 to a record 120,074 riders. The San Joaquins, which runs from Oakland to Stockton to Bakersfield, increased 5.5 percent to a record 66,750 passengers, according to figures released by the state Department of Transportation (Caltrans). Both lines are operated by the national rail service, Amtrak, but receive large state subsidies.
"In the run-up of gas prices, people discovered that there was this alternative out there" and continued to ride the rails even when gasoline dropped sharply during October, said Bill Bronte, chief of Caltrans' Rail Division.
Southern California also saw an increase in intercity rail service, which Caltrans classifies separately from commuter lines like the Stockton-to-San Jose Altamont Commuter Express and Gilroy-San Jose-San Francisco Caltrain services.
The Pacific Surfliner trains, which run from Santa Barbara to San Diego via Los Angeles, increased 1.3 percent to 215,692 passengers for October.
Much of the Capitol Corridor's increase came after the line boosted its service, especially between Oakland and San Jose where it paid for track improvements that allowed smoother coexistence of fright and passenger
"We now have the same frequency of trains as Amtrak runs on the Northeast Corridor between Boston and New York," he said, noting that when the line was created in 1991 it had three roundtrips and carried 270,000 passengers a year. Today it has 16 roundtrips and carries nearly 1.3 million passengers.
That growth has pushed the Capitol Corridor to Amtrak's third-busiest line, after the Northeast Corridor and Pacific Surfliner, Bronte said. The San Joaquins line is in fifth place, but may soon move up, he added.
"Another big thing people don't realize is that 20 percent of all the riders on the entire Amtrak system are in California," Skoropowski said. "Twenty years ago, we weren't even on the radar screen."
The ridership increase, along with regular fare increases, have also brought increased revenue. The Capitol Corridor pulled in $1.37 million in October, up 15 percent over the previous October, while the San Joaquins saw revenues jump 12 percent to $1.9 million.
Those increases have helped both lines to come within a few percentage points of the state's goal of paying for half of the lines' operating costs through fares.
This information is being sent to you by the Rail Passenger Association of California (RailPAC). RailPAC is the largest rail advocacy group in California & Nevada working for the expansion and improvement of passenger rail service.
alphas wrote: The reality is Amtrack is simply outdated. It works OK in the NE corridor because of the large population area, road congestion, the cities are close enough that there's not a great time savings if one flies, and it owns the track. There are a few other corridors it somewhat works. There are even other corridors it would work IF it owned the track. That's it. I have a good friend who is a full professor of transportation who loves the rails as much of me. He's served on all types of commissions and committees that have studied passenger rail. His conclusion is the time of the long-distance passenger train in the US has definitely passed unless its operated something like a cruise ship where the passengers are not in any hurry to get anywhere and willing to pay top dollar to be pampered while on the train. Mid-distance doesn't fare any better. The studies he has participated in show its far, far, far cheaper (and faster and more convenient for the passengers) for the government in almost all areas of the country to heavily subsidize Greyhound or other bus companies to perform the passenger services for those who can't or won't fly. And there's no way that the freight railroads could be paid enough money to bring back their physical plants to what it would take to operate higher speed (not high speed but higher speed then what's available now outside the NE) passenger service in the US. The studies also indicate that frequency of service and speed of service are secondary to price but all are important. So having one or even several trains a day in each direction averaging 50-55 mph (if everything works right) serving a market just doesn't cut it. I also worked for another gentleman who chaired the high-speed rail study commission for Pennsylvania and who had a long personal history in railroad operations. They studied it for years but couldn't find a way for it to work. Or as he told me, "If Chicago was located where Pittsburgh was and the (state) politicians didn't insist that the trains stop in each of their districts, it might have a chance someday as the technology is developed overseas." In other words, it would take the very largest metropolitan areas at each end and no more that 400-500 miles apart to make it work. And no stopping in between for anything other than a large metropolitan area. Summary: No matter who runs congress and the Whitehouse, there isn't much hope for anything other than something like the current status quo in Amtrack's future. Amtrack is trapped--if it gets rid of all the lightly used lines and concentrates on the corridors, it won't get the political support it needs. If it does what it has to do to get the political support, it is stretched way too thin to really do anything well. With the coming problems with medicare/medicaid and social security looming up in the not too distant future (and I suspect a significant increase in the size of the military with what's happening in the world, not only in the middle-east but also in China, Russia rebuilding, and other world hot spots) I just don't see a great increase in federal financial resources flowing to Amtrack like so many of the posters want.
The reality is Amtrack is simply outdated. It works OK in the NE corridor because of the large population area, road congestion, the cities are close enough that there's not a great time savings if one flies, and it owns the track. There are a few other corridors it somewhat works. There are even other corridors it would work IF it owned the track. That's it.
I have a good friend who is a full professor of transportation who loves the rails as much of me. He's served on all types of commissions and committees that have studied passenger rail. His conclusion is the time of the long-distance passenger train in the US has definitely passed unless its operated something like a cruise ship where the passengers are not in any hurry to get anywhere and willing to pay top dollar to be pampered while on the train. Mid-distance doesn't fare any better. The studies he has participated in show its far, far, far cheaper (and faster and more convenient for the passengers) for the government in almost all areas of the country to heavily subsidize Greyhound or other bus companies to perform the passenger services for those who can't or won't fly. And there's no way that the freight railroads could be paid enough money to bring back their physical plants to what it would take to operate higher speed (not high speed but higher speed then what's available now outside the NE) passenger service in the US. The studies also indicate that frequency of service and speed of service are secondary to price but all are important. So having one or even several trains a day in each direction averaging 50-55 mph (if everything works right) serving a market just doesn't cut it.
I also worked for another gentleman who chaired the high-speed rail study commission for Pennsylvania and who had a long personal history in railroad operations. They studied it for years but couldn't find a way for it to work. Or as he told me, "If Chicago was located where Pittsburgh was and the (state) politicians didn't insist that the trains stop in each of their districts, it might have a chance someday as the technology is developed overseas." In other words, it would take the very largest metropolitan areas at each end and no more that 400-500 miles apart to make it work. And no stopping in between for anything other than a large metropolitan area.
Summary: No matter who runs congress and the Whitehouse, there isn't much hope for anything other than something like the current status quo in Amtrack's future. Amtrack is trapped--if it gets rid of all the lightly used lines and concentrates on the corridors, it won't get the political support it needs. If it does what it has to do to get the political support, it is stretched way too thin to really do anything well. With the coming problems with medicare/medicaid and social security looming up in the not too distant future (and I suspect a significant increase in the size of the military with what's happening in the world, not only in the middle-east but also in China, Russia rebuilding, and other world hot spots) I just don't see a great increase in federal financial resources flowing to Amtrack like so many of the posters want.
Having grown up with two Ivy Leauge professors for parents I can tell you that the ivory tower folks are WAY too "above" the realities to understand how railroads truly work. Your professor seems entirely taken with the highway logic of a couple decades past. See how well that fares when gas hits $4. Look at how many routes Greyhound has already abandoned all over our country. Leaving a solution to any single mode is extremely risky. Even with bus service once its gone it rarely comes back.
Second, I know a number of so called "transportation experts" who have worked for states on high speed rail and most of them think of it on the european model with dedicated ROW and trains. Many are retired highway department (note I didn't dignify them by saying DOT) folks and have no idea how railroad math works so they inevitably come up with meaningless numbers when it comes to cost estimates.
In the end, the only rail service that will work is an incremental "higher speed" network that can provide frequency of service in clean equipment at a reasonable cost to the consumer AND the government while properly compensating the track owner ( Amtrak or otherwise) for the operating and maintenance related costs. Take for example the Capitol Corridor trains in California. Amtrak doesn't own that track and yet ridership has been increasing in double digits and frequencies have grown from 3 trains at start up to 16 trains today. The trains pay 50% of their costs from the farebox. Darn good when you consider the costs Amtrak has.
Finally, Amtrak's budget is barely a rounding error in our overall Federal budget. Even zeroing it out entirely won't make any difference in the HUGE issues with entitlements. The ridiculous posturing over Amtrak is nothing more than Beltway politics as usual. Lets hope that the 110th Congress has gotten the message the voters sent.
LC
Out-dated in what sense? Certainly RAIL PASSENGER SERVICE is not outdated, especially in an age where fuel for cars is so prodigiously expensive and the supply becoming a real pain in the @$$ to secure (hydrogen fuel cells will not save us).
I've always thought it a shame that amtrak is forced to suffer, while Greyhound Lines (the crappy bus service known for lousy schedules, always being late, dirty facilities and vehicles, and over-priced (compared to the quality of service) tickets is somehow able to turn a profit and secure a base of ridership. I guess an important point here would be that Greyhound's thoroughfares (the IHS) are subsidized and maintained with tax-payer dollars. The airlines, too, are notorious for being bailed out and having money thrown at them by government.
But try and get anybody in government to give a penny to amtrak and it's labeled "welfare for a failling system"...I think this is a huge lie and more so, a cop-out. If politicians simply admitted that they had no interest in "bailing out" or subsidizing amtrak because amtrak wasn't a billion dollar industry with high lobbying-potential and there was no money in it for themselves, the politicians, it would sting less. Politicians don't want to refrain from giving amtrak money not because it accounts to "giving welfare to a failiny system" but namely because they don't care about amtrak and have no reason to.
Nothing is more offensive and condescending than having smoke blown up one's keister.
You can get as much trained, educated management with well-thought-out plans as you want, but the fact remains simple - AMTRAK NEEDS GOVERNMENT MONEY. Without the initial boost for a year or a number of years, there will be no hope and amtrak will remain to be a passenger rail service that the bolivians would be embarassed by. Couple government subsidies with smart, efficient management and it might stand a chance.
AntonioFP45 wrote: But don't forget the other game that congressmen/women have also been playing, which has been mentioned before. While a number of them seem to be "anti-Amtrak" no one wants to earn the reputation (other than McCain) that he or she helped to kill Amtrak (especially if Amtrak happens to run in his or her state).
But don't forget the other game that congressmen/women have also been playing, which has been mentioned before.
While a number of them seem to be "anti-Amtrak" no one wants to earn the reputation (other than McCain) that he or she helped to kill Amtrak (especially if Amtrak happens to run in his or her state).
...which is EXACTLY why they won't change a thing!
BTW I think even McCain has softened. In recent years, he's been rather pro-corridors but anti-long distance.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
daveklepper wrote:And remember, Mineta was a Clinton appointee!
Mineta was a Bush appointee and the lone, token Democrat. Rodney Slater was Clinton's guy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodney_E._Slater
PBenham wrote:In 1971, Penn Central was bankrupt in large measure thanks to passenger losses. Other bankrupt carriers needed some help as well. The other major elements of Conrail had minor passenger losses, like CNJ, EL, L&HR, LV and Reading which were already out of the passenger business, or had been bailed out by New Jersey. BUT The Rock Island opted out of Amtrak, (The "initiation fee" was too much for them.) as did D&RGW and Southern. Now the 1971 situation no longer exists, as the "big 6" are quite healthy and no longer in need of a government bailout. The "Socialism" is not needed, what with the likes of BNSF, CN, CP, NS and UP going like gangbusters, and the darlings of Wall Street in the transportation sector. CSX is in a class by itself, and that is a problem that Amtrak cannot solve for them. CSX needs to find a way out of the mess they got themselves into, before there are more mergers, and the service disruptions they cause.
Only NS and CN are "revenue adequate", meaning they're making enough money to stay in business for the long haul without having to "eat their foot" to stay alive. It would be unreasonable to place any additional financial burden on them on top of what they already bear for Amtrak.
Anthony Scalleri wrote: Having government put down tax-payer money into public transportation IS NOT socialism. Of course the rxr companies don't want to pay for it. They don't care about the public good or energy indepence or the benefits of having people travel by rail as opposed to highway - they care about making MONEY. Not that there's anything necessarily wrong with caring solely about that (though some may rightfully argue with this point). I think we'd all agree that both the public and the government have a lot to gain by funding/subsidizing, giving tax breaks to rail transport. The automobile industry would, of course, disagree, whine and lobby the hell out of washington, though. I DO think that eventually the democrats will come around and realize that there's a direct connection between funding amtrak AND being on the path towards this "energy independence" that they're so commonly talking about. AT least I hope like hell they will. Amtrak certainly has a MUCH BETTER chance with the democrats than with the republicans.
Having government put down tax-payer money into public transportation IS NOT socialism. Of course the rxr companies don't want to pay for it. They don't care about the public good or energy indepence or the benefits of having people travel by rail as opposed to highway - they care about making MONEY. Not that there's anything necessarily wrong with caring solely about that (though some may rightfully argue with this point).
I think we'd all agree that both the public and the government have a lot to gain by funding/subsidizing, giving tax breaks to rail transport.
The automobile industry would, of course, disagree, whine and lobby the hell out of washington, though.
I DO think that eventually the democrats will come around and realize that there's a direct connection between funding amtrak AND being on the path towards this "energy independence" that they're so commonly talking about. AT least I hope like hell they will.
Amtrak certainly has a MUCH BETTER chance with the democrats than with the republicans.
I can personally guarentee every one of you that D's or R's will not make a difference at Amtrak. Both parties have much bigger fish to fry. Amtrak is not a political 'winner' for either party.
The big question for the railroads or any other business that exists to make a profit: Who in their right mind would want a business for which there is just about a 100% probability that there will never be a profit?
And by the way, just because the frieght railroads are in the business of running freight trains down tracks, it does not follow that they have current employees that could just put on a different hat and start to manage and operate a passenger service.
No argument with that last.
My comment about Socialism was directed to the portion of the post dealing with trying to confiscate funding from railroad companies. We still have this little thing called a Constitution last I checked and that and numerous statutes make confiscation of private property without just compensation illegal.
PBenham wrote:The way Amtrak gets treated by administration after administration is a shame! We are at a point (as I have said before) where it will be necessary, to once again, rationalize Amtrak and get more money from those states it benefits. BUT unfunded mandates are smashing many states' finances (Medicaid) and considering the condition of the fleet they can operate, and the cars age, and the need to replace them, well as I have said before, it is time to say UNCLE! Enough already! The big 6 need to put some cash up, along with states that have some "wiggle room" left within their budgets to enable Amtrak to operate in their states. Right now, for me Amtrak is not a viable option. New York does not want Amtrak, except in the Northeast Corridor! The rest of the state is not viable as far as Metro New York's political bosses see things and that's the bottom line! Bye, bye Amtrak, Hello Metro North in Albany-Rensselaer- GCT/Penn service. Beyond A-R? Fuhgetabout it!
Sounds like socialism to me. The railroads owe no obligation to further fund Amtrak and they won't do it. That burden was taken on by the Government in 1971. What we need is a voice of reality and compromise, which we may get now that Congress and the Presidency are held by different parties. Jim Oberstar (D-MI) is incoming House T&I Committee Chairman and has publicly said that Amtrak and High Speed Rail are among his priorities.
Before the riot starts, let me say I know there are many excellent people who are, and who have worked for Amtrak, or in the Government, trying to "fix" Amtrak. Neither party has done a thing to push Amtrak much past 1971. As far as I´m concerned it ended before it started. Just a look at the pre Amtrak passenger rail map of April 1971 and the Amtrak map of May 1 says it all. I think we have all lived in an airline era where non-stop is the only two words that mean anything to anyone. That is a great concept for air but it really stinks for rail. Sure a few corridor non-stops might be in order but the bigger picture is that Amtrak is susposed to be a National system. Not a Washington, NY, Boston railroad. What I am driving at is no matter how good the Empire Builder is, what about the people in Butte?, Livingston? Miles City? etc. Now multiply that times the many routes we are all familiar with: Chicago-St. Louis is a good example. How many routes or rail lines connect these cities? How many towns are in the middle? Anyone in Chicago or St.Louis can go to the airport and fly away, but can the people of all those little towns? No! Only the ones on the single Amtrak route serving this "corridor". Danville, Decatur and Clinton? forget it. The abandonment of the old Seaboard Air Line System in Virginia and Central Florida, and the trains that served it are part of the same saga. Sure one can get from Washington to Miami, but what about Ocala, Dade City or Gainesville? THESE are the towns that really need and depend on Amtrak. In fact Ocala spent millions on its old Union Station to make it into a showplace transportation center and what do they get for their effort? A single train each way at 2 am which has now been re-routed. Go to any major airport and look at the arrivals and departures. Not only are they fast but they move very often, many times a day, just pick your departure or arrival time. Not so on the railroad. We have marshalled everything onto a single route then for the most part cut that to one train each way daily. Has anyone in Washington thought to study a single Amtrak route such as BNSF´s Chicago-LA mainline? The BNSF serves MANY mini corridors with one train. Chicago-Kansas City, Kansas City-Newton, Las Vegas-Albuquerque, Northern Arizona and of course Barstow-San Bernandino-LA. What would happen if all that AM-JUNK, sitting in long lines at Amtraks shops, were restored and another schedule added to the Southwest Chief route? Imagine the Grand Canyon, or El Capitan.. 3 trains using the route. The more trains on the line the less the cost per train for stations and support. But what about those who live in Santa Rosa NM? or Liberal KS? not even 3 trains on the BNSF route would help them so we must figure either through trains, sections or connecting services on the Golden State Route, The Overland Route, and the Texas Pacific Eagle route. It´s not that the ridership from LA to Chicago would suddenly jump but that the cost per train would fall while local and smaller town ridership would soar.
As a onetime City Councilman the only idea I have ever heard to fix this is to give the trains back to the railroads, train by train, route by route and coach by coach as they requested them. Then make it so sweet that they would knock down the door to get them back. Set up a long term Tax relief program equal to (a magic number worked out by the railroads and government on a sliding scale...perhaps as high as 100 or 110% ) the total cost of operating said train over said route. So if the Starlight cost 20 million a year to operate then UP could get say 80% of the total cost of this train, it´s services, staff, promotion, stations, locos and cars applied aginst the total federal (states could join in to sweeten the pot) tax bill of the company. If the train passed certain inspections by an "Amtrak over-seeing and reservations agency" for on-time performance, promotion etc... then it goes to 90%. For new services it goes to 100% or 110%. In other words if a railroad wanted to increase performance with rehabilitation, new track, signals and such, the passenger train would be a ticket by writing off the cost in taxes. This would even work if we stay with the current system and a state or states wanted to add a service in addition to Amtrak. Lets say Chicago-Des Moines-Omaha on the Iowa Interstate. Nebraska, Illnois and Iowa could form a "Tax Train" pact and not only get the train but the railroad could get it´s line up to 60 mph perhaps with signaling. What ever could be charged to the train could be refunded with tax breaks.
But alias, one group wants to kill it outright and the other wants to micro-manage a top heavy monster . Worse they cross party lines, with some of each in both parties. So I won´t hold my breath. In the meantime, by putting what few trains there are onto single routes we defeat the purpose of transportation for all. It´s like a bunch of us building a Wal-Mart store with a single long aisle and only one product.
Ocklawaha
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.