HarveyK400I would agree with most of the article, "Amtrak.Time to claim your Destiny" (Trains, July 2009) with some exceptions and comments. Adding frequencies to existing routes is a pretty good concept for short and medium distances; but transcontinental routes are another matter as fares drop with distance to stay competitive and congruent with the level of disutility. As for a second Chicago-Minnesota train, I would rather see the recently-announced Talgos on that route and Superliners on the Hiawathas for combined Metra-Amtrak trains in the rush hours where frequency trumps speed. A New Orleans-San Antonio day train would provide an evening departure from Houston to San Antonio and a midday arrival eastbound; and it could use some of those Amfleets awaiting repair. If the City of New Orleans could be extended to Houston in 7 hours, a 50-mph avg, instead of over 9 hours for the current Sunset, that would add a major market and frequency. I'd rather see the Eagle routed from Fort Worth to El Paso through Midland and pay the extra money to TRE. A morning train from San Antonio to Dallas and a late-afternoon return would still connect with the Eagle and Heartland in both directions and afford a half day of activity. New Orleans-Jacksonville may take, at best, over 11 hours and at least another 2:30 hours to Orlando. This route deserves a daytime train between the cities on this route. Extending the City of New Orleans, or a section of it, as an overnight train to and from Jacksonville connecting with Florida services is another possibility and opportunity for more frequencies along the Gulf Coast. I can empathize with the desire to restore the Sunset and the attention it got; but the greater needs and better niche for expanded rail services seem to be in the Florida, Great Lakes, and Southeast regions. Needs in other areas must be met too for regional equity and national relevance. As for new corridor equipment, the extra doors of a California "Surfliner" car take up revenue space and will not aid in reducing station dwell time, at least in the Midwest. Superliners would offer 4-8 more seats with comparable spacing and toilet facitilties. With two passenger crew, only two doors can be staffed to check tickets and identity (thanks, DHS); and a double stream of passengers with baggage may jam up at the single stair. At a station like Springfield, IL, the agent might assist at a third door with crowds of 100 and more that sometimes board. (On one occassion my train sat for nine minutes.) Trying to put everyone in one car is ridiculous and consumes time that offsets any gain with faster running or smoother operations.
The article is well worth reading. It contains a lot of good ideas. I particularly liked the recommendation to run the Texas Eagle over the Trinity Railway Express (TRE) route between Fort Worth and Dallas, since it is a recommendation that I made to Amtrak's senior management more than two years ago. They ran a test train (locomotive and one Superliner) over the TRE to assess the feasibility of doing so. I have been told Amtrak would like to do it, but the TRE is not cooperating. Given the losses racked-up by the TRE every year, I would think that they would jump at the chance for extra revenue. Whoops, I forgot. The TRE is a government run agency. Not much business acumen there.
The author points to the growth in Amtrak's passenger counts over the last five years. And he notes that the increased ridership has produced more revenues. Moreover, he correctly notes that increasing ridership without increasing total costs will lower unit costs. Unfortunately, however, he does not give us the true cost picture.
If the $1.3 billion in stimulus is added to the FY08 federal and state subsidies received by Amtrak (2009 numbers will not be available until October or November but should be reasonably close to the FY08 subsidies), the average system subsidy jumps from $48.50 per passengers to $93.77 per passenger or from 22.6 cents per passenger mile to nearly 44 cents per passenger mile.
Given the stimulus s money received by Amtrak, as well as future spends, it will have to increase the rider count dramatically to keep the average per passenger and per passenger mile subsidy anywhere near its present level. The probability of doing so is not great.
Most definitely long distance trains have to be rationalized and marketed, and not be confused with, shorter distance/corridor frequency trains. But are they may be extensions of such services or be suplimentary or complimentrary to such services or not. Still a once a week or once a day train may benefit the route service with more frequency.
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
Sam1 Given the losses racked-up by the TRE every year, I would think that they would jump at the chance for extra revenue. Whoops, I forgot. The TRE is a government run agency. Not much business acumen there.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Interesting article at the Pew Charitable Trust about highway funding. Bottom line was that the user fees, fuel tax, is paying a lower % of the cost over time and the general budget is subsidizing highways more and more. I believe the current user fees are covering only about 50% of the highways costs.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.