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.
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".
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
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.
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.
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.
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: <> 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.
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?
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.
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.
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 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?
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.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.