For the fiscal year ended September 30, 2007, the Sunset Limited failed to cover its variable or avoidable costs to the tune of $.485 per passenger mile. This was before interest and depreciation.
Amtrak's average interest and depreciation for 2007 was approximately $.1023 per passenger mile. This number includes the capital intensive northeast corridor. The information furnished in Amtrak's on-line report does not allow one to determine the passenger mile interest and depreciation attracted by the Sunset, but it was probably less than the system average. I think $.05 per mile is reasonable.
The distance from Los Angles to New Orleans is 1,995 rail miles. The avoidable cost or subsidy for a passenger traveling on the Sunset from one end point to another, at $.535 per mile, works out to $1,067.33. The train averages approximately 46 mph over the 1995 miles.
The Sunset calls at 19 stations, excluding the end points, on its run between New Orleans and Los Angles. Six of the stations are flag stops and presumably entrain or detrain few passengers.
Fourteen of the communities served by the Sunset have commercial air service, i.e. trunk carrier or commuter air. The other five are within a 2.5 hour drive of a city that has air carrier service. Moreover, all but one community - Sanderson, Texas - are served by an intercity bus company with two to four services a day.
Speaking of buses, Greyhound runs from El Paso to Tucson in as little as 5 hours and 35 minutes. It makes two passenger stops between El Paso and Tucson. The slowest bus, which takes the same amount of time as the Sunset, makes four stops, including a 45 minute chow break in Lordsburg. The Sunset, if it is on time, requires 6 hours and 25 minutes for the same run. Unless it is flagged for an intermediate station, it makes no passenger stops.
For the Sunset on time is a rarity, at least in Texas. Its on time record in Texas from August 1, 2007 to date has been two per cent at Houston and 15 per cent at El Paso. Number 2 has an on time record of four per cent at El Paso and two per cent at San Antonio.
Justifying the Sunset on economic or social needs is a stretch. It is an excellent example of throwing good money after bad. If the Sunset were discontinued, the funds, presumably, could be used to improve existing corridors or help develop new ones.
Alas, as long as passenger rail in the United States is held prisoner by the politicians and their fellow travelers, heaps of money will be wasted on bad policy.
There are two types of critics. Those who try to tear things down, and those who want to make things work better.
The problems of the Sunset are well known. The question on my mind is how can we solve those problems? Is it really hopeless?
UP has been adding capacity as fast as they can, which should help the on-time performance and thus its ability to attract customers. It would no doubt help the Sunset's bottom line if it were daily instead of "try weakly." Let's try applying solutions before declaring it a failure. Making it go away is the easy way out.
Mr. Toy wrote: UP has been adding capacity as fast as they can, which should help the on-time performance and thus its ability to attract customers. It would no doubt help the Sunset's bottom line if it were daily instead of "try weakly." Let's try applying solutions before declaring it a failure. Making it go away is the easy way out.
I'm guessing it will be two or three years before UP has solved their capacity crunch, and the Sunset Limited will continue to run hopelessly late until then. I think it would be foolish to upgrade the route to daily service before double track allows increased speeds and reliable scheduling. Let's just leave it as is for two more years.
There are many types of critics.
This critic is concerned about wasting money on a train that serves very few people, provides limited social value, which should be a criterion for public funding, and drains away resources that could be better used for enhancing existing rapid rail corridors or developing new ones.
If the Sunset Limited ran on time every day, I would still favor discontinuing it. Better use could be made with the monies saved. It's a matter of being accountable for the public spend, which is the people's money. It is bad policy to throw good money after bad.
Long distance passenger trains in the U.S. serve less than one per cent of the traveling public. Most people walked away from them decades ago. Not of one of them covers its avoidable costs, let alone interest and depreciation.
As the following debt information shows, there is a limit as to how much we the people, who are the government, can spend. It begs the need to set our public priorities to benefit the greatest number of people. Clearly, most of the people don't show a high value for the long distance passenger train through their use.
The national debt stands at $9.1 trillion. The U.S. Government owes more than $33,000 for every man, woman, and child in the United States, which is more than the nation's income per person in 2006. The U.S. Treasury Department estimates that the national debt will touch 10 trillion dollars by 2009 and 12.9 trillion by 2017.
According to the Comptroller of the Currency, in 2006 mandatory spending, i.e. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, military and government pensions, etc. took 53 per cent of the national budget. This is a 103 per cent increase over the 1966 mandatory spend. After considering the mandatory spending and interest obligations, only 38 per cent of the budget remains for discretionary spending.
U.S. consumer debt at the end of October 2007 was approximately $2.496 trillion dollars or nearly $22,450 per household. On top of this most households are saddled with a mortgage. And if this is not enough debt to cause the lenders to salivate, local and state debt that has to be serviced.
With the retirement of millions of baby boomers over the next decade and beyond, the U.S. is facing a daunting financial challenge. The Government Accounting Office estimates that the public financial burden will soar to $440,000 per household as the Medicare and Social Security tabs come due. They, as well as defense and homeland security requirements, will make government finance a difficult task. What's worse, these numbers don't include state and local government debt. Some hard choices are ahead.
Cutting the funding for the Sunset, as well as all long distance passenger trains, will not cure the government's financial woes or reduce significant personal debt. But it could be a start. And although it would hurt a few passenger train lovers, of which I count myself, it would affect very few people.
Yes, the Sunset, as well as its sister long distance trains, is hopeless. But I could be wrong. The best way to determine the value of long distance trains is to require them to cover their variable costs, including interest and depreciation, which are really variable costs in the long run.
Samantha wrote: <> Yes, the Sunset, as well as its sister long distance trains, is hopeless. But I could be wrong. The best way to determine the value of long distance trains is to require them to cover their variable costs, including interest and depreciation, which are really variable costs in the long run.
Reportedly, airlines have lost several billion dollars over the last several years, for tens of billions of dollars overall, despite massive subsidies from local governments for airports and from the federal government for air traffic control. Should we likewise require airlines to cover their costs? Would there be as many airline passengers if they had to pay the true value of their flights?
It seems to me that losing billions of dollars is the same thing as selling below cost. We cry "unfair" when Toyota tries to sell a car below cost. Why is it not just as unfair for Delta Air Lines to sell an air ticket below cost?
Samantha wrote:Long distance passenger trains in the U.S. serve less than one per cent of the traveling public. Most people walked away from them decades ago.
Long distance passenger trains in the U.S. serve less than one per cent of the traveling public. Most people walked away from them decades ago.
Is Amtrak's small market share a function of demand or capacity? You can't reasonablty compare 15 long distance routes which serve limited markets against the entire national transportation network. A more appropriate comparison would be to compare the markets Amtrak does serve to other modes serving the same market, such as Chicago-Denver or Denver-Reno or Denver-Central California or Central California-Pacific Northwest. Sure, when you've only got one train a day in those markets Amtrak is still going to have a small share, but at least the comparison would be a valid one, and the percentage would no doubt be higher.
When people, as you say, "walked away" (your words not mine) from passenger trains gas was cheap, airports were a breeze to get through and skies were friendly. Those days are gone. In the last several years Amtrak's long distance ridership has been steadily increasing. The Sunset's 2007 ridership was up 22% over 2006. (Probably a recovery from the loss of traffic after Katrina.) Overall long distance ridership was up 2.4% over last year.
Polls show the public supports funding Amtrak. A Harris poll last year asked which forms of transportation should be expanded to meet future passenger needs. The top two choices were corridor trains and long distance trains. People may have "walked away"' from trains in the 1960s, but there is good reason to believe they want to come back. The folks who are trying to kill long distance trains are actively preventing them from doing so.
As for the Sunset's role in the national debt, bear in mind that the Sunset's fully allocated losses amount to less than three hours of spending in Iraq. Yes, I agree there is a limit to how much we the people can spend. Frankly, we'd be a lot better off if we spent a 2-3 billion a year on the most energy efficient domestic transportation system than a billion every four days on questionable adventures abroad.
Samantha wrote: If the Sunset were discontinued, the funds, presumably, could be used to improve existing corridors or help develop new ones.
If the Sunset were discontinued, the funds, presumably, could be used to improve existing corridors or help develop new ones.
A whole lot hinges on your word "presumably"! To presume Congress would allow Amtrak to take operating funds and use them to fund capital for new corridors, presumes a lot!
I definitely agree with you that the Sunset is broken. But the question of what to do about that isn't totally clear to me. There are other questions that to be looked at w.r.t. the Sunset.
1. What would it take to fix it and what would that cost? The UP's double track project west of Texas will help, but the schedule in Texas would still be "broken".
2. Texas needs corridors developed. How does the Sunset fit in? If it's a good fit, then why trash it now? LD trains running within the backbone of a corridor network should be much less costly to run, if they are considered based on incremental cost. I might be socially justifiable at that point. If the Sunset is whacked now, could it ever be restarted?
3. Would cutting the Sunset take the focus off the necessity to improve Amtrak's operational and mgt efficiency? Cutting service is not the only way to cut costs.
I think the whole Amtrak funding issue needs to be worked from another perspective. Instead of trying to sharp-shoot routes based on cost, which could lead to reduced funding and reduced service, maybe Congress could be cajoled into giving Amtrak a fixed operating subsidy and then paying the employees a bonus based on how many passenger-miles they can deliver with that subsidy. Even if Congress mandated that the existing LD train network remain in place, it would still give Amtrak incentive to figure out how to make it all work better and would focus their limited funds where it would perform the best. Coupled with a dedicated stream of capital (which it looks like them might actually get!), Amtrak could be really useful.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
oltmannd wrote:You'd think that the Sunset should be doing better now since Phoenix, Tuscon, Houston and San Antonio are so much larger population centers now than there were in 1971!
Except now the Phoenix station is 50 miles south of the city.
I like the creative ideas that are being presented. re-routing and/or rescheduling are worth investigating.
I observe that Sunset and the Empire Builder are at opposite ends of the success spectrum, which seems odd given their similarities. They both connect major transportation hubs at each end, but largely travel through sparsely populated areas between them. The Empire Builder has some advantages, including a friendly host railroad, more frequent service, better timekeeping and better scenery. We can't change the scenery on the southern route, but the other three factors could be altered if the will was there.
conrailman wrote:Too: Samantha we give the Airlines 15 billion and the Highways 40 billion a year and can't find little 1 or 2 Billion for amtrak every year? This year end Oct 2007 Amtrak carried 25 Million people. We needs to Stop giving all this Aid to these over Seas Country 80 to 200 Billion a year and this Waste of War almost 500 Billion Dollars. Think what we could do with extra 700 Billion dollars a year in USA? We needs to spent money here in Good USA not over Seas? Samantha don't worried about Amtrak little 1 or 2 billion, you need to be worried about Aid to these country waste of money 200 billion a year and War 500 plus billion dollars not Poor little Amtrak.
A billion dollars subisdy to move 25M passengers is not a very good deal. It would be a lot easier to squeeze some more dollars from Congress if each dollar went a lot further!
Amtrak needs fixed.
oltmannd wrote: conrailman wrote:Too: Samantha we give the Airlines 15 billion and the Highways 40 billion a year and can't find little 1 or 2 Billion for amtrak every year? This year end Oct 2007 Amtrak carried 25 Million people. We needs to Stop giving all this Aid to these over Seas Country 80 to 200 Billion a year and this Waste of War almost 500 Billion Dollars. Think what we could do with extra 700 Billion dollars a year in USA? We needs to spent money here in Good USA not over Seas? Samantha don't worried about Amtrak little 1 or 2 billion, you need to be worried about Aid to these country waste of money 200 billion a year and War 500 plus billion dollars not Poor little Amtrak.A billion dollars subisdy to move 25M passengers is not a very good deal. It would be a lot easier to squeeze some more dollars from Congress if each dollar went a lot further! Amtrak needs fixed.
A little back of the envelope analysis. Assuming that the average Amtrak passenger travels 400 miles. This allows us to extrapolate the highway measure of "vehicle miles traveled" into a "something" that may or may not be comparable to Amtrak. But, if the Amtrak average measure is taken against the highway mileage racked up, we can derive a number of highway equivalents to Amtrak. For airline travel, we have a number of passengers flown, but no reasonable estimate on mileage.
But, distributing the subsidies granted to an average Amtrak passenger, to a reasonably equivalent highway user, and to an airline passenger, the subsidies work as follows, per person:
Air: $17
Highway: $6
Rail: $48
That's a pretty rich subsidy for "poor little Amtrak".
MichaelSol wrote: oltmannd wrote: conrailman wrote:Too: Samantha we give the Airlines 15 billion and the Highways 40 billion a year and can't find little 1 or 2 Billion for amtrak every year? This year end Oct 2007 Amtrak carried 25 Million people. We needs to Stop giving all this Aid to these over Seas Country 80 to 200 Billion a year and this Waste of War almost 500 Billion Dollars. Think what we could do with extra 700 Billion dollars a year in USA? We needs to spent money here in Good USA not over Seas? Samantha don't worried about Amtrak little 1 or 2 billion, you need to be worried about Aid to these country waste of money 200 billion a year and War 500 plus billion dollars not Poor little Amtrak.A billion dollars subisdy to move 25M passengers is not a very good deal. It would be a lot easier to squeeze some more dollars from Congress if each dollar went a lot further! Amtrak needs fixed.A little back of the envelope analysis. Assuming that the average Amtrak passenger travels 400 miles. This allows us to extrapolate the highway measure of "vehicle miles traveled" into a "something" that may or may not be comparable to Amtrak. But, if the Amtrak average measure is taken against the highway mileage racked up, we can derive a number of highway equivalents to Amtrak. For airline travel, we have a number of passengers flown, but no reasonable estimate on mileage. But, distributing the subsidies granted to an average Amtrak passenger, to a reasonably equivalent highway user, and to an airline passenger, the subsidies work as follows, per person:Air: $17Highway: $6Rail: $48That's a pretty rich subsidy for "poor little Amtrak".
Here's some real numbers from Amtrak (http://www.amtrak.com/pdf/0709monthly.pdf) to put on your envelope - maybe there's room on the front:
for year ending 2007
riders 25,847,000
Pass-miles - 5,653,581,000 (avg trip = 218 miles)
train miles - 37,336,000 (151 avg passenger load)
load factor 48.9%
OR = 1.45
"farebox" recovery factor = .69
(and, as an aside, their locomotive out of service ratio is 16.9% and 15.0% for the car fleet. Gee, do you think it's fair to compare locomotive out of service ratios with the frt RRs? Or use the loco and car OOS numbers as a proxy for maintenace costs? Hmmmm. )
Increasing capacity on corridor trains, i.e. NEC, Los Angles to San Diego, etc., frequently results in increased use. It also increases cost. Capacity on the California corridor routes has increased significantly over the last decade. Yet they failed to cover their 2007 variable operating costs to the tune of $38.7 million before interest and depreciation.
Whether increasing capacity on the long distance trains would increase riders and market share significantly is problematic.
The Texas Eagle runs daily, whereas the Sunset is a thrice weekly train. The Eagle lost $25.3 million in 2007 or 19.4 cents per passenger mile before interest and depreciation. The Sunset lost $29.8 million or 48.5 cents per passenger mile during the same period. Increasing capacity might draw more patrons, but whether the increased volumes would offset the increased cost, given the economics of long distance passenger trains, is doubtful.
Gasoline today costs about what it cost in 1980 when adjusted for inflation. Personal incomes have more than offset the increase in gasoline costs since then. Americans are getting use to $3.00 per gallon gasoline.
The nation's airports and airways are more congested than they were 10 or 15 years ago, although the worst bottlenecks tend to be in a few spots. Dallas/Fort Worth Airport is one of the busiest in the country. Yet it is relatively easy to get in and out of the airport if one knows where he or she is going. None of the airports in Texas are major bottlenecks except during severe weather, which occurs infrequently.
Telephone polls, because of their nature, are notoriously inaccurate. People will frequently say that they favor spending more money for roads, schools, trains, etc. when given an either or scenario or a simple multiple options scenario. But if the poll taker explains what it would cost the person responding to the poll, the answer frequently changes, i.e. people favor increased funding for schools until they find out that their property taxes are going to go up eight per cent. Most of the polls that I have read regarding the public's views of increased passenger rail service are surface scratchers. The key poll is whether people would use the trains.
How much the United States is spending in Iraq or on aviation or highway infrastructure is immaterial. How much other countries spend on passenger rail is irrelevant. The question is how much money should the U.S. spend on passenger rail, where should it be spent, and who should pay for it?
There are a number of ways to finance a better passenger rail system. And I favor doing so where it makes economic and social sense. By now most people who have been reading this forum know that I believe the future for passenger rail is in high density corridors. They also know that I think spending money on long distance passenger trains is bad policy.
Money spent on long distance trains takes resources away from the enhancement of existing corridors and the implementation of new ones. Whether savings from discontinuing the long distance trains would be redirected to the corridors is a legitimate question. If enough people twist the arms of their elected representatives, assuming that public financing is the only option, which it is not, money for corridors would probably be forthcoming.
The other key element, of course, is whether people use the trains. If the money people see that people use the trains that they say they want and will pay to do so, the money to fund new trains will be there. This is the reason the U.S. spends heaps of money on aviation and highways. It is what the people want.
The Vision for the Future, U.S. Intercity Passenger Rail Network through 2050, which I presume you have read, lays out an ambitious vision for passenger rail in the U.S. It will cost a lot of money. If the amount of money lost on long distance passenger trains was redirected to the implementation of rapid rail or high speed rail in the corridors outlined in the Vision, it would add up to $38,776,519,374.22 by 2050, assuming average inflation of three cent per year, which is the rate used by the authors of Vision..... The money could build a lot of rapid and high speed rail.
Thanks for pointing out that the money spent on other things or in other countries is a "red herring". I believe that the money spent on LD trains is a "red herring", too. Although it may be reasonable to assume that the money spent on "this" train or route might be available for "that" train or route, the political history of Amtrak shows that not to be the case. The LD trains are "pork" and, although politicians like to blather on about how bad pork is, they rarely 'fess up to their own pork. To them, it's not pork, it's just "the other white meat".
It's no too likely that any money saved from knocking off the Empire Builder to spend on corridors in Texas, would get much support from the Senators from the nothern tier states. You're more likely to get their support for YOUR new spending if you leave their pork alone! Start knocking off too much of the LD network, and Amtrak would collapse politically. IMHO, you need the institution of Amtrak, or similar, to provide a base of support for intercity rail, no matter what form it takes.
My questions is, and remains, "why does the pork have to be so fatty?" I would love Amtrak to have more control over routes and how and where to spend their subsidy. But, it appears that's not a political reality. I would also love for Amtrak and their employees be rewarded for finding and implementing operational efficiencies. There are likely a lot of things they COULD do, but who's gonna gore his own ox or shink his "empire" w/o some carrot on a stick?
As for funding new corridors or corridor improvements, I think each can stand on it's own merits for new funding. If the cost/benefit shows corridor developement to be better than the alternatives, then the money to do it should be there. There are a lot of barriers to overcome though. The notion that public capital spending is "OK" but operating subsidies are "bad" is one. Rail projects over exisiting ROW often show very good cost/benefit ratios, but cost is split between capital and operations whereas the alternatives are all capital. You can show that the "saved" capital is more than enough to pay for all the ongoing operations subsidy in perpetuity, but there is a strong mindset or ideology against it.
The federal budget deficit will not be cured by deficit spending irrespective of what drives it. Adding more debt inflames the problem, irrespective of its source, which you and your off spring will help pay for.
Spending overseas or on highways or airways facilities, etc., is irrelevant to the question of what the country can and should spend on passenger rail.
The amount of debt carried by a family in relationship to its income (debt ratio) is important for determining its ability to service the debt. The same concept applies to a nation.
According to the Comptroller General of the U.S., the debt burden of American households, when factoring in the unfunded liabilities posed by mandatory government spending (Social Security, Medicare, etc.), is approximately $440,000 per household. This is nearly 10 times the median household income. It suggests, amongst other things, that funding projects with low social value is not a good idea.
Highlighting the debt load is not a red herring. It is an indicator that we should take a very hard look at spending proposals, including the use of public funds to underwrite the loses incurred by Amtrak's long distance trains.
I opposed the Iraq War from day one. Since you don't know anything about me, nor do I know anything about you, you only have my word for it.
Proponents of long distance trains argue that passenger rail in the U.S. would go in the tank if Amtrak discontinued them. There is no evidence to support this proposition. Dallas Area Rapid Transit's (DART) light rail system is not dependent on one chronically late, lightly patronized long distance train (Texas Eagle). Neither is the Trinity Railway Express (TRE). They are doing well, albeit with significant subsidies, without any help from the Texas Eagle.
Congress persons from New York might agree to fund or help fund rapid rail in the Texas Triangle in exchange for a subsequent funding of improvements in the Empire corridor. It was this kind of trade-off that made the Interstate highway system possible.
In an ideal world, various modes of transport would stand or fall on their own economics. If all users were required to foot the bill through user fees, e.g. fuel taxes to reflect the true cost of fossil fuels, facilities fees, etc., we would probably see a transport system that would look like this: Personal vehicles would be the mode of choice for most local trips, except for commuting in densely populated metropolitan areas; rail would be the choice for many people in high density corridors where congestion and cost would give them a natural advantage for many riders, and airplanes would be the mode of choice for long distance travel. The long distance passenger train, except possibly for some excursion trains or land cruise trains for those with deep pockets, would be given a decent burial, which is what should have happened on May 1, 1971.
Unfortunately, we subsidize directly or indirectly all transport modes, thereby creating systems that are not optimized. They won't be until a wave of common sense blows through the land. Unfortunately, as long as politicians have undue influence in transport decisions, system optimization is unlikely.
Samantha wrote: The federal budget deficit will not be cured by deficit spending irrespective of what drives it. Adding more debt inflames the problem, irrespective of its source, which you and your off spring will help pay for. Spending overseas or on highways or airways facilities, etc., is irrelevant to the question of what the country can and should spend on passenger rail.The amount of debt carried by a family in relationship to its income (debt ratio) is important for determining its ability to service the debt. The same concept applies to a nation. According to the Comptroller General of the U.S., the debt burden of American households, when factoring in the unfunded liabilities posed by mandatory government spending (Social Security, Medicare, etc.), is approximately $440,000 per household. This is nearly 10 times the median household income. It suggests, amongst other things, that funding projects with low social value is not a good idea. Highlighting the debt load is not a red herring. It is an indicator that we should take a very hard look at spending proposals, including the use of public funds to underwrite the loses incurred by Amtrak's long distance trains. I opposed the Iraq War from day one. Since you don't know anything about me, nor do I know anything about you, you only have my word for it.Proponents of long distance trains argue that passenger rail in the U.S. would go in the tank if Amtrak discontinued them. There is no evidence to support this proposition. Dallas Area Rapid Transit's (DART) light rail system is not dependent on one chronically late, lightly patronized long distance train (Texas Eagle). Neither is the Trinity Railway Express (TRE). They are doing well, albeit with significant subsidies, without any help from the Texas Eagle.Congress persons from New York might agree to fund or help fund rapid rail in the Texas Triangle in exchange for a subsequent funding of improvements in the Empire corridor. It was this kind of trade-off that made the Interstate highway system possible. In an ideal world, various modes of transport would stand or fall on their own economics. If all users were required to foot the bill through user fees, e.g. fuel taxes to reflect the true cost of fossil fuels, facilities fees, etc., we would probably see a transport system that would look like this: Personal vehicles would be the mode of choice for most local trips, except for commuting in densely populated metropolitan areas; rail would be the choice for many people in high density corridors where congestion and cost would give them a natural advantage for many riders, and airplanes would be the mode of choice for long distance travel. The long distance passenger train, except possibly for some excursion trains or land cruise trains for those with deep pockets, would be given a decent burial, which is what should have happened on May 1, 1971.Unfortunately, we subsidize directly or indirectly all transport modes, thereby creating systems that are not optimized. They won't be until a wave of common sense blows through the land. Unfortunately, as long as politicians have undue influence in transport decisions, system optimization is unlikely.
Some questions:
Do you think Amtrak would have gotten $1.3B in yesterday's budget bill if trains only operated in a 20 states?
In the absence of LD trains, do you think there is a need for a National RR Pass Corp? Or, would regional agencies be a better choice? Would a regional approach require federal subsidy?
Some rebuttal, too.
Amtrak is more than "budget money." They are a national repository for expertise on passenger railroading. They also have the "critical mass" to be able to support a couple of backshops, and to keep a supply industry healthy. They also are the keepers of the working relationships with the freight roads who happen to own the ROW where most of the potential corridors (at least the ones that we can afford to build out) and the keepers of the hands-on, nuts and bolts of intercity railroading. This is valuable stuff! Parcel it out and you lose the "critical mass" of expertise to get the job done. This is why California partnered with Amtrak rather than going it alone.
No LD trains = no majority support in the Senate = no Amtrak (all that would be left would be the NEC and whatever IL and California wanted to do on their own. Even then, you might wind up with a Balkanized NEC...)
As for those corridors that need developed, do you think the fledgling Piedmont would have a shot if it weren't for the LD Carolinian, Silver Meteor and Crescent operating in the same corridor?
Oltmannd, your point about the mathematics of the Senate is right on. The NEC is 22 votes, without the LD trains I don't think that is enough to sustain Amtrak in its present form. Without the LD trains Amtrak might become what it already is in California, Illinois, Michigan and elsewhere -- merely the operating agency of the state DOTs.
However, your other point about losing the critical institutional knowledge is a two edged sword. Portions of Amtrak's institutional knowledge are part of the problem. When it was formed, Amtrak inherited some undesirable characteristics from the railroads. Among these were managers trained to slash costs above all else, indifferent to growth potential, and uncaring about customer service or satisfaction. It also inherited workforce with unions and union leadership unwilling to face the need for change in the industry and determined to resist changes at least until they were safely retired. I don't think we have any way of measuring what might have been without those factors, but it must be a terrible management challenge to overcome them.
Dakguy201 wrote: Oltmannd, your point about the mathematics of the Senate is right on. The NEC is 22 votes, without the LD trains I don't think that is enough to sustain Amtrak in its present form. Without the LD trains Amtrak might become what it already is in California, Illinois, Michigan and elsewhere -- merely the operating agency of the state DOTs.However, your other point about losing the critical institutional knowledge is a two edged sword. Portions of Amtrak's institutional knowledge are part of the problem. When it was formed, Amtrak inherited some undesirable characteristics from the railroads. Among these were managers trained to slash costs above all else, indifferent to growth potential, and uncaring about customer service or satisfaction. It also inherited workforce with unions and union leadership unwilling to face the need for change in the industry and determined to resist changes at least until they were safely retired. I don't think we have any way of measuring what might have been without those factors, but it must be a terrible management challenge to overcome them.
Nicely put.
So, how do we keep the baby and throw out the bath water?
Whether Amtrak is more than the budget is arguable. It is not indispensable. Amtrak is not doing anything that could not be done by another entity or group of entities (government, quasi government, private enterprise).
If Texans decide, as an example, that they want to invest in passenger rail in the Texas Triangle, why does it have to be managed and operated by Amtrak? If an Australian company, for example, can do a better job, they should be given a chance to do so.
The government should create a framework that facilitates the development and implementation of a national transportation policy. It should promote the best transport modes for a given environment. Once the framework is implemented, the feds should get out of the way, other that to ensure that the playing field remains level. In time the government should require each mode of transport to stand on its own.
The conventional wisdom was that Pan American Airlines, Eastern Airlines, Northeast Airlines, etc. were the airline industry models to be emulated. That wisdom was wrong. Many of their customers fly on Southwest, Jet Blue, Air Trans, etc. These carriers did not arise by following the conventional airline business model. Maybe we would get a better product - corridor trains - if there was more competition in passenger rail.
There is little evidence that the long distance passenger train is a critical antecedent for corridor rail. The number of passengers fed into or drawn from the corridors by long distance trains is marginal.
Dallas and Fort Worth (DART and T) implemented and operate the Trinity Railway Express (TRE) without any help from Amtrak. The TRE is not dependent on the late running, lightly patronized Texas Eagle. Passengers on the Heartland Flyer, however, are advised to use the TRE to extend their trip to Dallas. I suspect this is because of the uncertainty of the connection with Number 22.
Capital Metro in Austin will implement commuter rail service from Leander to Austin - 32 miles - in late 2008. The trains will run on the Austin and Western, which is owned by Capital Metro and Austin. Metro received no help from Amtrak and the Texas Eagle is not a factor. The equipment is coming from Europe.
A serious study is underway regarding the implementation of passenger rail service from Georgetown, which is about 30 miles north of Austin, to Austin, San Marcos, and San Antonio. The planners have not factored Amtrak or the Texas Eagle into their planning.
It is impossible to say what the Congress would do if the long distance train was buried. Would a Texas Senator vote to continue supporting the NEC sans the Eagle? He probably would if he got something in return, i.e. starter money for a Dallas to Houston corridor. Clearly, politics is about mutual back scratching. But to say that Amtrak would not have gotten the $1.3 billion subsidy from the taxpayers - you and me - is unknowable.
The key question is whether monies for corridor development would be authorized if the long distance passenger train was dropped. They probably would be if the case for them was made using the models that business organizations must use to stay in business.
What seems to be missing from this discussion, as well as others, is any serious analysis of the costs and benefits of long distance trains. For example, NARP talks about revenue and ridership increases, but never gets around to talking about costs and benefits. In business this is a sure fire prescription for financial disaster. But then come to think about it, Amtrak is not a business.
Samantha wrote: Whether Amtrak is more than the budget is arguable. It is not indispensable. Amtrak is not doing anything that could not be done by another entity or group of entities (government, quasi government, private enterprise).
With what I know from the inside of RR operations and engineering, that statement leaves me very queasy. I'm inclined to disagree.
Samantha wrote: What seems to be missing from this discussion, as well as others, is any serious analysis of the costs and benefits of long distance trains. For example, NARP talks about revenue and ridership increases, but never gets around to talking about costs and benefits. In business this is a sure fire prescription for financial disaster. But then come to think about it, Amtrak is not a business.
Well, sure. Why would someone do a cost/benefit analysis on something that is nearly 100% political? The pretense that the LD trains were business proposition has been dead for 30+ years. They are pork, like the 1000's of other pet projects the gov't funds.
But, the pork could be leaner......
oltmannd wrote: So, how do we keep the baby and throw out the bath water?
If I really knew the answer to that I'd already be the CEO of the largest corporation on earth!
However, I believe it centers around instilling in your management group a sense that change urgently is needed and a willingness to undertake that change. In any bureaucracy, a for profit company or governmental unit, that is a very difficult proposition; and Amtrak is a bit of both.
Without having the data to support it, I suspect the "half-life" of a successful corporate entity is getting shorter each year, creating the need for accelerating evolution of organizational form. Governmental units evolve even more slowly, which I suspect is one source of the discontent with which much of the federal and state governments are viewed.
Samantha, first, let me offer my apologies for saying you must be supporting the Iraq war. I shouldn't make such assumptions. At least we agree on something.
But I still think you're too eager to throw out the long distance trains just because your analysis finds no value in them. Plenty of people do find value in them. You dismissed the polls I cited out of hand, which showed fairly strong public support of Amtrak. And while there are exceptions, there are very few members of Congress in either party willing to let Amtrak die on their watch. If Amtrak's national network was as unpopular and irrelevant to joe voter as you suggest, Congress wouldn't be afraid to pull the plug.
We all agree that Amtrak as it is now doesn't work as well as it could. But I prefer to find ways to make the trains work better rather than eliminate the trains whose numbers aren't to your liking. On this we'll have to agree to disagree. Numbers alone aren't enough to sway my position, because I find value in long distance trains, and some of those values can't be quantified economically. As Albert Einstein once said, "Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts." It may not stand up to pure logic, but this would be a pretty dull world if everything was logical.
Samantha wrote:If Texans decide, as an example, that they want to invest in passenger rail in the Texas Triangle, why does it have to be managed and operated by Amtrak? If an Australian company, for example, can do a better job, they should be given a chance to do so.
I agree in principle. I think competition could be a healthy thing. But the reality is that no host railroad in this country will allow anyone but Amtrak to operate passenger service on their tracks. There's no legal impediment to a competitor. Anyone with a train is perfectly within their rights to try to negotiate with the Class I railroads, but the railroads are also perfectly within their rights to turn them away without discussion. Whenever competition to Amtrak has been considered by various reform proposals, each and every host railroad has made it very clear they do not want to deal with any passenger operator other than Amtrak. And they understandably don't want to be caught in the middle of two or more competing passenger operators that want the best time slots. In order to have competition to Amtrak, this problem must be solved first.
In fact, UP won't even deal with the state of California when it comes to proposals for new routes. They always tell the state to submit their proposal through Amtrak.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.