Never rode the GN version of the Empire Builder but we did ride the Amtrak version from Vancouver Wn. To Milwaukee Wi. five years ago. The service was excellent. We went first class with a bedroom.
The food was top notch and the dining car employees great folks. BNSF kept us mostly on timeeastbound arriving Milwaukee only ten minutes late.
The best pre Amtrak train I rode was NP's North Coast Limited. Others have included the San Francisco Chief, Rio Grande Zephyr and BC Rail's Cariboo Dayliner to Prince George from the other Vancouver.
It has been 40+ years since I last set foot on a airliner. With the hassle and poor service I will never fly again.
I rode the eb EB on its 60th anniversary from Glacier Park East to Columbus, WI. It arrived GPE 25 minutes late. An hour late into the Twin Cities. We were 10 minutes early into Columbus. I rode coach on a Superliner. Very enjoyable. Neat to see elk and coyote along the route in Montana. Milepost after milepost in 45 seconds. Smooth, quiet ride except for stick rail Fargo to Grand Forks.
I have only been on the Empire Builder from Seattle to Sand Point. But after enjoying ONE wonderful, $400 night on the Coast Starlight shortly after we met, my wife-to-be decided to bring her best friend--who will not fly--and husband from Virginia to Seattle by train for our wedding. Well, do the math: they were on trains EIGHT nights. It was the most expensive part of our wedding!!
But for them it was the trip of a lifetime. They took the Crescent to DC where her friend was able to pay last respects to Ronald Reagan. But the big treat was being on the Empire Builder for its 75th anniversary run. There were festivities and dignitaries all along the way! At one station, they asked some guy to take their picture--turned out he was the Governor of North Dakota!!
"Make no little plans; they have no magic to stir men's blood." Daniel Burnham
I rode the Empire Builder from Milwaukee to Portland in December 2006. It was one of my better trips on Amtrak. The winter scenery was spectacular. I had a roomette, which was OK. The Superliner roomettes are not the most comfortable accommodation in the world, but they are passable. The service was good. The wine tasting for first class passengers was very enjoyable. The only real downer was that approximately half of the toilets on the train froze up and the crew could not free them.
In FY08 the Empire Builder lost 9.9 cents per passenger mile before interest, depreciation, and other charges. For the first six months of FY09 it lost 17.8 cents per passenger mile before interest and depreciation. Part of the increase in the loss in FY09 is due to an accounting change.
A passenger traveling from Chicago to Seattle during the first six months of FY09 received a federal subsidy payment of $392.67 before interest and depreciation or approximately $491.93 including all allocated items. In FY08 the subsidy would have been $218.39 and $240.23.
The financial performance of the Empire Builder is better than any of Amtrak's long distance trains save the Auto Train. Taxpayers should ride the train; they are paying for it irrespective of whether they use it.
If Amtrak was a real business, it would fly each passenger from Chicago to Seattle for an average fare of $164, thereby saving the federal treasury $327.93 for each passenger carried end point to end point.
Long distance trains are a 1950s anachronism. They should be discontinued and the funds wasted on them should be re-directed toward the enhancement or development of moderate speed corridors where they make sense.
Okay, Sam, I'll be honest here. Superliner roomettes are NOT the finest accommodations on the third rock from the Sun; indeed, for two people they are downright cramped. I'd take an open section any day (and be even happier at night!). But in my opinion, room F is something really special because it has windows on both sides (only possible on a bi-level sleeper); deluxe rooms are great, and the coach seats--where most passengers ride--are unbeatable. The lounge cars are fantastic, especially when they had the upstairs bar open.
And speaking of subsidies, I had an interesting experience on our trip from Sand Point to Seattle. We had booked a roomette, but asked on-board to upgrade to a deluxe room. Space was available, but they made me deboard at Spokane and get new tickets. Due to load management marketing, the ticket agent gave me a $5.00 REFUND for the upgrade! Service on that trip was okay; the porter made us vacate our room for cleaning before arrival. But that was a good excuse for my wife and I to act out a fantasy in the downstairs shower... I was in fact rather distracted by the fact that the shower drains directly onto the tracks, and couldn't keep my mind out of the gutter...
I am not sure why this train showed a 16% drop in ridership for April (see "AMTRAK APR 09 Performance" thread). The weather up here has been chilly, and the economy is experiencing an ice age.
First trip on Empire Builder was in February 1947 when the first streamlined version of the train was brand new. Traveled with my mother and brother from Seattle to St. Paul. This became an every year trip beginning in 1950 until I departed for the Navy in 1960. I rode most other name trains in the west but the EB always held a special place in my memories. I even enjoy the Amtrak version. Happy birthday to a great train. And as for the subsidy by the taxpayers the last time I looked I am still one of those also. If that is the only way I can get some of my money back from the government so be it. It's not like the government doesn't waste any money on many other things.
Al - in - Stockton
Sam1 I rode the Empire Builder from Milwaukee to Portland in December 2006.
I rode the Empire Builder from Milwaukee to Portland in December 2006.
Sam1, why did you choose to take the EB from Milwaukee to Portland instead of flying from Chicago to Seattle?
jclass Sam1 I rode the Empire Builder from Milwaukee to Portland in December 2006. Sam1, why did you choose to take the EB from Milwaukee to Portland instead of flying from Chicago to Seattle?
For the same reason that I take two or three Amtrak trips a year. It is there, and I am paying for it irrespective of whether I use it. I like trains, but I am not blind to the fact that Amtrak's long distance trains generate a small percentage of its revenues while consuming the lion's share of its operating expenses.
During FY08 the long distance trains generated 22.49 per cent of Amtrak's revenues whilst accounting for 209 per cent of the operating expenses before interest, depreciation, and other charges. In other words, they wiped out the $369 million generated by the North East corridor and then some. They had an average load percentage of 58.9, which means that they operated well below capacity, except for the heavy vacation and holiday periods. Less than 15 per cent of Amtrak's passengers were carried on the long distance trains. And less than 4/10s of one per cent of intercity travelers choosing a commercial carrier opted for Amtrak's long distance trains. The financials associated with the long distance trains are abysmal.
I'll continue to ride them as long as they run. And I will continue to write to my Congressional representatives urging them to stop funding Amtrak's long distance trains.
Gee Willikers, Sam. I don't really get your reasoning but let me try to get it straight. You don't want Amtrak/the Government to offer a service that you enjoy riding. Now I also enjoy trains and do see a purpose for LD trains because they provide a safe, affordable way both to see the country and to provide service to small and medium towns that wouldn't have public transportation if the trains didn't exist. But it is because of riders like you that raise passenger numbers and make Amtrak and other passenger rail advocates believe that there actually are people out there who need LD trains.
Doesn't the total cost of owning/running the NEC dwarf the rest of Amtrak operations? Individual states partially fund shorter distance trains elsewhere. For the most part, Amtrak rents track space and in many cases stations?
I to rode amtrak from Milwaukee,Wi to White Fish,Mt going to a wedding in Missoula,Mt.In August of 05' we rode first class for 3 adults 1 toddler, and 1 baby.On the return we went into Chicago,Il. And then toke the Hiawatha to Sturavant,Wi,Do to track work between Minnesota and Milwaukee,Wi. BLAST AWESOME RIDE!!!! Minus riding with our occomadater
lattasnip9 Gee Willikers, Sam. I don't really get your reasoning but let me try to get it straight. You don't want Amtrak/the Government to offer a service that you enjoy riding. Now I also enjoy trains and do see a purpose for LD trains because they provide a safe, affordable way both to see the country and to provide service to small and medium towns that wouldn't have public transportation if the trains didn't exist. But it is because of riders like you that raise passenger numbers and make Amtrak and other passenger rail advocates believe that there actually are people out there who need LD trains.
I don't need long distance trains, nor do most Americans, as indicated by the fact that less than one per cent of intercity travelers use them. They are safe and enjoyable, but they are not affordable. If they were Amtrak could charge enough to cover their costs. As it is, Amtrak cannot charged enough to cover the operating expenses, let alone the fully allocated costs, associated with the long distance trains. If they did, they would lose most of their passengers.
To think that one train a day, stopping in many instances in the middle of the night, is a viable service for most communities is a stretch of the imagination. Moreover, in most instances, people have a viable alternative.
In Texas, for example, only one of the communities served by Amtrak is more than a 2 hours drive from an airport with reasonable commercial air service. All of them have reasonable intercity bus service.
There may be a few cities served by Amtrak that would incur a hardship if their one train a day was eliminated, but they are only a handful.
I doubt there are many riders like me. How many do you think urge their Congressional representatives to discontinue funding the long distance trains and use the monies to enhance existing corridors or develop new ones? Better yet, how many people who ride Amtrak have the foggiest idea how it is funded or how much money it loses each year?
Oh, come on Sam. Americans value nostalgia, and just for that reason we should keep long-distance trains running.
Why else would the Smithsonian Institution receive $2.5 billion per year?
Maglev Oh, come on Sam. Americans value nostalgia, and just for that reason we should keep long-distance trains running. Why else would the Smithsonian Institution receive $2.5 billion per year?
There is more than one side to the issue of whether Amtrak should continue to run long distance trains. I could just as easily argue that the amount of money lost by them, indeed Amtrak, is very small compared to the federal budget and deficit and, therefore, we should not worry about it. But this is a mindset that I don't agree with. Losing a little bit of money here and there is not a smart way to run a business or the government.
Amtrak could save approximately $515 million per year if it discontinued the long distance trains. Using 2050 as a target date, the annual savings would equal $21.1 billion on a straight line basis and $103.1 billion compounded. This would pay for the relocation of the UP's trains around Austin and a whole lot more.
Getting back to the Empire Builder--
I rode several Amtrak Superliner trains on a cross-country trip at the end of 1977, but the special issue of Trains for the EB's 75th anniversary says the first use of Superliners on that train was October 28, 1979. It was still using "heritage" equipment for its 50th anniversary. Why was this so?
Sam1 I rode the Empire Builder from Milwaukee to Portland in December 2006. It was one of my better trips on Amtrak. The winter scenery was spectacular. I had a roomette, which was OK. The Superliner roomettes are not the most comfortable accommodation in the world, but they are passable. The service was good. The wine tasting for first class passengers was very enjoyable. The only real downer was that approximately half of the toilets on the train froze up and the crew could not free them. In FY08 the Empire Builder lost 9.9 cents per passenger mile before interest, depreciation, and other charges. For the first six months of FY09 it lost 17.8 cents per passenger mile before interest and depreciation. Part of the increase in the loss in FY09 is due to an accounting change. A passenger traveling from Chicago to Seattle during the first six months of FY09 received a federal subsidy payment of $392.67 before interest and depreciation or approximately $491.93 including all allocated items. In FY08 the subsidy would have been $218.39 and $240.23. The financial performance of the Empire Builder is better than any of Amtrak's long distance trains save the Auto Train. Taxpayers should ride the train; they are paying for it irrespective of whether they use it. If Amtrak was a real business, it would fly each passenger from Chicago to Seattle for an average fare of $164, thereby saving the federal treasury $327.93 for each passenger carried end point to end point. Long distance trains are a 1950s anachronism. They should be discontinued and the funds wasted on them should be re-directed toward the enhancement or development of moderate speed corridors where they make sense.
I've had two enjoyable trips on the Empire Builder - one from the Twin Cities to Glasgow, Montana back in '78 (when it still used the former GN mainline between Minneapolis and Fargo) and then again in '81 from La Crosse, Wisconsin to Glasgow; by this time Amtrak was operating on the former NP mainline between the Twin Cities and Fargo.
You know what, Sam, you're right. Let's just rip it all up; pull em' all up. This country doesn't need passenger trains. I mean, SO WHAT if passenger rail is environmentally friendly and highway gridlock is increasingly worsening. And I guess we can just ignore the success stories of operations such as New Mexico's Rail Runner Express and the new commuter rail service that's set to start here in Minnesota later this year. And all those efforts to try and get Amtrak service re-established between Chicago and Dubuque and hopefully extended to Waterloo can just be abandoned now, too. Thank you so much, Sam, for bringing your anti-passenger train, anti-rail garbage on a thread that celebrates the history, tradition, and heritage of a cherished American icon.
Idiot.
You have broken the first commandment of ranters. "Read first, then rant."
Los Angeles Rams GuySO WHAT if passenger rail is environmentally friendly and highway gridlock is increasingly worsening.
The EB helps neither of these even a meaningful, small amount.
There are no traffic jams on I-94 in North Dakota. Or Montana. Or western Minnesota. Or the Idaho panhandle. Or accross Washington to the Cascades.
The EB uses virtually the same amount of fuel per passenger mile as a car or a plane. In fact, a minivan with 4 people in it uses less fuel than the train.
Los Angeles Rams Guyfor bringing your anti-passenger train, anti-rail garbage on a thread
Sam is most certainly not anti-passenger rail, if you've read any of her many, many posts, you'd know this.
Los Angeles Rams Guy Amtrak service re-established between Chicago and Dubuque and hopefully extended to Waterloo
Just what American needs. Passenger service to the middle of nowhere. Dubuque + Cedar Falls + Waterloo < 250,000 people.
The vehicle that will make the biggest improvement in congestion and fuel economy on that route is a bus (a small one!)
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Los Angeles Rams Guy Sam1 I rode the Empire Builder from Milwaukee to Portland in December 2006. It was one of my better trips on Amtrak. The winter scenery was spectacular. I had a roomette, which was OK. The Superliner roomettes are not the most comfortable accommodation in the world, but they are passable. The service was good. The wine tasting for first class passengers was very enjoyable. The only real downer was that approximately half of the toilets on the train froze up and the crew could not free them. In FY08 the Empire Builder lost 9.9 cents per passenger mile before interest, depreciation, and other charges. For the first six months of FY09 it lost 17.8 cents per passenger mile before interest and depreciation. Part of the increase in the loss in FY09 is due to an accounting change. A passenger traveling from Chicago to Seattle during the first six months of FY09 received a federal subsidy payment of $392.67 before interest and depreciation or approximately $491.93 including all allocated items. In FY08 the subsidy would have been $218.39 and $240.23. The financial performance of the Empire Builder is better than any of Amtrak's long distance trains save the Auto Train. Taxpayers should ride the train; they are paying for it irrespective of whether they use it. If Amtrak was a real business, it would fly each passenger from Chicago to Seattle for an average fare of $164, thereby saving the federal treasury $327.93 for each passenger carried end point to end point. Long distance trains are a 1950s anachronism. They should be discontinued and the funds wasted on them should be re-directed toward the enhancement or development of moderate speed corridors where they make sense. I've had two enjoyable trips on the Empire Builder - one from the Twin Cities to Glasgow, Montana back in '78 (when it still used the former GN mainline between Minneapolis and Fargo) and then again in '81 from La Crosse, Wisconsin to Glasgow; by this time Amtrak was operating on the former NP mainline between the Twin Cities and Fargo. You know what, Sam, you're right. Let's just rip it all up; pull em' all up. This country doesn't need passenger trains. I mean, SO WHAT if passenger rail is environmentally friendly and highway gridlock is increasingly worsening. And I guess we can just ignore the success stories of operations such as New Mexico's Rail Runner Express and the new commuter rail service that's set to start here in Minnesota later this year. And all those efforts to try and get Amtrak service re-established between Chicago and Dubuque and hopefully extended to Waterloo can just be abandoned now, too. Thank you so much, Sam, for bringing your anti-passenger train, anti-rail garbage on a thread that celebrates the history, tradition, and heritage of a cherished American icon. Idiot.
Had you taken the time to read a representative sample of my posts, you would have learned that I favor passenger rail in relatively short, high density corridors. My recent post on the New Mexico Rail Runner is a good example.
Long distance trains, however, are a loser, and they should be discontinued. The funds wasted on them could be re-directed to the enhancement of existing corridors or the development of new ones.
By your definition, the only people who should write a post to these forums are those who see only the positive side of passenger rail and ignore its negative aspects, including cost issues. Intemperate language is not likely to dissuade me from offering critical comments (positive and negative) on various aspects of passenger rail.
oltmannd You have broken the first commandment of ranters. "Read first, then rant." Los Angeles Rams GuySO WHAT if passenger rail is environmentally friendly and highway gridlock is increasingly worsening. The EB helps neither of these even a meaningful, small amount. There are no traffic jams on I-94 in North Dakota. Or Montana. Or western Minnesota. Or the Idaho panhandle. Or accross Washington to the Cascades. The EB uses virtually the same amount of fuel per passenger mile as a car or a plane. In fact, a minivan with 4 people in it uses less fuel than the train. Los Angeles Rams Guyfor bringing your anti-passenger train, anti-rail garbage on a thread Sam is most certainly not anti-passenger rail, if you've read any of her many, many posts, you'd know this. Los Angeles Rams Guy Amtrak service re-established between Chicago and Dubuque and hopefully extended to Waterloo Just what American needs. Passenger service to the middle of nowhere. Dubuque + Cedar Falls + Waterloo < 250,000 people. The vehicle that will make the biggest improvement in congestion and fuel economy on that route is a bus (a small one!)
Attack me for ranting I guess but actually I'm quite aware of Sam's previous posts and her apathy towards long-distance trains. I guess the question to ask here is would this country really be better off if we decided to - right now - just simply pull the plug on ALL long-distance trains; I mean just pull the plug on everything outside of the Northeast Corridor. I mean, if Sam's right, then there won't be any repercussions if we simply kept rail passenger service relegated to the Northeast Corridor and also for a few glorified commuter services here and there. If nobody squawks about it, hey, fine by me. But my guess is there's a lot of cities and smaller communities that would throw a sh**fit if we just decided to scrap all long-distance trains.
Actually, saying that Dubuque and Waterloo/Cedar Falls is "the middle of nowhere" is not quite accurate. True, it may not be the second coming of the Northeast Corridor but I can tell you that the proposed service between Chicago and Dubuque is getting a hard and heavy push by Rockford, Freeport, Galena, and Dubuque. And now eastern Iowa communities along the CN's mainline are getting in on the act as well now, too.
Los Angeles Rams GuyAttack me for ranting
No attack. Nothing personal. No name calling. Just calling a rant a rant.
All LD <> everything except the NEC.
LD = Capitol, LSL, Silver Svc, Crescent, City of NOL, Sunset, Cal Zephyr, SW Chief, EB, Coast Starlight, Eagle. That's it. They are the money suckers. It think they are wonderful and fun to ride and I'd like to see them reformed rather than killed, but in their present form, they are money pigs.
If they all went away, would we be any worse off? How many people would even notice?
Amtrak California, Empire Service, Cascades, Wolverine are "glorified commuter service"? Really? How so?
I've been to Waterloo. It IS the middle of no place. Anybody developed any cost/benefit info for the service? I'd settle for a ridership projection based on the service area travel demand. Or, is this just a lot of happy talk?
A Chicago-Dubuque-Waterloo turn would not be all that different than the various round trips from outlying points into Chicago just prior to May 1, 1971. As a general rule, they ran into Chicago in the morning and returned in the evening and consisted of one or two coaches and maybe a snack bar-coach with minimal ridership (about a busload). There are better places for Amtrak to spend its money.
oltmannd Los Angeles Rams GuyAttack me for ranting No attack. Nothing personal. No name calling. Just calling a rant a rant. All LD <> everything except the NEC. LD = Capitol, LSL, Silver Svc, Crescent, City of NOL, Sunset, Cal Zephyr, SW Chief, EB, Coast Starlight, Eagle. That's it. They are the money suckers. It think they are wonderful and fun to ride and I'd like to see them reformed rather than killed, but in their present form, they are money pigs. If they all went away, would we be any worse off? How many people would even notice? Amtrak California, Empire Service, Cascades, Wolverine are "glorified commuter service"? Really? How so? I've been to Waterloo. It IS the middle of no place. Anybody developed any cost/benefit info for the service? I'd settle for a ridership projection based on the service area travel demand. Or, is this just a lot of happy talk?
I never met to imply that the CZ, Empire Builder, or Wolverine service were commuter services. I met to imply those LD trains along with the "money suckers" you mentioned. If we got rid of all those, then all that would be left outside of the N.E. Corridor would be commuter service.
If you REALLY want to go to the middle of nowhere, try Enderlin, North Dakota on the CPRS. I was an Agent/Operator there for two years. Trust me. It's time that my native northeast Iowa gets Amtrak service and the extension of the proposed service between Chicago and Dubuque to Waterloo on the CN's Iowa Division mainline would be a huge not only for Waterloo/Cedar Falls but also for Dyersville, Manchester, and Independence. Ditto for the proposed service to the Quad Cities, Iowa City, and possibly Des Moines on the IAIS mainline as well (although I still think any new service should be on the UP's "Overland Route" mainline).
Los Angeles Rams GuyI never met to imply that the CZ, Empire Builder, or Wolverine service were commuter services. I met to imply those LD trains along with the "money suckers" you mentioned.
You've read trains wrong and/or are not familiar with the routes.
Amtrak California - not the CZ. It's the Pacific Coastliner, Capitols and San Joaquin day trains.
Empire Service - not Empire Builder. It's day train service in New York State and not part of the NEC
Wolverines are the 3 day trains from Chicago to Detroit/Pontiac. They are not LD trains.
If you got rid of the trains I listed (I forgot the Cardinal, too), you'd still have lots of service to lots of places. Chicago to Milw, Carbondale, Quincy, St Louis and KC, Detroit, Port Huron, and Grand Rapids.
You'd still have service to Pittsburgh, Toronto, Charleston SC, Charlotte NC, Montreal, Burlington VT and Rutland VT out of NY.
You'd still have service from Eugene OR to Vancouver BC.
You'd still have service from SD to SLO and San Jose to Sacramento and Bakersfield.
And Boston to Portland ME.
None of these routes - with the possible exception of Chicago - Milw and Harrisburg - Phila, operate glorified commuter trains.
40% of the US and Canada live within 500 miles of Harrisburg PA. Most of the rest live in FL, TX, CA and Chicagoland. This is where the trains need to be. This is where the congestion is. This is where we can save some energy. Not outside these areas and certainly not connecting these areas. We already have enough choices and capacity elsewhere to do that.
I stand corrected on your train designations.
Still, though, how do we justify killing off service in Chicago - Twin Cities corridor? Or, for that matter in the Chicago - Omaha corridor; regardless of which route it's on? If a CHGO hub is your vision, then how can you not have service to these two locations? How do you justify having service then to both KCITY and STL and not the Twin Cities and Omaha?
I had the opportunity to ride Amtrak's Empire Builder in 2003-all the way from Chicago to Portland.
I had the bedroom with bath and everything about the trip was spectacular. The scenery, staff, and food. Our sleeping car attendant opened the half door so another couple and I could take pics going thru Glacier Park, which was very nice. He told us to wave at the people on the porch at one of the Inns, someone is always there to wave back. We arrived in Portland on time, but since I was making connections to Coast Starlight, I had made arrangements to stay overnight, just in case we ran late.
It was the annual Rose Fest weekend in Portland which was an added attraction. A friend flew out to meet me in San Fran, where we spent a week sightseeing and flew home together. That's my last time on a plane and I don't really care if I never fly again. Nothing can compare with seeing the US by train.
Years ago, I rode with my parents on Dad's Frisco pass on many different RR's. But the only crack train we were able to ride was UP's City of St. Louis for l/2 fare. I did take a tour with a friend that included the original California Zephyr and later the City of Los Angeles all Pullman train with dome diner. But Amtrak does a comparable job with service to these "name" trains.
I also took Southwest Chief in 2005 to Grand Canyon and that was another great trip.
So Happy Birthday Empire Builder. I'm glad I finally got to ride this train and hope to take more Amtrak trips in the future.
Maglev Getting back to the Empire Builder--
Ok, people. I think we have screwed up here. Regardless of whether we are right or wrong here about the future of LD passenger rail in the U.S., I am a bit sick of the debate. According to the first post, I believe that the intent of the thread was to celebrate the 80th birthday of the Empire Builder. Here's my story:
I've ridden the Builder twice in my life; both times from the Twin Cities out to Whitefish for some hiking in Glacier National Park with my old man.
The scenery is always terrific in the mountains but I also think that the vastness of the plains is beautiful. Since I've never been past Whitefish, I wonder what watching Puget Sound rolling past the windows is like.
Over my approximately ten meals aboard, we've met some incredible people travelling every which way (at breakfast on the westbound, if one is sitting on the correct side of the dining car, a sign that says "Rugby says hi" can be seen, always an interesting conversation piece).
The attendents have always been kind and helpful.
Despite tardiness being an issue of most LD trains, the Empire Builder seems to be one of the more punctual.
In my opinion, night is always the best time aboard the train, especially if you're in the sleeping car. As the train rumbles through the northern suburbs, the gentle rocking of the car puts me to sleep. I love travelling aboard the Empire Builder.
Happy 80th Birthday!
lattasnip9 Maglev Getting back to the Empire Builder-- Ok, people. I think we have screwed up here. Regardless of whether we are right or wrong here about the future of LD passenger rail in the U.S., I am a bit sick of the debate. According to the first post, I believe that the intent of the thread was to celebrate the 80th birthday of the Empire Builder. Here's my story: I've ridden the Builder twice in my life; both times from the Twin Cities out to Whitefish for some hiking in Glacier National Park with my old man. The scenery is always terrific in the mountains but I also think that the vastness of the plains is beautiful. Since I've never been past Whitefish, I wonder what watching Puget Sound rolling past the windows is like. Over my approximately ten meals aboard, we've met some incredible people travelling every which way (at breakfast on the westbound, if one is sitting on the correct side of the dining car, a sign that says "Rugby says hi" can be seen, always an interesting conversation piece). The attendents have always been kind and helpful. Despite tardiness being an issue of most LD trains, the Empire Builder seems to be one of the more punctual. In my opinion, night is always the best time aboard the train, especially if you're in the sleeping car. As the train rumbles through the northern suburbs, the gentle rocking of the car puts me to sleep. I love travelling aboard the Empire Builder. Happy 80th Birthday!
The point is that the Empire Builder is about scenery and dining and making friends with strangers in the lounge car and being rocked to sleep in a Roomette. The reason this train and others inspires such passion is on account of the experience. It is part of our national heritage as much as the National Parks, the Statue of Liberty, and the Smithsonian.
The Empire Builder is not about any meaningful saving in oil, reduction in Global Warming, or reduction of traffic congestion. It is not about a meaningful Chicago-Minneapolis corridor service -- such a thing would be for than once a day in each direction. It would also have a more usable schedule, and it is not only a matter of convenience: if you think that travelling on business and arriving around 10 PM in a major city downtown without being met at the station is not a concern, you haven't spoken with many women about their travel needs.
The Empire Builder could be about providing lifeline transportation to the remote communities up and down its route. But if that is what the Empire Builder is about, the hated Inspector General Mead report pretty much called out the bluff of the advocacy community on that one, reasoning that this need could be met and considerable reduction in public expense with a corridor consist -- essentially a bus on rails.
The I G Mead report called for stripping the LD trains of the baggage car, the diner, crew dorm and lounge, and of all of the sleeping cars along with the second locomotive, and returning the couple hundred million in cost savings to the Treasury, presumably for more military spending or whatever we believe the government wastes money on. Suppose the argument was to keep the funding level the same, and in giving up the diner, lounge, and sleeping cars we would be getting twice-daily day trains along all of the corridors up and down the LD routes. What would the reaction of the advocacy community to that trade? If we opposed that trade, what does it say about what the advocacy community stands for with regard to the energy, congestion, and alternative-to-cars-and-planes argument we keep making?
Its easy to be "sick of the debate" when the critics have a point, that this part of our national heritage that is near and dear to us in the advocacy community requires a substantial amount of public money. But if national heritage is the concern, the budget for the Empire Builder needs to be compared against expenditures for parks, museums, the arts, and perhaps even sports stadiums, and the complaints about large military expenditures that are often brought up are completely irrelevant. And if we are making the comparison to the sports stadiums, those folks are claiming "economic multiplier" effects of tourism and business brought to a community, and the case could be made for trains but we need to do our homework and make it.
The reasoning of the advocacy community is that the Empire Builder is multi-purpose in that it serves the lifeline function along with the national heritage and having a memorable train trip function, and it is an integral part of a rail network that we would like to believe has some effect if not on reducing road and airline congestion as to at least provide an alternative to those who don't want to stand in TSA screening lines or fight traffic.
We like to think that by paying first class fares we are paying our incremental cost over the bus-on-rails lifeline function of the train, but the I G Mead Report pretty much refuted that line of reasoning.
Personally, I think Canada has the right model -- they have just the one intercontinental train, they charge high fares to cover the incremental costs, but they provide a high level of service and run long consists to meet the demand. They serve the national heritage function with less public cost.
Celebrate the anniversary of the Empire Builder, but don't make claims about saving energy and relieving traffic that the critics can refute. Celebrate the Empire Builder, but don't let our love for that train sink the nascent resurgence in commuter and corridor travel by putting at risk the entire enterprise of Federal support of intercity rail.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Good points, Paul.
I think that because the EB does serve transportation needs beyond being just a "rolling park" is part of its essence and is part of the heritage that is being preserved. I have wondered if the "key" LD trains were operated under the auspices of the Park Service, would they get a better shake and at the same time allow and bring clarity to the role and potential of commuter and "short distance" rail service?
Los Angeles Rams GuyStill, though, how do we justify killing off service in Chicago - Twin Cities corridor? Or, for that matter in the Chicago - Omaha corridor; regardless of which route it's on? If a CHGO hub is your vision, then how can you not have service to these two locations? How do you justify having service then to both KCITY and STL and not the Twin Cities and Omaha?
I don't think you kill off the useful daylight portions of the the routes. You take the assets and put them to better use. How about a couple Chicago - Minneapolis round trips a day instead of one EB a day? How about a couple NY - Atlanta trips a day instead of one Crescent? Silver Service gets transformed into FL corridor service and Carolina corridor service (connecting to the NEC). Eagle and Sunset into Texas corridor service. Capitol and LSL into Ohio-IN-IL corridor service.
Result should be same subsidy yielding more service.
But, I doubt it will happen. The LD trains appear to be a political reality that isn't changing any time soon.
Personally, that makes me feel good. I like having them around. But, I can't defend them any cold, measured fashion. I hope that if useful corridors are developed at the "ends" of the LD routes, that the "gap" filling nature of the LD trains will make them less of a burden.
Sam1 A passenger traveling from Chicago to Seattle during the first six months of FY09 received a federal subsidy payment of $392.67 before interest and depreciation or approximately $491.93 including all allocated items. In FY08 the subsidy would have been $218.39 and $240.23. The financial performance of the Empire Builder is better than any of Amtrak's long distance trains save the Auto Train. Taxpayers should ride the train; they are paying for it irrespective of whether they use it. If Amtrak was a real business, it would fly each passenger from Chicago to Seattle for an average fare of $164, thereby saving the federal treasury $327.93 for each passenger carried end point to end point. Long distance trains are a 1950s anachronism. They should be discontinued and the funds wasted on them should be re-directed toward the enhancement or development of moderate speed corridors where they make sense.
Taxpayers pay for everything that receives an investment in government funds whether they use it or not. This is one of these statements that sounds like it means something profound, but it really is just stating the obvious, or at least what should be obvious. The same thing could be said of National Parks. Most people don’t use them, either, and all the people don’t use all of them.
Mark Meyer
VerMontanan Sam1 A passenger traveling from Chicago to Seattle during the first six months of FY09 received a federal subsidy payment of $392.67 before interest and depreciation or approximately $491.93 including all allocated items. In FY08 the subsidy would have been $218.39 and $240.23. The financial performance of the Empire Builder is better than any of Amtrak's long distance trains save the Auto Train. Taxpayers should ride the train; they are paying for it irrespective of whether they use it. If Amtrak was a real business, it would fly each passenger from Chicago to Seattle for an average fare of $164, thereby saving the federal treasury $327.93 for each passenger carried end point to end point. Long distance trains are a 1950s anachronism. They should be discontinued and the funds wasted on them should be re-directed toward the enhancement or development of moderate speed corridors where they make sense. Taxpayers pay for everything that receives an investment in government funds whether they use it or not. This is one of these statements that sounds like it means something profound, but it really is just stating the obvious, or at least what should be obvious. The same thing could be said of National Parks. Most people don’t use them, either, and all the people don’t use all of them.The average fare by air from Chicago to Seattle is $164? I doubt it’s that low as an average. Six months from now Southwest offers $159, and it goes up from there. But it really doesn’t matter because the average trip on the Empire Builder is about 850 miles, so you COULD buy everyone on board an airline ticket from Chicago to Seattle, but it wouldn’t do most people any good. Purchasing an airline ticket in the next week from Minot to Spokane would cost well over $600. And if you wanted to buy an airline ticket from Rugby to Cut Bank or Sandpoint to Stanley, however, it wouldn’t cost you anything. That’s because there’s no airline service, or bus service. Only Amtrak. The lack of alternate transportation was once one of main reasons that passenger train service was retained along the Empire Builder route, but given the decline of airline and bus transportation in this country, more and more cities elsewhere are counting Amtrak as their only - or one of few – transportation alternative(s). Sam’s entitled to his/her opinion, and his/her mind isn’t going to be changed by anything that’s said in this forum. But his/her statement about flying each passenger from Chicago to Seattle speaks volumes about what he/she knows about the Empire Builder route. That long distance trains lose money is undeniable, and if money was the absolute defining factor, a lot of things would be different. In the early 1990s, I made trips every two to three weeks between Seattle and Northern Montana (where there was no bus or air service) on the Empire Builder to attend to my father with a malignant brain tumor. My mother was already in the local nursing home, and there were no other relatives. Amtrak allowed me cross the three major mountain ranges, even when the roads and airports were closed (not uncommon occurrences along the Empire Builder route) to tend to my parents until I finally took a leave of absence from work. Without the train, I could not have been at my father’s side as often when he was dying, or I would have had to take a longer leave of absence, or risk my life driving over those mountains in the winter (if it was even possible, due to the weather). I’m sure I didn’t pay Amtrak the entire cost of their transporting me all those times, but the value of having the train available was immeasurable. A 1950s anachronism? Only if you know the cost of everything and the value of nothing. --Mark Meyer
The suggestion to give everyone a Chicago-Seattle plane ticket is indeed a glib response to the lifeline aspect of the Empire Builder.
But would you accept twice daily day train service in exchange for sleeping car service? Considering that more people in more towns along the route in your situation could be served? Considering that some 80% or so of the trip miles are in coach? That the 1950's anachronism is travelling end-to-end on the Empire Builder route in sleeping car, incurring perhaps fully half of the subsidy requirement?
The airfare comparison was for illustrative purposes only.
Glib means amongst other things, "marked by informality, showing little forethought or preparation, lacking depth and understanding". Really! I challenge anyone to demonstrate as much research and preparation that I put into most of my posts. Where do you think that I get the numbers? Out of thin air! Oh, by the way, I have been over every mile of Amtrak's system, with the exception of Chicago to New Orleans and Atlanta to New Orleans. I wonder how many other people can say the same.
I ran a similar matched city comparison for the Sunset Limited. It was a time consuming exercise. There were only four communities along the entire route where an airline reservation made 21 days in advance, which is probably typical for most people traveling on Amtrak's long distance trains, cost more than the price of a coach ticket plus the federal subsidy. Between every major city it would have been cheaper to fly the passengers or put them on the two to four daily buses that serve the community.
If American needs long distance trains for people who cannot or will not fly or drive to get to a location, then Amtrak needs to run trains to Abilene, Amarillo, Brownsville, Harlingen, Lubbock, Midland, Odessa, San Angelo, etc. in Texas alone. The argument is illogical.
Prior to my retirement I bought the argument that Amtrak had been unfunded, that there was a need for the long distance trains, and that the country should invest more heavily in passenger rail. After retirement, when I had more time, I used my analytical skills to dig into it my assumptions. I was shocked at the cost and inefficiency of the long distance trains. I changed my mind. There is scant economic justification for them. This is why I would discontinue them and use the money to enhance existing corridors or develop new ones.
Samantha is the name of my cat, and I thought it would be a good handle for use in these forums. It has produced some interesting surprises.
I have been riding a motorcycle for more than 20 years. It is a rush. But it is also dangerous. The probability of a motorcyclist being killed or critically hurt is 19 times greater than the probability for a motorist. Knowing this does not dampen my enthusiasm for motorcycling, but it makes me cautious.
I like riding trains. This year I have been on the CZ, Texas Eagle, Overland, and Country Link. The Empire Builder is arguably one of Amtrak's better trains. I have taken it twice. But it has only reached its 80th birthday because of significant federal subsidies. And these subsidies, on a per passenger mile basis, dwarf the subsidies of any other form of transport in the U.S. Look it up! Knowing this does not spoil my ride, but it is important to know both sides of the story.
Sam1 The airfare comparison was for illustrative purposes only. Glib means amongst other things, "marked by informality, showing little forethought or preparation, lacking depth and understanding". Really! I challenge anyone to demonstrate as much research and preparation that I put into most of my posts. Where do you think that I get the numbers? Out of thin air! Oh, by the way, I have been over every mile of Amtrak's system, with the exception of Chicago to New Orleans and Atlanta to New Orleans. I wonder how many other people can say the same. I ran a similar matched city comparison for the Sunset Limited. It was a time consuming exercise. There were only four communities along the entire route where an airline reservation made 21 days in advance, which is probably typical for most people traveling on Amtrak's long distance trains, cost more than the price of a coach ticket plus the federal subsidy. Between every major city it would have been cheaper to fly the passengers or put them on the two to four daily buses that serve the community. If American needs long distance trains for people who cannot or will not fly or drive to get to a location, then Amtrak needs to run trains to Abilene, Amarillo, Brownsville, Harlingen, Lubbock, Midland, Odessa, San Angelo, etc. in Texas alone. The argument is illogical.
If someone called me "idiot", I would definitely take that as "fightin' words" but I was not aware that "glib" constituted a provocation to be resolved on a Field of Honor, and for that I apologize.
Sam, I respect your opinions and your research and skills of financial analysis, but sometimes a person needs to discern when another commentator is essentially taking one's side or not on a given question. Sometimes a person may be in general agreement with your point of view without being 100 percent in agreement, and sometimes one has to accept something less than 100 percent agreement as being within one's coalition instead outside of it.
I was responding to someone who took issue with the suggestion of purchasing Empire Builder passengers airline tickets with the subsidy money, and this idea that airline tickets could replace what the Empire Builder is not original with you -- I have heard a similar suggestion from other Amtrak critics.
This person said that he relied on the Empire Builder to be at the side of aging and seriously ill parents living in rural Montana. The claim was that airline service was unavailable or subject to weather closure, and that the mountain roads in winter were a challenging proposition. Generally I take a person at their word on their reported life experiences, and I have heard that the lifeline aspect of LD trains is especially true for the Empire Builder where the highway network is sparse. As far as people who have ailing relatives in these cities in Texas you have mentioned, I think you will find people in the advocacy community who say service should be expanded and those cities should get trains.
The question remains whether train service is about lifeline service, fuel saving, congestion relief, an alternative to the stress of air travel or driving, or a memorable travel experience, and the Sunday paper op-ed response from many in the advocacy community is that it is all of those things, all the time, for every train on the Amtrak network.
I would like to think that it is settled that the LD trains are not about saving fuel or relieving highway congestion in any meaningful way, and if one is at all serious about using trains for that purpose, the emphasis should be on corridor trains without sleeping cars and with high density seating arrangements or on commuter trains. Anyone who has been following my responses on this thread or other threads pretty much knows where my comments are leading to on this question.
The issue of stressful air travel and white knuckles driving tends to be emphasized by the advocacy community, perhaps more than with the non-railfan public, many of whom have had stressful rail experiences on the one time they tried Amtrak. That leaves the lifeline issue.
As to the LD trains as transportation lifelines, that issue has been addressed by the I G Kenneth Mead Report -- run them as lifelines and cut the "memorable travel experience" part. This might save only half the subsidy spent on the LD trains compared to cutting them completely, but the Report is at least a thought experiment about what these trains are really for and what social benefit comes from the public expenditure.
What I have observed is that the Mead Report has provoked an angry reaction in the advocacy community? Why? Aren't we about things like the California Corridors and the Empire Service and the Midwest Regional Rail Initiatives and using trains to combat oil dependence and traffic congestion. Why are we so angry about cutting costs on LD trains? Is it remotely possible that the California Corridors, Empire and Keystone Service, MWRRI are what we promote to get broader public support, but as train-riding railfans, in our heart of hearts, what the Amtrak subsidy is about is preserving the memorable travel experience, and what is so memorable about a hop on the Hiawatha anyway apart from connecting to the "real" trains at the Chicago hub?
That is why I agreed with a user of lifeline Amtrak service that the suggestion of buying everyone airline tickets was dismissive of his concerns (OK,. dismissive may be as much an affront as glib, I will have to find yet another word). But I also posed the question, to which I have not received a response, and maybe the response was that this person booked sleeping car passage, of whether the particularly high cost part of the LD trains, the diner-lounge-sleeper-crew dorm-baggage car, and it is high cost on account of crew costs and on account of railroad car expenses, of whether that part was essential to the lifeline function.
Maybe you are angry with the Mead Report because it only goes halfway in Spartanizing the LD trains instead of doing away with them altogether? I see the Mead Report as a kind of thought experiment and perhaps a shibboleth to determine where someone is coming from on trains. Are trains really about the utilitarian aspects of lifeline transportation, fuel saving, and congestion relief that are the talking points in support of all trains in all forms and in all places, or is it really about the memorable travel experience. And if in our heart of hearts it is about the memorable travel experience, what defense can we offer of the level of subsidy?
Paul Milenkovic The suggestion to give everyone a Chicago-Seattle plane ticket is indeed a glib response to the lifeline aspect of the Empire Builder. But would you accept twice daily day train service in exchange for sleeping car service? Considering that more people in more towns along the route in your situation could be served? Considering that some 80% or so of the trip miles are in coach? That the 1950's anachronism is travelling end-to-end on the Empire Builder route in sleeping car, incurring perhaps fully half of the subsidy requirement?
Again, it comes down to value, and sleeping car service on the Empire Builder is valued. Maybe not everyone travels from Chicago to Seattle, but a lot of people travel from Montana overnight to the Hutchinson Cancer Center in Seattle or to Winona for the Mayo Clinic in Rochester. Sleeping cars are expensive, but the value of the passenger train in this case is to offer a comfort that no other form of transportation can provide for people who would find traveling by other means a relative hardship.
If you cut the sleeping car service or dining car service, even IF it didn't affect ridership, you still couldn't cut the expenses by half, because you'd still have a lot of fixed costs like stations, station personnel, and the like. Of course, you could cut those too, but then you probably will start cutting into the ridership even here.
That's the reason I stress value instead of cost. If you establish something has value and why, the costs are easier to justify. If cost is all the matters, you will always get what's cheapest, or nothing at all.
--Mark Meyer
There is also opportunity cost -- providing subsidy to something of value to one group of citizens means that less subsidy money is available for some other train or some other activity than may have value to other citizens.
I have no problem paying taxes to be used for a whole variety of government services I may not use or may only receive indirect benefit. I am receptive to the argument "Yes, this receives subsidy, and here is the individual and social benefit." The argument "knowing the cost of everything but not the value of anything", however, can be applied to everything the government spends money on because for every expenditure there is some recipient, beneficiary, or interest placing a high value on it, and that applies to many activities people around here find wasteful and would be better spent on trains.
Trains remain a high cost per passenger mile way of providing transportation, and to question the costs against the benefit or to ask if there are alternative ways of running trains is something that needs to be done if Amtrak is to be meaningfully expanded. I don't think the sparse nature of Amtrak service and the lack of economy of scale is the only cost concern -- the European experience involves comparable levels of subsidy per passenger mile.
There are a variety of models for providing overnight transportation -- the "Super Cambio" double decker express buses in South America, the type of deep recline seats in trans-Pacific airline business class, similar kind of seating on the overnight Tilt Train in Queensland, Australia. There is the possibility of taking the same subsidy and running day trains covering the different route segments of the Empire Builder route. There is the Canadian model of their one LD train where they provide sleeping cars and what people have noted is a high level of service and charging more for it given the value people place on it.
Paul Milenkovic There are a variety of models for providing overnight transportation -- the "Super Cambio" double decker express buses in South America, the type of deep recline seats in trans-Pacific airline business class, similar kind of seating on the overnight Tilt Train in Queensland, Australia. There is the possibility of taking the same subsidy and running day trains covering the different route segments of the Empire Builder route. There is the Canadian model of their one LD train where they provide sleeping cars and what people have noted is a high level of service and charging more for it given the value people place on it.
Has anyone looked into the possibility of bringing back the open section (this is the same as Milwaukee Road's Touralux sleeping cars, right?) ?
HOORAY FOR OPEN SECTIONS!!!
It would seem to be so easy to take out the walls of the economy rooms, allowing for "the widest bed on rails!" One of the many ways in which Amtrak is "sabotaged" is by not exploring alternative overnight accommodations. This is perhaps most directly due to its small fleet.
Maglev HOORAY FOR OPEN SECTIONS!!! It would seem to be so easy to take out the walls of the economy rooms, allowing for "the widest bed on rails!" One of the many ways in which Amtrak is "sabotaged" is by not exploring alternative overnight accommodations. This is perhaps most directly due to its small fleet.
Open sections were definitely not a favorite among travelers, which may explain why they were relatively rare among lightweight sleeping cars. The relative lack of privacy and security can be a major issue.
CSSHEGEWISCH Maglev HOORAY FOR OPEN SECTIONS!!! It would seem to be so easy to take out the walls of the economy rooms, allowing for "the widest bed on rails!" One of the many ways in which Amtrak is "sabotaged" is by not exploring alternative overnight accommodations. This is perhaps most directly due to its small fleet. Open sections were definitely not a favorite among travelers, which may explain why they were relatively rare among lightweight sleeping cars. The relative lack of privacy and security can be a major issue.
...and snoring! (as anyone who's overnighted in a coach can attest to....)
I did not take offense at glib. But it was not a good characterization of a cost comparative example. So I pushed back. Showing the cost of flying someone from Chicago to Seattle compared to the total cost of lifting them on the Empire Builder was an example and was not meant to be a system analysis and comparison.
Having spent more than 20 years as an Audit Manager and Audit Director for a Fortune 250 corporation, I long ago got over taking offense at anything said or with anyone who might disagree with my views. Heated disagreement goes with the auditing territory. My feathers do get a bit ruffled, however, if someone lunges at me or pulls a gun on me, both of which have happened.
I don't believe Amtrak has a lifeline obligation. If it did not serve outback areas in Montana, New Mexico, or Texas, as examples, there is a pretty good chance Greyhound, TNM&O, Jefferson Lines, etc. would. If a person chooses to live in a small town in the middle of nowhere, the taxpayers do not have an obligation to provide them with passenger rail or so-called essential air service.
I participate in these forums because I enjoy reading and agreeing with or disputing the views of others. I like the disputing part as much as anything. But I don't take it all that serious.
The people, who have the greatest impact in determining Amtrak's mission, as well as other rail programs, are U.S. Congress persons, state legislators, county commissioners, and city council persons. Amtrak management and its board of directors, has an important say. Some public officials may listen to the advocacy community. So when I really feel strongly about an issue, I bend my elected representative's ear on why my view makes sense.
---at least the EB is not outfitted with Viewliners, which are an example of the US potty obsession carried to extreme. Forget noise pollution--the glaring illuminated "WARNING DON'T STEP HERE" sign kept me from sleeping on the Crescent. Well, the view out the window and cramped toes contributed also...
Room F rules as far as I'm concerned. There's navigable floor space and a comfortable seat with the lower unfolded, windows on both sides, and the door and shower are just a few steps away... I prefer NOT having the toilet in my room anyway.
Sam1 I don't believe Amtrak has a lifeline obligation. If it did not serve outback areas in Montana, New Mexico, or Texas, as examples, there is a pretty good chance Greyhound, TNM&O, Jefferson Lines, etc. would.
I don't believe Amtrak has a lifeline obligation. If it did not serve outback areas in Montana, New Mexico, or Texas, as examples, there is a pretty good chance Greyhound, TNM&O, Jefferson Lines, etc. would.
VerMontanan Sam1 I don't believe Amtrak has a lifeline obligation. If it did not serve outback areas in Montana, New Mexico, or Texas, as examples, there is a pretty good chance Greyhound, TNM&O, Jefferson Lines, etc. would. It'd be nice if that was the case, but there's no such evidence. In August of 1960, when there still was abundant rail passenger service, Russell's Official Bus Guide (containing the schedules of most intercity bus service in the U.S. and Canada) was 928 pages. By Amtrak Day in May of 1971, the number of privately-run intercity passenger trains had dropped dramatically, but that didn't create an increase in bus service. The May, 1971 bus guide was 912 pages. Following the onset of Amtrak, and the elimination of two-thirds of the passenger trains, Russell's May 1975 Guide dropped to 856 pages. The amount of intercity bus service decreased slowly through 1988, when the July guide had 744 pages. When buses started losing out to UPS and FedEx handing small package shipments, the bottom fell out with regard to U.S. Intercity bus service. The December 2006 Russell's Guide has about 260 pages. Intercity bus service is but a shadow of itself, and is mostly confined to Interstate Highway routes. In addition, many stops have been eliminated. Greyhound's route from Salina, KS to Denver, CO, which also has no passenger train, has but two stops in that 435 miles. Alternate bus routes in the area where Greyhound and Continental Trailways once ran, have no service at all. Were Amtrak long distance trains discontinued, no bus lines would step in, just like they didn't in 1971 and ever since. That's also why states like Oregon and Minnesota choose to subsidize bus routes, or all public transportation would be lost. --Mark Meyer
It'd be nice if that was the case, but there's no such evidence.
The decline in intercity bus service has been concomitant with the increase in better highways and a dramatic increase in the ownership of automobiles. Most Americans, irrespective where they live, drive for intercity travel. It is the car that did in the long distance train; it is the car that has done in the bus companies in many markets, and it is the car that has made short haul air service marginal at best.
Whether an intercity busy company would step in if the long distance trains were discontinued is unknown. If there is a viable market, i.e. an operator can cover his costs and earn a return for the shareholder, they would fill the void. But if they cannot cover their costs, they will not do it. Neither will an air carrier. Which raises an interesting question?
Why should the federal government hoist a train across the northern tier of the United States, or anywhere for that matter, if the market for it is so weak that it cannot even cover its operating costs? That is to say, if the people won't pay the fares required to cover its cost, why should the taxpayer's pick-up the slack? Yes, I am opposed to the Essential Air Services Program.
Sorry, but I don't think that trains are lifelines, and I don't think they are national heritages that have a call on the national treasury. They are commercial carriers, and they should compete just like every other commercial carrier or they should go out of business. This was the original ideal when Amtrak was founded. Unfortunately, it quickly fell by the wayside, as is the case with many well intention government programs.
To sam1: I would assume, for the sake of consistency, that you believe that the Essential Air Service program should also be discontinued. Long live the infallible marketplace!
CSSHEGEWISCH To sam1: I would assume, for the sake of consistency, that you believe that the Essential Air Service program should also be discontinued. Long live the infallible marketplace!
You bet! That's what I said at the end of the third paragraph of my post. If you look at the program, in many instances the EASP serves airports that are less than a two hour drive to a major airport, or they serve communities that have acceptable alternative commercial service.
My birth town, Altoona, Pennsylvania, has EASP. So does Johnstown, Pennsylvania, which is approximately 40 miles west of Altoona. It takes about two hours to drive from Altoona to Pittsburgh Greater Airport. It takes less than an hour to drive there from Johnstown. There is no commercial justification for EASP at either location.
If a business gets it wrong in the market, it goes out of business and stops wasting scarce resources. A government entity (Amtrak) seldom has serious consequences if it gets it wrong. It just asks it political supporters for more money. Amtrak has failed to achieve its initiating financial objective for more than 38 years. It still gets more than $1.4 billion from the federal and state governments.
Long live the infallible marketplace!
Amtrak has failed to achieve its initiating financial objective for more than 38 years. It still gets more than $1.4 billion from the federal and state governments.
I guess people might call me a political moderate, or at least I believe in moderation in most things political. I don't believe in an infallible marketplace or infallible government or infallible members of the train advocacy community either.
I mean what is the marketplace? It is essentially you, me, and millions of others making decisions about how we want to live life, interact with other people, and do the things we want to do. It is also essentially about millions of people making decisions based on their preferences and life experiences. It is also about money, but at its root, money is about making choices -- what do I choose to spend what limited amount of money I have? Do I choose to spend it now or do I save some money to make choices about things I want or want to do later on?
The marketplace is certainly not the only way to make choices. There is perhaps a utilitarian reason and a philosophical reason to favor the marketplace. The utilitarian reason is that practical experience shows that it works better than top down planning according to some metrics. The philosophical reason is that there is an impulse in the human spirit to exercise individual choices rather than have them made for you. The utilitarian and the practical reasons are linked -- it is understood that the reason markets in many cases produce a good social outcome as that they give free expression to the yearning we each have to exercise individual choice.
The science of economics is repleat with many examples of market failure. To find the many instances of where the marketplace is not deemed infallible, one only need read any number of books on why things are not the way they ought to be, and to many of us in the advocacy community, the lack of trains compared to Europe or Japan is certainly evidence that life is out of balance.
For example, our esteemed friend who depended on the Empire Builder to care for his parents may have been willing to pay a much higher fare given the degree to which he found the train of value, but if the fares were that high, no one would ride the train and the whole service would collapse, and our friend could not ride the train at any price. On the other hand, that fares and subsidies have to be what they are to get ridership on the Empire Builder may suggest that others may not assign the same high value to it.
The classic example of market failure is that roads and airlines received some manner of help from government intervention if not outright subsidy, and this drove the railroads and especially passenger trains out of business. The point about Amtrak is that some form of subsidy was needed to "level the playing field" to "keep trains in play."
Well Amtrak gets its subsidy, and one group of people is complaining that 1.4 billion/year is a pittance in absolute dollar terms to the budgets of the FAA, the Federal highway program, and the state and local contribution to roads and airports. A smaller group of people is saying that the Amtrak appropriation is small relative to those other things, but on a per passenger mile basis, the Amtrak subsidy is 10 times what can be ascribed to the other modes, and the playing field is more than level.
A sarcasm such as "Long live the infallible marketplace!" is not atypical of what I hear in the online and bricks and morter advocacy communities. It seems that the advocacy community has linked itself to some form of a non-marketplace solution when we commonly speak of "Amtrak reform" and "glidepath to profitability" in mocking tones, when we complain about the small Amtrak appropriation without considering the high rate of subsidy per passenger miles, and regard people to don't see the needs for high rates of subsidy for all trains in all forms as "idiots."
But even Socialism requires some kind of marketplace in carrying out the decisions made by elite intellectual decision makers forming the vanguard of the working man and woman. It was asked how Soviet Russia attached prices to goods and raw materials exchanged among the Eastern Block countries, and the response was that they used prices from the capitalist world. Asked, "Well if you believe in Scientific Socialism and its historical inevitablity, how are you going to price things when every country is Socialist?" The response allegedly was "we will keep on capitalist country around so we can determine the correct prices."
Yes, even if we accept that some public funding of Amtrak and all other modes of transportation is a modern inevitability, Amtrak along with those other modes are still subject to at least a political marketplace. Yes, we are spending billions more on bailing out some automakers than we would dream of spending on Amtrak, but the auto bailout is not automatic and there are many voters unhappy with it.
I have been lumped in with the class of people "who know the cost of everything and the value of nothing" because I suggest cost-saving reforms that would cheapen it. But what is the value of Amtrak service? The passengers are not valuing it enough in relation to what they are willing to pay in fares otherwise it would not require so much subsidy. The subsidy does not wave a magic want and remove Amtrak from the marketplace, it only adds another stakeholder -- the voter.
I do not see the public at large assigning much value to what Amtrak does in relation to its subsidy -- otherwise you would see broader support for higher levels of subsidy. We can't cover what we want to do with Amtrak out of the farebox so we resort to subsidy. We, the advocacy community, can't get what we want out of Amtrak with the level of subsidy we can get out of the political system, so we, I don't know, we agitate I guess, we call people who deviate from the advocacy party line "idiots", we pronounce shame on our fellow citizens that people are not forthcoming we more public money for trains.
I would like to see more trains, but politically we haven't gotten off dead center in nearly 40 years. If Amtrak can deliver value for both the fare and the subsidy dollar, I think we can get someplace.
I rather wonder why folks like sam1 participate in these forums? Their message seems to be one of pure marketplace capitalism: If the endeavor isn't profitable, i.e., more than covers costs and provides a return on capitalization, it should never be unertaken or if existing, be allowed to fail. Of course it begs the question of how to allocate resources, such as $. The marketplace is only one of many mechanisms, hardly the universal answer. It is very efficient in certain fields, but not in others. In the case iof transportation, it does/can not take into account a number of other factors, including social utility, environmental values, land use, etc. So in many cases, the market approach simply is not weighing the appropriate social needs and costs. Additionally, that group keeps insisting that Americans overwhelming prefer autos. Of course, THEY DO, but perhaps only NOW, since a real rail transport sxystem does not exist. If it did, I suspect we would see very different statistics.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
schlimm I rather wonder why folks like sam1 participate in these forums? Their message seems to be one of pure marketplace capitalism: If the endeavor isn't profitable, i.e., more than covers costs and provides a return on capitalization, it should never be unertaken or if existing, be allowed to fail. Of course it begs the question of how to allocate resources, such as $. The marketplace is only one of many mechanisms, hardly the universal answer. It is very efficient in certain fields, but not in others. In the case iof transportation, it does/can not take into account a number of other factors, including social utility, environmental values, land use, etc. So in many cases, the market approach simply is not weighing the appropriate social needs and costs. Additionally, that group keeps insisting that Americans overwhelming prefer autos. Of course, THEY DO, but perhaps only NOW, since a real rail transport sxystem does not exist. If it did, I suspect we would see very different statistics.
If the purpose of this forum is to rant about how passenger rail gets the short end of things, I guess Sam1 doesn't belong on this forum. If the purpose of this forum is as a kind of virtual train advocacy group, in my opinion Sam1's comments are among the most useful remarks around.
I guess there is universal agreement that Amtrak or intercity passenger trains have failed in the marketplace economy. There was a line of thought at the inception of Amtrak that a small level of subsidy was what was needed to kick start passenger trains into paying their way, and that line of thought is pretty widely subject to ridicule around here. So taking trains out of the marketplace economy, they are now in the political realm of justifying levels of appropriation, and they have been failing at that. Sure Amtrak looks to get the 8 billion in ARRA money, but these things run in cycles, and the 8 billion dollar question is how that money will be spent and whether the return on that money will boost Amtrak's long term outlook.
Amtrak I suppose cannot compete in the marketplace economy, but it has to compete someplace, and if it is to compete among the many demands on public money, compete it has to do, and we can't sit around complaining about levels of military or Medicare or even highway spending. Or are you suggesting that the political system does not weigh the social needs and costs any better than the marketplace? And with what are you going to replace the political system, Plato's Foamer-Philosopher Kings?
Paul:
I'm only saying that reiterating the arguments against any passenger rail system on the basis of marketplace economics, profit and loss and CURRENT ridership statistics over and over does not advance the outlook for passenger rail. And by passenger rail, I am not wedded to a solely Amtrak-based system. However, I thought this was a forum for advancing ideas of HOW to have a decent passenger rail net, not whether or NOT to have one. All we ever hear from Sam1 and others is a lot of nice statistics designed to dress up the argument of why we shouldn't have a comprehensive transit and HSR system in the US in a manner like most other industialized nations of the world. It is obvious that we do not and also obvious that other nations seem to have the money and will to pay for one.
BTW, I don't think your concluding bit of facitious sarcasm advances any position.
schlimm All we ever hear from Sam1 and others is a lot of nice statistics designed to dress up the argument of why we shouldn't have a comprehensive transit and HSR system in the US in a manner like most other industialized nations of the world.
That is an erroneous interpretation of Sam1's postion on passenger rail and rail transit. I will admit that Sam1 has a rather rigid view of how to measure the efficacy of the service provided against the cost, informed by Sam1's professional background,
But, you are misstating Sam1's position badly, I think.
I agree with Schlimm, that the question is not "why or why not" but "how and when?" In all other parts of the world, and through most of our history, passenger trains have been an accepted, money-losing part of life. We just got a little behind in the past fifty years, and need to do some catch-up.
I have been re-reading my history of the L& N with an eye to information on sustainability of passenger transportation. Obviously, there was pride in the passenger trains (at least over 50 years ago)., They were always outfitted with the best available equipment and afforded expedited dispatching.
A comfortable, overnight or all-day train that goes down-town to down-town would be helpful to families, business people, students, and even commuters. The social benefits and improved freedom of mobility are priceless. We need more Empire Builders!
MaglevA comfortable, overnight or all-day train that goes down-town to down-town would be helpful to families, business people, students, and even commuters
How about a comfortable, first class, overnight train from NY to Chicago on a 16 hour schedule, designed for businnessmen?
oltmannd MaglevA comfortable, overnight or all-day train that goes down-town to down-town would be helpful to families, business people, students, and even commuters How about a comfortable, first class, overnight train from NY to Chicago on a 16 hour schedule, designed for businnessmen?
Having been chastised for engaging in facetious sarcasm, I should not be the person to ask, but . .
Um, Don, are you serious about bringing back the Broadway Limited to serve business travellers, or are you engaged in more facetious sarcasm?
Paul, et al:
Sorry about criticizing your comment on "philosopher kings." It just seemed a bit off key compared with the rest of your illuminating writing. I'm sorry if I don't find that Sam1's usual litany (nicely presented statistical reasons of why passenger trains do not and cannot make any sense from his not-so-free market perspective) adds anything to a discussion of how and when and where to bring the US up-to-date in an important area of transportation infrastructure.
I rather doubt that an EB or even BL are in the cards, although I do recall riding a 15 1/2 hr. all Pullman Broadway in 1967 (as well as a one hour 55 min Panama from Central Station, Chicago to Champaign in 1965). Those were pretty good times 40+ years ago on corridor and LD routes. So in a number of cases, it would be considerable "progress" to regress to some of the routes of 40-50 years ago, not just for speed, but also the all-important frequency of service.
Paul MilenkovicUm, Don, are you serious about bringing back the Broadway Limited to serve business travellers, or are you engaged in more facetious sarcasm?
The latter.
If the Broadway and 20th Century failed against high fare, slow, propeller driven aircraft and relatively crude and expensive to own and operate, hard to drive cars operating on an incomplete toll highway system, how could we expect it to succeed today?
Both trains were dead on their feet by the mid 50's. There was an article in Trains a few years back about how the Broadway would often have only a couple dozen passengers in the mid 50s.
These trains died despite both RRs equipping them with the very best equipment and service. Despite attempts at faster trips. The schedules for both were shaved back to 15-1/2 hours at one point.
I doubt there are any business travellers other than railfans who would even think of considering an overnight train when they can fly and be in their own bed at night. The notion of overnight trains for business travel is DOA.
The only thing that kept the Broadway, 20th Century and the Empire Builder going from the 1950s into the 1960s was corporate pride.
Other routes with some pretty fast speeds suffered the same fate. The IC has some pretty fast track. ACL was trying to get their NY-Miami times down to 24 hours by upgrading their mainline to 100 mph.
None of it worked.
As a railfan, I wish there was more and better and faster overnight train service so I could use it. But, that just ain't the world we live in.....
Here's some thoughts on the Broadway Limited...
I traveled at least a couple times a year betwen Pittsburgh and Chicago between 1984 and 2002. I mostly flew because I could write my own free tickets, I took the Broadway once, and the Capitol several times. And one time only, I rode a bus. It was non-stop from Cleveland to Chicago, and most of the passengers were "businessmen." They ran to the bathroom upon arrival to tidy up, then scrambled to their commodity exchanges or whatever. Amtrak was not an option for them, primarily because the trains arrive too late in the morning and are notorious for delay. I can only guess that flying was too expensive or inconvenient. Driving is expensive, slow, and not conducive to conducting business upon arrival.
I actually believe that Americans have a right to comfortable, convenient, low-pollution transportation. A national rail network can improve commerce, bring families together, and allow students more options for research. Our commerce, social unity, and higher education all suffer due to poor transportation infrastructure.
(I rode the Broadway several times, but only once in a sleeper between Chicago and Greensburg. We had taken the California Zephyr from San Francisco. Our "heritage" bedroom on the Broadway was downright scary: even the severe brown and tan decor could not hide the all the stains of misfortune. The Dinette car was clean and comfortable, but the food was not very good.)
Maglev ...one time only, I rode a bus. It was non-stop from Cleveland to Chicago, and most of the passengers were "businessmen." ..... Amtrak was not an option for them, primarily because the trains arrive too late in the morning and are notorious for delay. I can only guess that flying was too expensive or inconvenient. Driving is expensive, slow, and not conducive to conducting business upon arrival. I actually believe that Americans have a right to comfortable, convenient, low-pollution transportation
...one time only, I rode a bus. It was non-stop from Cleveland to Chicago, and most of the passengers were "businessmen." ..... Amtrak was not an option for them, primarily because the trains arrive too late in the morning and are notorious for delay. I can only guess that flying was too expensive or inconvenient. Driving is expensive, slow, and not conducive to conducting business upon arrival.
I actually believe that Americans have a right to comfortable, convenient, low-pollution transportation
Sounds like they found it...
Let's see if I get it straight.
1. Sam1, Paul, Don want to eliminate all LD trains, which seem to be anything over ~500 miles not in a corridor? How much does this actually save?
2. We should increase speed on the NEC?
3. We should develop new semi-HSR service on various new corridors: PDX-SEA, CHI-DET, CHI-STL, CHI-MILW/MStP, CAL all over, FLA and TX? Not, however, CHI-Iowa?
4. How many states are served? ~20? As this does need to get marketed to Congress, that is a valid question.
Having ridden on the Empire Builder in 2005, I noticed that my fellow sleeping car passengers were virtually all leisure passengers on vacation. I think that first class travel is a thing of the past except on Amtrak.How many companies allow their executives to travel first class. It is cheaper to charter private jets for travel than pay first class to the airlines.
Check out in an Official Guide from the 1950's what it cost to ride in a parlor car over what it cost to ride coach. The business bean counters didn't like paying the the difference and business travelers flocked to the airlines which still operated mostly first class only flights until the jets arrived in 1959. The Broadway and the 20TH Century faced competition from United Airlines which included a men only (except for the flight attendents) DC-7 non stop with an additional $3.00 surcharge besides the first class fare.
I would like to see Amtrak continue to improve its Northeast corridor service with improved business class service and comfortable coach service. I would like to know even on the Chicago- Milwaukee Hiawatha service what per cent is business travel. It looked as if it was mostly leisure travelers when I last rode it in 2007. It looked like a lot of people use Mitchell as an alternate to O'Hare to reach the Northern Chicago burbs.
schlimm1. Sam1, Paul, Don want to eliminate all LD trains, which seem to be anything over ~500 miles not in a corridor? How much does this actually save?
Sam says it will save about $0.5B a year. Enough to do something meaningful elsewhere.
I'm not for "all". But, I do think they need to get back to the original notion - that not all the routes on Amtrak's Day One map survive. I'd whack most of the eastern routes in half and make day train, multiple frequency routes. I'd package overnight in hotels where I whacked the route. Shuttle to and from the hotel. Seamless. All included in the price. I might get a vanful of takers.
I'd leave the Empire Builder, Zephyr, Starlight, Autotrain and SW Chief alone and run the wheels off the Superliners.
schlimm2. We should increase speed on the NEC?
Nope. It works OK now. Money for things other than very small time improvement on the NEC.
schlimm3. We should develop new semi-HSR service on various new corridors: PDX-SEA, CHI-DET, CHI-STL, CHI-MILW/MStP, CAL all over, FLA and TX? Not, however, CHI-Iowa?
Yup. Lots of population there. Not to Iowa. Pigs don't ride trains. Those that want a train can ride the Zephyr. I left that in.
schlimm4. How many states are served? ~20? As this does need to get marketed to Congress, that is a valid question.
That's the $64,000 dollar question. The way I'd try it, almost no states would be left out.
Last four years I have been at a table at the Madison Model Railroad Show and Sale handing out literature on the Midwest Regional Rail Initiative. I only this year took the trouble to read the pamphlet.
In rough round number, the MWRRI is supposed to cost 6 billion, it is supposed to cover its above-the-rails operating costs, and it is supposed to serve 2 billion passenger miles per year. Think about it, for 6 billion dollars initial investment (mind you, people like to talk about passenger rail as an investment) you get half an Amtrak (in yearly passenger miles).
If you believe what is in the pamphlet, for 24 billion dollars we could get two Amtrak's. If a person doesn't believe what is in the pamphlet, well, I think I should stop handing it out to people at the Model Railroad Show. There are various ways of inflation adjusting and slicing the pie. But the way I see it, with more effective investment of the money Amtrak has received since inception, it could be twice the size and either self sustaining in terms of covering its costs or could continue to receive government money and grow.
I guess it has become canon in the advocacy community that passenger rail runs at a loss everywhere in the industrial world. The MWRRI would probably take forever to recoup the initial capital investment, but the claim is made that fares would cover its operating costs. Again, if this is not the case, I had better stop handing out those pamphlets written by the 8-state group.
Don: Some really helpful responses, though Iowans might have some problems with the pig line.
In regard to the troubled NEC and several other routes. One set of problems that pops up over and over again is the heavy American RR wheels and freight cars, restrictions on superelevation b/c of freight, and interference with HSR and HSR-lite by freight. In a number of cases (NY-CHI, CHI-STL, BOS-WASH, etc.), there exist redundant, fairly lightly used or even abandoned parallel routes to the currently used ones on which passenger trains attempt to run. Would it not be much cheaper to have the govt. acquire those secondary routes and then upgrade them to higher speed standards as dedicted passenger-only lines so we could run the new service with out-of-the-box European/Asian equipment?
On demographics of Amtrak first-class passengers: On the Empire Builder, it was mostly retiree / rail fans. You have to really want to take the train when you take the train on this route; and have to really REALLY want to take the train to pay for first class. Amtrak is slow, inconvenient, and first class is very expensive. These people otherwise would travel by RV or cruise ship.
On a Boston to Washington express train trip in 2005, the other first-class passengers were all government or business executives. These people would otherwise fly first class or in private jets, but enjoy the train ride and service. Leisure travelers seem less inclined to pay for first class on day trips (in Britain also).
schlimmWould it not be much cheaper to have the govt. acquire those secondary routes and then upgrade them to higher speed standards as dedicted passenger-only lines so we could run the new service with out-of-the-box European/Asian equipment?
Maybe. But, you still have the "last mile", probably on mixed track....so....
You can even plop down your "unmixed" HSR line along suitable primary frt routes - where it makes sense. As long as you don't have the capability to mix, you'd be OK. There are various transit lines that share with frt and passenger RR routes in the US this way.
MaglevOn a Boston to Washington express train trip in 2005, the other first-class passengers were all government or business executives. These people would otherwise fly first class or in private jets, but enjoy the train ride and service.
They're probably the same gang that rode the Metroliners. They were run-of the-mill businessmen. They wouldn't get to fy first class - only coach. Most companies would spring for Metroliner as a normal business expense as an alternative to flying coach.
schlimm Let's see if I get it straight. 1. Sam1, Paul, Don want to eliminate all LD trains, which seem to be anything over ~500 miles not in a corridor? How much does this actually save?
If the long distance trains had been eliminated in FY08, the direct savings would have been approximately $515 million per year, assuming that they wear 10 per cent of the interest, depreciation, and unallocated charges. The first year savings would be decreased by discontinuance expenses, e.g. severance pay, lease severance penalties, etc., offset by savings in select support activities, i.e. IT, reservation center staff, management and supervision, etc., as well as the salvage value of the long distance equipment or at least that portion of it that could not be used for corridor trains.
The annual savings for any one year is not terribly impressive. But by 2050, which is the year that the Vision for the Future, U.S. intercity passenger rail network through 2050, authors set as the target date for the implementation of their proposed passenger rail vision, the savings would be approximately $20.6 billion on a straight-line basis. On a compounded basis, using the U.S. Treasury's weighted averaging borrowing rate, the savings would be $49.7 billion. And that is serious money.
The compounded savings from the discontinuance of the long distance trains would cover the cost of the California High Speed Rail Project, before interest and financing charges, assuming the project sponsors have developed realistic estimates for it. Unfortunately, the Government Accounting Office, which is noted for the thoroughness of its work and its objectivity, has commented that the ridership and revenue projections appear to be optimistic.
Maglev Here's some thoughts on the Broadway Limited... I traveled at least a couple times a year betwen Pittsburgh and Chicago between 1984 and 2002. I mostly flew because I could write my own free tickets, I took the Broadway once, and the Capitol several times. And one time only, I rode a bus. It was non-stop from Cleveland to Chicago, and most of the passengers were "businessmen." They ran to the bathroom upon arrival to tidy up, then scrambled to their commodity exchanges or whatever. Amtrak was not an option for them, primarily because the trains arrive too late in the morning and are notorious for delay. I can only guess that flying was too expensive or inconvenient. Driving is expensive, slow, and not conducive to conducting business upon arrival. I actually believe that Americans have a right to comfortable, convenient, low-pollution transportation. A national rail network can improve commerce, bring families together, and allow students more options for research. Our commerce, social unity, and higher education all suffer due to poor transportation infrastructure. (I rode the Broadway several times, but only once in a sleeper between Chicago and Greensburg. We had taken the California Zephyr from San Francisco. Our "heritage" bedroom on the Broadway was downright scary: even the severe brown and tan decor could not hide the all the stains of misfortune. The Dinette car was clean and comfortable, but the food was not very good.)
American rights are spelled out in the Constitution and implied in the Declaration of Independence and The Federalist Papers. They have been further enumerated by the Supreme Court. I am not familiar with the section in the Constitution or other sources stating that Americans have a right to comfortable, convenient, low-pollution transportation.
Sam1:
Great!! $ 0.5 Bil (out of a total operating budget for Amtrak FY08?) isn't chump change for sure. But to extend that on for 40 years seems a bit misleading. It's like saying I'm saving X $ for 40 years by no longer owning and operating my old Chrysler mini-van, or any other discontinued service. Still, that $ 0.5 Bil could handle operating costs on lines that serve a greater portion of the public for several years. I suppose we also need to more clearly define LD (have to say as a psychologist, I have a little trouble with that term since it means Learning Disabled) service and which trains, if any, should be saved based on what criteria? Size of loss per passenger served? Distance? Are alternative means of transport besides the auto available? Any ideas here? It certainly seems that with limited resources, somthing's got to give.
aricat I would like to know even on the Chicago- Milwaukee Hiawatha service what per cent is business travel. It looked as if it was mostly leisure travelers when I last rode it in 2007. It looked like a lot of people use Mitchell as an alternate to O'Hare to reach the Northern Chicago burbs.
I would like to know even on the Chicago- Milwaukee Hiawatha service what per cent is business travel. It looked as if it was mostly leisure travelers when I last rode it in 2007. It looked like a lot of people use Mitchell as an alternate to O'Hare to reach the Northern Chicago burbs.
I don't know what the overall percentages are, but Kimberly-Clark now requires its Fox Valley, WI employees who do business in Chicago-proper to shuttle in company limo-vans down HWY 41 to Milwaukee Amtrak airport station (~90 miles), and take the Hiawathas into and out of Chicago.
schlimmwhich trains, if any, should be saved based on what criteria? Size of loss per passenger served? Distance? Are alternative means of transport besides the auto available? Any ideas here? It certainly seems that with limited resources, somthing's got to give.
Ick. You could do all of that, but what a mess. Particularly once you let the politicians in.
How about this, instead? You bid out each route to an operator - not the typical "low bidder provides the least he can get away with" but one where the operator keeps the revenue, so he has a profit motive. Like this: "How much do I have to pay you to operate the Empire Builder for 3 years? I'll set the schedule, provide the locomotives, passenger cars, and engineers, conductors, trainmen at "$X" rate. You provide everything else. You set the fares and keep all the revenue."
This gives the operator incentive to reduce costs AND improve service and revenue to improve their bottom line.
Let each train be it's own line item in Amtrak's budget and then let congress decide. It's really a political process at the end of the day, anyway. This just gets us more for our money.
schlimm Sam1: Great!! $ 0.5 Bil (out of a total operating budget for Amtrak FY08?) isn't chump change for sure. But to extend that on for 40 years seems a bit misleading. It's like saying I'm saving X $ for 40 years by no longer owning and operating my old Chrysler mini-van, or any other discontinued service. Still, that $ 0.5 Bil could handle operating costs on lines that serve a greater portion of the public for several years. I suppose we also need to more clearly define LD (have to say as a psychologist, I have a little trouble with that term since it means Learning Disabled) service and which trains, if any, should be saved based on what criteria? Size of loss per passenger served? Distance? Are alternative means of transport besides the auto available? Any ideas here? It certainly seems that with limited resources, somthing's got to give.
Anyone familiar with basic financial models would understand the scenario that I presented. The concept is based on opportunity alternatives. They would also understand the time value of money and how to calculate it.
oltmannd schlimmwhich trains, if any, should be saved based on what criteria? Size of loss per passenger served? Distance? Are alternative means of transport besides the auto available? Any ideas here? It certainly seems that with limited resources, somthing's got to give. Ick. You could do all of that, but what a mess. Particularly once you let the politicians in. How about this, instead? You bid out each route to an operator - not the typical "low bidder provides the least he can get away with" but one where the operator keeps the revenue, so he has a profit motive. Like this: "How much do I have to pay you to operate the Empire Builder for 3 years? I'll set the schedule, provide the locomotives, passenger cars, and engineers, conductors, trainmen at "$X" rate. You provide everything else. You set the fares and keep all the revenue." This gives the operator incentive to reduce costs AND improve service and revenue to improve their bottom line. Let each train be it's own line item in Amtrak's budget and then let congress decide. It's really a political process at the end of the day, anyway. This just gets us more for our money.
This is the model used by the Great Southern Railway in Australia. It operates Australia's two cross country trains (Indian Pacific and The Ghan) as well as the Overland, which runs from Adelaide to Melbourne.
I have ridden all three trains. This March I rode the Overland from Adelaide to Melbourne. Also, I took the County Link, which is operated by the New South Wales Government, from Melbourne to Sydney. Whilst the service on both trains was much better than the service on any of Amtrak's trains, the service on the Overland, which is operated by a for-profit corporation, was noticeably better than the service on the Country Link. In large part this was due to the attitude of the crew.
The national government awarded the contract through competitive bidding. It contains strict performance standards that must be met or the contractor must pay a failure to perform penalty. Thus, the operator has an incentive to get it right. Based on my experience, they do a good job of getting it right.
In addition to privatizing the aforementioned national trains, Victoria privatized its regional or country trains as well as the commuter trains and trams in Melbourne. Private operators have their problems, to be sure, but they do a better job than the government.
The business model Sam1 presents might be workable, especially on trains like the Empire Builder. I am sure that the government's (and general population's) attitude towards Amtrak is reflected in the crew's attitudes towards their jobs. I see a nationwide network of passenger trains as an important part of our heritage and infrastructure, and trains are similar to National Parks in terms of both sentimental and practical value.
There US certainly has a demand for discretionary travel, but we have let encouraged a huge portion to slip away on cruise ships. And while I'm sure RV's are a great way to tour America, crossing the plains probably wastes a lot of fuel... There are many ways that trains could be made attracrtive for travelers; for example, when my family rode CN from Montreal to Vancouver in 1975, our car was transported on a freight train. Yes, we were forced to spend an extra night on each end... it was great!
Passenger trains are fine hotels!
But... the strength of a system is the network, no?
Maglev Passenger trains are fine hotels!
I don't have the expertise of life experience to comment on whether vast amounts of fusion-generated electric power is just around the corner or if maglev is a better may than HSR to make use of it when it happens. I do have enough travel experience, however, to question whether sleeping cars are fine hotels.
As hotels, I always thought they had microscopic rooms and limited amenities. Owing to the holding tank requirement, you don't even get your own toilet except for paying for a major upgrade, and there are limits and restrictions on showers as well.
When people travel any kind of distance, there is always the requirement for some manner of sleeping quarters along with meal service, and the question is whether you provide it "on the ground" or "in the air."
Even airline travel does not eliminate the need for sleeping quarters, it is just that the sleeping quarters are on the ground instead of on the airplane. The common model of intra-US business travel is to get to your destination the day or even the evening prior and then to stay overnight in a hotel at your destination, getting up at whatever hour is required for your business meeting. The trip and the sleeping quarters can be combined -- Broadway Limited -- and Don has offered his opinion on how that has worked out.
Airline travel has even cut out the meal service for the most part. You don't have to go hungry, you just have to get your food on the ground. Airport food may be kind of expensive and of limited selection, but I have seen that it has improved in quality relative to cost somewhat in response to not getting much of anything on the plane, and the airplane food wasn't great shakes to start with. Depends on the airport -- had some local barbecue in Memphis at a very reasonable price.
As to the sleeping car as hotel room, there are people who like that sort of thing, and the lateral motion about the swing hangers is something that helps me sleep as does mild levels of turbulence when I am trying to sleep on a trans-Pacific flight. Yeah, and I suppose there are people who are into that RV thing, and I suppose the argument could be made that the sleeping car in energy efficient relative to the RV but not relative to the automobile and hotel room.
There is this fixture of the transportation infrastructure known as the airport hotel -- maybe not 4 stars but does it compare unfavorably with the Amtrak Roomette? There is even a component of transportation infrastructure known as the hospital hotel. There was mention earlier on this thread of how the Empire Builders helps with people in Montana with serious medical needs requiring clinics or hospitals in Seattle or Minneapolis. Many of the big clinics serving a wide geographical area are served by nearby hotels and often have shuttle buses.
How about running day trains on the long distance routes and bringing back the railroad hotel (wasn't the Fred Harvey chain connected to the Santa Fe railroad?)
jclassBut... the strength of a system is the network, no?
The strength of Amtrak's network is it's hubs. The NEC, Chicago, and maybe LA. Other than that, there's not much of a network. Knocking off the Sunset or Zephyr doesn't hurt the "network" much.
Paul MilenkovicYeah, and I suppose there are people who are into that RV thing, and I suppose the argument could be made that the sleeping car in energy efficient relative to the RV but not relative to the automobile and hotel room.
A family of 4 in an RV getting 8 mpg does about as well on energy as they would flying or on Amtrak.
Day train to hotel to day train still provides that "life line" to places that depend on train service. It could even be a boon to the train rider. Imagine if the Zephyr left Chicago in the AM and travelled to Denver. Then the next daylight leg would be to Salt Lake City. Then the third to SF. All day to see the scenery on the trains. Evenings to sightsee in Denver and Salt Lake City. Useful train service in between - even for those hogs in Iowa. (Although I may be pushing the term "useful" here....)
Or the Crescent. You could travel to Atlanta during the day and in the evening you could, uh, um, you could, ....never mind!
(just don't tell Mr. Viewliner-hater this!)
My statement about trains being like a fine hotel was an allusion to the sentiments of Lucius Beebe and Charles Clegg, who were afficionados of first-class rail travel: "In the golden age of railroad travel, the steamers were an extension of the amenties of de luxe hotel living."*
Even tapping into a portion of discretionary travel could stabilize our national passenger rail network. And what about express business? I got no comments on that... Instead of passenger trains with box cars, how about double stacks with coaches?
Concerning natural nuclear fusion, I have found evidence that Iran and Russia have active research programs. Our government still seems to be avoiding the issue. It's kind of like a passenger train: there is no profit to be made off unlimited, free energy. We actively ignore low-profit enterprises.
Sam1 The national government awarded the contract through competitive bidding. It contains strict performance standards that must be met or the contractor must pay a failure to perform penalty. Thus, the operator has an incentive to get it right. Based on my experience, they do a good job of getting it right.
As long as it doesn't turn into "what's the least I can do and still get a gold star on my performance standard report." Do more = get more.
I'd like to see revenue be the incentive. It makes the game simple. The responsibility for generating ideas for cutting cost and improving revenue will come from the one with most to gain and the floor for the subsidy might be lowered during the next bidding round.
If you wanted to bid out the equipment supply piece, then you'd likely have to do the spelled-out performance standards and incentives contract.
Here are proposed metrics for Amtrak:
http://www.fra.dot.gov/downloads/rrdev/metrics_and_standards_draft.pdf
Maglev My statement about trains being like a fine hotel was an allusion to the sentiments of Lucius Beebe and Charles Clegg, who were afficionados of first-class rail travel: "In the golden age of railroad travel, the steamers were an extension of the amenties of de luxe hotel living."*
Lucius Beebe was a Victorian snob who seems to have been born in the wrong era for his extravagant style and tastes. He was perpetually at war with anything and everything that came after WW1 and the resultant social changes.
"Lucius Beebe was a Victorian snob who seems to have been born in the wrong era for his extravagant style and tastes. He was perpetually at war with anything and everything that came after WW1 and the resultant social changes."
I know, that's why I was reluctant to say where I got the quote.
Passenger trains like the Empire Builder could be cost-effective depending on how you define the costs. Does an operator of passenger trains have to pay full costs of track and dispatching? What about big city stations? Or would the operator just staff the cars and determine the routes and schedules?
And still no comments on express business, not to mention carrying cars. Think Auto Train, not American Orient Express. A vacation scenerio could involve taking a train to Denver, driving to Phoenix, and returning by train. A similar idea was successful when I visited Scotland around 1990.
jclass--
The Amtrak report is enlightening, although typically dizzying for something political. A 104-minute improvement in NEC express train times is about what is needed, but I consistently only see funding for minimal repairs (not to mention actual improvement).
Maglev Passenger trains like the Empire Builder could be cost-effective depending on how you define the costs. Does an operator of passenger trains have to pay full costs of track and dispatching? What about big city stations? Or would the operator just staff the cars and determine the routes and schedules?
There's the nub of my point of view.
Let's level the playing field vis-a-vis cars and planes that get "free" highways and "free" airports. Yes, there is the matter of "free" meaning being supported through mo-gas tax and av-gas tax, and then there is the retort of the high level of cross-subsidization going on and the complaint "if they are going to cross-subsidize within a mode, why can't they cross subsidize across modes and spare some transportation budget for Amtrak. So let's set these concerns aside and say that Amtrak gets the tracks for "free", because outside of the NEC they pretty much do as the track payments are a small part of their total cost structure.
So the train gets the tracks and the dispatching for free. And yes, let's throw in the stations, and if people, say, in Wisconsin or Montana want the Empire Builder to stop anyplace in their fine states, how about those states pay to operate all of the stations within their borders. There are such fine points as gate charges and other user fees for airports, but let's just stipulate that they get that part for free.
The train gets to pay for everything above the wheel/rail contact patch. That means the costs of all of the onboard crew, insurance, not only the maintenance of locomotives and Superliners but also the mortgage payments on them as well, fuel, yes that too because the point is how high gas costs will drive motorists into wanting to ride the train, everything above the rail.
So that's my plan -- the states operate stations if they want the train to stop anywhere within their borders, the Feds spring for the trackage costs, and the trains pay their way for everything above the wheel contact patch. Give or take, this is pretty much the deal that motorists, the bus companies, and the airlines get: do I have any takers for this plan?
Maglev Even tapping into a portion of discretionary travel could stabilize our national passenger rail network. And what about express business? I got no comments on that... Instead of passenger trains with box cars, how about double stacks with coaches?
Interesting you should bring up the point about express business. IIRC, Amtrak was making some good inroads on that business back in the early to mid-90's before the freight RRs began to throw a fit over it. Still, I like the idea even if you have to make the CZ or Empire Builder look like a mixed train. Also, expanding the Auto Train concept might be something Amtrak should take a closer look at as well.
oltmannd Sam1 The national government awarded the contract through competitive bidding. It contains strict performance standards that must be met or the contractor must pay a failure to perform penalty. Thus, the operator has an incentive to get it right. Based on my experience, they do a good job of getting it right. As long as it doesn't turn into "what's the least I can do and still get a gold star on my performance standard report." Do more = get more. I'd like to see revenue be the incentive. It makes the game simple. The responsibility for generating ideas for cutting cost and improving revenue will come from the one with most to gain and the floor for the subsidy might be lowered during the next bidding round. If you wanted to bid out the equipment supply piece, then you'd likely have to do the spelled-out performance standards and incentives contract.
The overseas subsidiary of my employer, where I worked for five years, used market share as a metric to judge its performance. Unfortunately, they lost sight of the cost side of the game, and they lost a lot of money before management figured out that it is the whole accounting equation that is important. The same would happen if the focus was on revenues.
To survive a business must generate sufficient revenues to cover its costs and meet the expectations of its shareholders. If it does not do this over the long run, it goes out of business, unless it can get the government to prop it up.
A successful business model starts with a concept, followed by a robust assessment of the costs to produce the goods and services. Once the costs have been identified, the pricing experts can determine how to price the goods and services.
This may appear to be a rigid model. It is certainly a demanding one. Ask anyone who has been in business. People who cannot hack it turn frequently to a variety of non-economic arguments, i.e. the model is unfair, it fails to consider the broader needs of society, it ignores our national heritages, etc. The pleadings are endless.
Paul Milenkovic Maglev Passenger trains like the Empire Builder could be cost-effective depending on how you define the costs. Does an operator of passenger trains have to pay full costs of track and dispatching? What about big city stations? Or would the operator just staff the cars and determine the routes and schedules? There's the nub of my point of view. Let's level the playing field vis-a-vis cars and planes that get "free" highways and "free" airports. Yes, there is the matter of "free" meaning being supported through mo-gas tax and av-gas tax, and then there is the retort of the high level of cross-subsidization going on and the complaint "if they are going to cross-subsidize within a mode, why can't they cross subsidize across modes and spare some transportation budget for Amtrak. So let's set these concerns aside and say that Amtrak gets the tracks for "free", because outside of the NEC they pretty much do as the track payments are a small part of their total cost structure. So the train gets the tracks and the dispatching for free. And yes, let's throw in the stations, and if people, say, in Wisconsin or Montana want the Empire Builder to stop anyplace in their fine states, how about those states pay to operate all of the stations within their borders. There are such fine points as gate charges and other user fees for airports, but let's just stipulate that they get that part for free. The train gets to pay for everything above the wheel/rail contact patch. That means the costs of all of the onboard crew, insurance, not only the maintenance of locomotives and Superliners but also the mortgage payments on them as well, fuel, yes that too because the point is how high gas costs will drive motorists into wanting to ride the train, everything above the rail. So that's my plan -- the states operate stations if they want the train to stop anywhere within their borders, the Feds spring for the trackage costs, and the trains pay their way for everything above the wheel contact patch. Give or take, this is pretty much the deal that motorists, the bus companies, and the airlines get: do I have any takers for this plan?
Then, does above-the-rail Amtrak give up its "easement" on private sector railroads?
Sam1The overseas subsidiary of my employer, where I worked for five years, used market share as a metric to judge its performance. Unfortunately, they lost sight of the cost side of the game, and they lost a lot of money before management figured out that it is the whole accounting equation that is important. The same would happen if the focus was on revenues.
No, no. Not write some incentive around revenue. Don't write any incentive clauses at all. Just let the operator KEEP ALL the revenue he can collect and absorb all the cost.
The winning bidder gets paid a flat subsidy that should set the floor at roughly break even. His efforts to reduce cost and increase revenue go directly to him - dollar for dollar.
There are many city pairs which might attract passengers and express business, but they are poorly served by Amtrak. The eastbound leaves Seattle so late that no matter where you're going, it's an overnight ordeal; and the great city of Minneapolis only has one train to Chicago. Local traffic is probably unwelcome anyway on this train...
jclass Then, does above-the-rail Amtrak give up its "easement" on private sector railroads?
The freight railroads get paid whatever fees through whatever contracts out of Federal money to allow passage of passenger trains. One mode is to buy them out as was done at great expense with the NEC. Another arrangement is Amtrak's "easement" where they get trackage rights for cheap, and it could be argued that this constitutes a "taking" from a private concern, but that argument is for another day and another thread. Yet another is the kind of arrangements that Metra has with its host railroads. Don't know what the deal is, but I understand it is less coercive than the Amtrak arrangement.
That's my point. The Feds provide through one mechanism or another the rails, the states chip in the stations, and whatever is above the rails has to be paid through fares. And above the rails includes everything above the rails -- maintenance and interest and amortization of all rolling stock, and yes, the reservation system and advertising. The states can chip in station agents as required to keep stations open.
I am talking a level playing field here. I am curious, however, if there are any takers for this arrangement and whether passenger trains could thrive, or whether my modest proposal would be regarded as a plan to do away with trains.
schlimm I rather wonder why folks like sam1 participate in these forums?
I rather wonder why folks like sam1 participate in these forums?
According to Webster's Desk Dictionary and Style Guide, a forum is 1) the public square of an ancient Roman City and 2) an assemble, program, etc. for the discussion of public matters. No where in the definition is there a requirement that the participants hew to the majority view to participate.
Trains have a comprehensive set of rules for its forum participants. They do not require participants to agree with the majority opinions or refrain from iconoclastic views.
Competitive markets remain the best way to allocate scarce economic resources. Left to their own devices, they would not take into consideration many if not most societal values, i.e. environment quality, consumer protection, etc. That's why they require smart, albeit not crushing, regulation.
I began my career with an investor owned electric utility that was a regulated monopoly. It looked like a government agency, walked like a government agency, and talked like one. The waste was unbelievable, because no one had any incentive to do things better, faster, cheaper. Then competition came to the electric utility market in Texas. And the winds of change blew strong. Amongst the first things that they blew out was most of the waste, including thousands of people who could or would not adapt to a competitive environment. This is what competitive markets do.
Free markets are not a panacea. They are just much better than the alternative. And this is true for all forms of commercial transport if the politicians would just take their hands off of it. Fat chance!
Sam1 They do not require participants to agree with the majority opinions or refrain from iconoclastic views.
Thank goodness for that!
Paul Milenkovic I am talking a level playing field here. I am curious, however, if there are any takers for this arrangement and whether passenger trains could thrive, or whether my modest proposal would be regarded as a plan to do away with trains.
For LD trains - no takers.
For corridor trains - it would depend entirely on the market and speed. Faster service is more valuable and fast equipment turns can help keep costs down. Isn't this about how Virgin operates in the UK?
Sam1 I began my career with an investor owned electric utility that was a regulated monopoly. It looked like a government agency, walked like a government agency, and talked like one. The waste was unbelievable, because no one had any incentive to do things better, faster, cheaper. Then competition came to the electric utility market in Texas. And the winds of change blew strong. Amongst the first things that they blew out was most of the waste, including thousands of people who could or would not adapt to a competitive environment. This is what competitive markets do.
Don't know if that is the best analogy to Amtrak or transportation.
Even as regulated monopolies, I don't ever remember electric power companies receiving direct government subsidies. They may have been inefficient, but there was enough demand for electricity at rates that covered costs. That bit about knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing? Consumers knew enough about the value of electricity to be willing to pay a price that covered the costs.
The other thing is that I remember the 1990's as a time of flat electric rates, perhaps declining in inflation-adjusted terms. I remember the 200'0's as a time of vigorous rate increase -- a doubling for me and much more for others. There are people in California paying in excess of 30 cents/kWHr if their usage is any more than a "lifeline level" -- that is if you choose to use your airconditioner in a hot desert climate.
The other thing I remember about deregulation is that I used to get a bill that said X kWHr, Y cents/kWHr, please pay X*Y/100 + Z dollars monthly connection charge. These days I get a monthly statement of daily and kWHr charges, adjustments, surcharges, and rebates broken into so many categories only an accountant could be pleased, and I haven't a clue as to my electric rate from looking at my statement without breaking out a calculator. IEEE Spectrum Magazine trumpted the coming of "retail wheeling", which I guess meant that you would get phone calls in the dinner hour asking you to switch your "transmission company" and your "generation provider." That would make a light bill look like a phone bill, and like a phone bill, you might end up getting a bill from two or three separate companies.
It seems that electric rates are driven more by the world oil market and its spillover on natural gas prices along with the costs of environmental regulations, which will be even more onerous once there are CO2 controls. If giving Homer Simpson a layoff notice has saved any money, I haven't noticed it.
If Amtrak had to compete against other providers, ala Great Southern Railway example in Australia, I believe it would be more efficient. Competition and shareholder expectations tend to drive out inefficiencies. Without these drivers an organization like Amtrak only has to respond to political pressures.
Managing Amtrak must be a nightmare. Management has to answer to the official Board of Directors, which is top heavy with lawyers, and must be a trying exercise. But on top of that it has 536 unofficial directors, to wit: 435 Congressman, 100 Senators, and one President.
As a result of competition in the Texas electric utility industry, with which I am reasonably familiar, the number of employees in our company was reduced from approximately 17,500 to 10,250 during the initial phases of competition. Subsequently, for a variety of other reasons, the workforce was reduced to approximately 8,500 employees, with some of the job duties being outsourced to domestic and foreign suppliers. Equally impressive, the layers of management were reduced from 13 to approximately six.
In Texas fuel is the largest single operating expense for an electric utility. In other parts of the country it may not be. In the Northwest, which generates a significant amount of power from hydro, the cost of labor tends to trump the cost of fuel.
During the initial phase of competition incumbent rates were kept high to encourage other retailers to woo the incumbent's customers. Now, however, the transition period has expired, and rates have been falling. However, they have not fallen as much as expected because the cost reductions referred to above have been offset in part by the run-up in the cost of fossil fuels. When the price of oil escalates, as it did last summer, the price of natural gas and coal tend to follow suit.
Giving Homer Simpson a layoff notice was only part of the significant cost reductions that were implemented by my company due to competitive pressures. We revamped every one of our business processes and saved hundreds of millions of dollars as a result. Had we not implemented these changes, the cost of electric energy would be considerably higher than it is.
oltmannd Sam1The overseas subsidiary of my employer, where I worked for five years, used market share as a metric to judge its performance. Unfortunately, they lost sight of the cost side of the game, and they lost a lot of money before management figured out that it is the whole accounting equation that is important. The same would happen if the focus was on revenues. No, no. Not write some incentive around revenue. Don't write any incentive clauses at all. Just let the operator KEEP ALL the revenue he can collect and absorb all the cost. The winning bidder gets paid a flat subsidy that should set the floor at roughly break even. His efforts to reduce cost and increase revenue go directly to him - dollar for dollar.
Tell a potential contractor that you will write her a check for the difference between potential revenues and her costs, assuming that the costs will not be covered by the revenues, without any profit other than what she can wring out of her costs; she will game the costs. After playing this game for years, we changed our modus operandi.
We entered into strategic alliances with our major contractors. We opened our books to them and in turn they were required to open their books to us. No more game playing.
Once we understood the contractor's costs, we agreed on prices (revenues) that were designed to recover the costs and provide a modest return to the contractor. We agreed on a variety of performance standards, including customer satisfaction metrics, which would enable the contractor to increase his returns if he exceeded them. The contractor could also increase his returns through additional costs savings that he initiated. But the contractor had to share the cost savings with us to help prevent him from cutting corners and allowing quality to suffer.
The process works because it takes most of the gaming out of the contracting processes. And to keep it out, we had a right to audit clause, as did the contractor, to look at her books whenever we wanted and vice versa.
A key to this process is that both sides understand and do not game the cost structure.
A couple of comments here: Based on appearances, it would appear that the airlines are guilty of using market share as a metric. Look at how fares drop when a discounter enters a market, even a discounter like Southwest which usually has more staying power than some other startups. Since this usually boils down to a war of attrition, it will definitely put a sizable dent in the bottom line and it may not run the discounter off.
Regulation is often a response when consumers feel that they are being gouged. Consider the thread a few years back related to Montana wheat rates and similar issues. Also consider the Crows Nest Pass rates, incredibly non-compensatory but there was no political will to adjust them, farmers had more allies than railroaders.
Ultimately, government support is needed for continued success of trains like the Empire Builder. That means a clearly defined transportation policy, but we would also need changes to the current system.
What are the goals of Amtrak? What is its marketing plan? For example, in Vietnam the government goal is 20% of travel by train in 20 years. In order for the United States to achieve anything like that, we would need open access: Amtrak would become the American track system. Then the private operators would come knocking. A couple routes, such as Tennessee and Raton Passes, could be dedicated to passenger only, while one-way operation on other lines would increase capacity.
Here is an example of a goal: reduce I-95 traffic by expanding Auto Train. I thought the Interstates were a defense network. But they are clogged with too much traffic! "Oh, General Washington is stuck in a traffic jam; ask the invaders to wait...!"
I think open access has worked in Britain, but they have a much better developed transportation system. They run double stacks carrying passengers on the freeway! I did not realize until an earlier post how much the bus system has dwindled in the United States.
(Note: I think American Orient Express had a president Mr. Bose. I am not aware that we are related. I also have no connections with CSX, although a Louisville to Florida Auto Train is a persistently popular idea.)
Sam1 Once we understood the contractor's costs, we agreed on prices (revenues) that were designed to recover the costs and provide a modest return to the contractor. We agreed on a variety of performance standards, including customer satisfaction metrics, which would enable the contractor to increase his returns if he exceeded them. The contractor could also increase his returns through additional costs savings that he initiated. But the contractor had to share the cost savings with us to help prevent him from cutting corners and allowing quality to suffer.
You can greatly simplify the process and not need all those messy customer satisfaction metrics, et. al..
It's this simple.
You specify:
-train schedule
-car and locomotive supply agreement (X$ per loco per day and or mile, Y$ per coach per day....)
You ask bidders:
-how much to I have to pay you for you to run the scheduled train on this route?
The only caveat is that the winning bid has to be less that current level of subsidy AND be less than cost to operate "bare bones" sevice, so the bidder does not have incentive to take the money and run away.
Winner gets paid a periodic lump sum. Winner sets fares, collects AND KEEPS all the revenue.
Any cost savings, HE KEEPS.
Any revenue gains thru better service, amenities, advertising, tour packages, etc. HE KEEPS.
If he cuts corners on cost, it kills his revenue and he loses, so he won't do that.
It's just like a regular old, for profit business. Efforts to improve service (and therefore revenue) are rewarded. Efforts to cut costs are rewarded. No messy performance standards and rating systems and schedule of incentives and endless bargaining and hauranging
You win because the bid costs you less than current subsidy level.
Operator wins because he has incentive to improve the margin by working the cost and revenue side of the equation.
You win when the again when it comes time to rebid the service because better practices will have been found and exposed and following rounds of bids should come in lower. Good'ol competition.
I cannot imagine a contractor expecting to earn any money off of the current Amtrak system. The speed, frequency and breadth of service make it a trivial part of our transportation system.
Take Auto Train as an example. One train a day in each direction is not the best use of crew and facilities. I believe this idea could be popular elsewhere (it worked in Canada in 1975 and Britain in 1990). Would a private contractor be allowed to abandon The Empire Builder in favor of a Louisville to Sanford train?
I note that you live some 120+ miles from Houston. This was the home at one time of ENRON. I really hope your utility did not receive benefits either directly or indirectly from that terrible company. Enron engaged in many accounting tricks that soaked the customers especially in California. Fortunally I was in CA during that Jan meltdown and read enough not to get burned on their stock. A lot of their charges and discounts were attributed to competition but when the bubble burst it all came down to greed and Maniupliation of the market..
My point is that a competetive industry with no regulation benefits no one except a "royal" few. Examples: S&Ls,(1970s) Enron, Madoff,(2000s) Stock brokers, Golden Parachutes, Lehman, Bank America, etc. It appears that this country for whatever reason cannot learn its lesson about banks, derevatives, bank holding companies, very slim liquidity margins, quick sales at below market value, hedge funds, insurance underpayments, etc. It appears that one US's political party tries to enable a golden few to line their pockets by not keeping .
oltmannd Sam1 Once we understood the contractor's costs, we agreed on prices (revenues) that were designed to recover the costs and provide a modest return to the contractor. We agreed on a variety of performance standards, including customer satisfaction metrics, which would enable the contractor to increase his returns if he exceeded them. The contractor could also increase his returns through additional costs savings that he initiated. But the contractor had to share the cost savings with us to help prevent him from cutting corners and allowing quality to suffer. You can greatly simplify the process and not need all those messy customer satisfaction metrics, et. al.. It's this simple. You specify: -train schedule -car and locomotive supply agreement (X$ per loco per day and or mile, Y$ per coach per day....) You ask bidders: -how much to I have to pay you for you to run the scheduled train on this route? The only caveat is that the winning bid has to be less that current level of subsidy AND be less than cost to operate "bare bones" sevice, so the bidder does not have incentive to take the money and run away. Winner gets paid a periodic lump sum. Winner sets fares, collects AND KEEPS all the revenue. Any cost savings, HE KEEPS. Any revenue gains thru better service, amenities, advertising, tour packages, etc. HE KEEPS. If he cuts corners on cost, it kills his revenue and he loses, so he won't do that. It's just like a regular old, for profit business. Efforts to improve service (and therefore revenue) are rewarded. Efforts to cut costs are rewarded. No messy performance standards and rating systems and schedule of incentives and endless bargaining and hauranging You win because the bid costs you less than current subsidy level. Operator wins because he has incentive to improve the margin by working the cost and revenue side of the equation. You win when the again when it comes time to rebid the service because better practices will have been found and exposed and following rounds of bids should come in lower. Good'ol competition.
We restructured our procurement and contracting processes on advice from Booze, Allen, and Hamilton, McKinsey & Company, and Planmetrics. It produced the results that we wanted. I am sticking with their advice, backed by 15 years of successful contract administration.
Our experience taught us severable valuable lessons. One, the process is not as simple as you imply, especially for complex projects. Two, you can outsource everything (contracting is outsourcing) except management. Three, if the other guy can do it cheaper than you can, you need to ask why you cannot do it as cheaply. There are many good answers to this point, but since this is not a forum on contract administration, I think it is time to end it.
blue streak 1 Sam1 I began my career with an investor owned electric utility that was a regulated monopoly. It looked like a government agency, walked like a government agency, and talked like one. The waste was unbelievable, because no one had any incentive to do things better, faster, cheaper. Then competition came to the electric utility market in Texas. And the winds of change blew strong. Amongst the first things that they blew out was most of the waste, including thousands of people who could or would not adapt to a competitive environment. This is what competitive markets do. Sam1::: I note that you live some 120+ miles from Houston. This was the home at one time of ENRON. I really hope your utility did not receive benefits either directly or indirectly from that terrible company. Enron engaged in many accounting tricks that soaked the customers especially in California. Fortunally I was in CA during that Jan meltdown and read enough not to get burned on their stock. A lot of their charges and discounts were attributed to competition but when the bubble burst it all came down to greed and Maniupliation of the market.. My point is that a competetive industry with no regulation benefits no one except a "royal" few. Examples: S&Ls,(1970s) Enron, Madoff,(2000s) Stock brokers, Golden Parachutes, Lehman, Bank America, etc. It appears that this country for whatever reason cannot learn its lesson about banks, derevatives, bank holding companies, very slim liquidity margins, quick sales at below market value, hedge funds, insurance underpayments, etc. It appears that one US's political party tries to enable a golden few to line their pockets by not keeping .
Sam1:::
Enron was not a utility. It was a wholesale power broker. Its management operated outside the law and was caught. The responsible executives paid a stiff price for their malfeasance, as did many innocent victims, e.g. employees, buyers, suppliers, etc.
Market based capitalism has produced it fair share of bad actors. Unfortunately, these are the guys and gals that get the headlines.
The current economic dust-up was brought on by 10 to 15 bad actors the Fortune 500, i.e. four major banks, AIG, two car companies, two government sponsored agencies, and a couple of investment bank, as well as several others that don't come to mind. This leaves approximately 485 firms in the Fortune 500, not to mention tens of thousands of others, that have played by the rules.
Ironically, those who point out the flaws in the competitive market system, at least on these forums, are writing their thoughts on computers that were designed and brought to market by some of the best corporate examples our system has to offer. Do you really believe that these products would have surfaced in a tightly controlled non-competitive market? They never seem to get mentioned.
As I have noted consistently, the key to a level playing field, whether is for passenger railroads or any other economic entity, is smart but not crushing regulation.
Deep down where they live, I suspect, many of Amtrak's apologists, as well as supporters of passenger rail projects that have little probability of covering their costs (high speed rail), know that they could not compete in the market place. This is why they seem to take delight in digging out the bad actors, which make up a minority of the players, and ignore those who do the right thing. Or find 101 reasons why passenger trains are not and should not be subject to market forces.
Long-distance trains such as the Empire Builder need to be preserved for the following reasons:
--to preserve rights-of-way and stations for possible future need;
--for educational utility and historical continuity;
--and because it does serve some transportation need not supplied by autos, planes, buses, or ships.
In another thread, I have tried to argue that a core national passenger network was necessary for civil and military defense, but the idea wasn't supported by anyone. I honestly sense our freedom of transportation is threatened now.
By maui_67photos, shot with Canon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XT at 2009-06-25
SAM1::::Enron was not a utility. It was a wholesale power broker. Its management operated outside the law and was caught. The responsible executives paid a stiff price for their malfeasance, as did many innocent victims, e.g. employees, buyers, suppliers, etc.
My memory is somewhatr fuzzy on this:
Agreeded -- But by their very power brokering the caused certain generating plants to go off line and had other long distant plants take up the slack at an excess charge with Enron getting a healthy cut.?? My question is "did your utility ever benefit directly or indirectly from these "tricks"?. Of course you may not have been in that end of the accounting stream. Also did any of your executives ever get charged in any of Enron's schemes?
SAM1:::::Ironically, those who point out the flaws in the competitive market system, at least on these forums, are writing their thoughts on computers that were designed and brought to market by some of the best corporate examples our system has to offer. Do you really believe that these products would have surfaced in a tightly controlled non-competitive market? They never seem to get mentioned.
I/ll agree that Steve Jobs and Bill Gates did an excellent job of developing computers but even their companys are now getting the once over (EU fine)
SAM1:::::As I have noted consistently, the key to a level playing field, whether is for passenger railroads or any other economic entity, is smart but not crushing regulation.
Agreeded but how do you define a level playing field?. My main concern is that we (the US) does not put all its marbles in one basket. I feel that is going on too much as present whether it be GPS, Automobiles, petroleum energy, one source for anything, etc..
blue streak 1 SAM1::::Enron was not a utility. It was a wholesale power broker. Its management operated outside the law and was caught. The responsible executives paid a stiff price for their malfeasance, as did many innocent victims, e.g. employees, buyers, suppliers, etc. My memory is somewhatr fuzzy on this: Agreeded -- But by their very power brokering the caused certain generating plants to go off line and had other long distant plants take up the slack at an excess charge with Enron getting a healthy cut.?? My question is "did your utility ever benefit directly or indirectly from these "tricks"?. Of course you may not have been in that end of the accounting stream. Also did any of your executives ever get charged in any of Enron's schemes? SAM1:::::Ironically, those who point out the flaws in the competitive market system, at least on these forums, are writing their thoughts on computers that were designed and brought to market by some of the best corporate examples our system has to offer. Do you really believe that these products would have surfaced in a tightly controlled non-competitive market? They never seem to get mentioned. I/ll agree that Steve Jobs and Bill Gates did an excellent job of developing computers but even their companys are now getting the once over (EU fine) SAM1:::::As I have noted consistently, the key to a level playing field, whether is for passenger railroads or any other economic entity, is smart but not crushing regulation. Agreeded but how do you define a level playing field?. My main concern is that we (the US) does not put all its marbles in one basket. I feel that is going on too much as present whether it be GPS, Automobiles, petroleum energy, one source for anything, etc..
The company I worked for did not have any inappropriate dealings with Enron. Neither did most other electric utilities. And to the best of my remembrance, the California utilities that were fleeced by Enron did not knowingly participate in any wrong doing.
I favor retaining or adding passenger rail to our transport mix where it makes sense. From my perspective that means relatively short, high density corridors. It should be able to cover its operating expenses and contribute to the capital costs ala the NEC.
Ideally, all forms of transport would be required to pay their share of the facilities cost at the pump or ticket counter. And all forms would be required to cover the tab without any subsidies. Unfortunately, given the political nature of transport in the U.S., it is not likely to happen.
I see no economic or social justification for long distance trains. Some argue that the Empire Builder, for example, is part of our national heritage. Following this line of argument, the Butterfield Stage Coach lines and the Pony Express should be put back in service. Surely someone thinks that they are national heritages. Well, at least Hollywood did when I was a kid.
Maglev:
I agree; a sound ground transportation system (including speedy passenger rail) is essential for a strong nation. It is not just a heritage luxury belonging only in Hollywood. Why is China, a large country not like Europe or Japan in distances, but more like the USA, building an advanced network all over the land at a considerable infrastructure cost?
I guess I have failed to make clear my underlying point. It is simply that there actually are efficient mechanisms of resource allocation besides the free market, smartly regulated or totally unregulated. Sometimes the marketplace may not be the most appropriate choice in certain theaters. I'm only saying, therefore, that we cannot look at this with the unchallenged assumption that "one size fits all." In any case, the trend in the USA and elsewhere over the past 30-40 years has been a gradual erosion of regulatory safeguards, new instruments beyond the existing regulations, etc. that have led to an almost total current breakdown. For example, how successful in the end has deregulation of the airlines been? Many are nearly insolvent, service is getting worse and worse. There was a period of great prosperity for them, but no more.
schlimmWhy is China, a large country not like Europe or Japan in distances, but more like the USA, building an advanced network all over the land at a considerable infrastructure cost?
I'll hazard a guess or two. They have the 3X the populaton of the US. They don't have automobile - based suburban sprawl. So, China looks more like Europe in terms of populaton density and concentration. Trains make more sense than highways because the population doesn't already own automobiles to go the first and last miles.
schlimm For example, how successful in the end has deregulation of the airlines been?
Bad for the legacy carriers. Good for consumers. Everybody flies now, not just businessmen and upper middle class vacationers. The cost to start up an airline is so ridiculously low and start ups aren't budened with large pension costs. So startups can eat the legacy carrier's lunch - at least until they are no longer a start-up and some new start-up comes along and eats their lunch. Deregulation plus not having to own any of the equipment or infrastructure makes this so. Everything is pay as you go.
The lousy service comes from how the patrons value the service. More room and better service reliability can be had at a cost (more planes, better staffing, more spacious seating, even an airline going and building their own terminal). If people were willing to pay the extra cost for this, we'd have it. But people who fly value trip time and cost most. Trip time doesn't (and can't) vary much airline to airline, so the big variable is cost.
I'd say the market is working pretty well for consumers. The market space set up by the government by what services they provide and the mechanism they provide for paying for them plus the constraints of labor laws, etc. causes the working business model to be one of continued cycles of start-ups.
There really are no level playing fields anywhere, nor any such thing as a "free market". There are only spaces bounded by and conformed to regulation, law and custom within which "free market forces" act. They can be small, large, have hard or soft edges, be tilted, irregularly shaped, lumpy and can change in the middle of the game. But, they are never dead-flat-level and unbounded.
The biggest trouble comes when playing field is so badly contructed that the market forces cause badly skewed results.
A contract operator of a transit agency would be an example. He only has control of the cost side of the equation. Revenues are fixed. The only remedy is to layer on a whole bunch of incentives based on performance measures. No free market forces here - just a very strictly defined set of targeted forces trying to emulate a free market. The construction, maintenance and subsequent negotiations over the performance measures add a layer of "no value added" work to the whole process. (I better watch my step here. This is what I do for a living!) This guy will do the bare minimum to fulfill his contract and cherry pick the performance payments he thinks he can get. He'll also try to "manage the measures" and question the data since this is usually easier than really doing something.
Another example is Amtrak. The forces that act on them cause them to concentrate on getting their subsidy each year. Cutting cost is a zero sum game - it just means less subsidy. So is improving revenue. Customer satisfaction is only required to keep the noise level of complaints to congress down.
Sam1This leaves approximately 485 firms in the Fortune 500, not to mention tens of thousands of others, that have played by the rules.
We hope. Maybe a bunch of them haven't been caught.
Sam1 Deep down where they live, I suspect, many of Amtrak's apologists, as well as supporters of passenger rail projects that have little probability of covering their costs (high speed rail), know that they could not compete in the market place. This is why they seem to take delight in digging out the bad actors, which make up a minority of the players, and ignore those who do the right thing. Or find 101 reasons why passenger trains are not and should not be subject to market forces.
I think you are pretty much on target, here. Although Amtrak sure doesn't seem to act like they know they are in a market place -- or the market place they operate in has little to do with moving passengers. They seem dead on their feet and the only time they change is when they are shoved into it.
oltmannd schlimmWhy is China, a large country not like Europe or Japan in distances, but more like the USA, building an advanced network all over the land at a considerable infrastructure cost? I'll hazard a guess or two. They have the 3X the populaton of the US. They don't have automobile - based suburban sprawl. So, China looks more like Europe in terms of populaton density and concentration. Trains make more sense than highways because the population doesn't already own automobiles to go the first and last miles. schlimm For example, how successful in the end has deregulation of the airlines been? Bad for the legacy carriers. Good for consumers. Everybody flies now, not just businessmen and upper middle class vacationers. The cost to start up an airline is so ridiculously low and start ups aren't budened with large pension costs. So startups can eat the legacy carrier's lunch - at least until they are no longer a start-up and some new start-up comes along and eats their lunch. Deregulation plus not having to own any of the equipment or infrastructure makes this so. Everything is pay as you go. The lousy service comes from how the patrons value the service. More room and better service reliability can be had at a cost (more planes, better staffing, more spacious seating, even an airline going and building their own terminal). If people were willing to pay the extra cost for this, we'd have it. But people who fly value trip time and cost most. Trip time doesn't (and can't) vary much airline to airline, so the big variable is cost. I'd say the market is working pretty well for consumers. The market space set up by the government by what services they provide and the mechanism they provide for paying for them plus the constraints of labor laws, etc. causes the working business model to be one of continued cycles of start-ups. There really are no level playing fields anywhere, nor any such thing as a "free market". There are only spaces bounded by and conformed to regulation, law and custom within which "free market forces" act. They can be small, large, have hard or soft edges, be tilted, irregularly shaped, lumpy and can change in the middle of the game. But, they are never dead-flat-level and unbounded. The biggest trouble comes when playing field is so badly contructed that the market forces cause badly skewed results. A contract operator of a transit agency would be an example. He only has control of the cost side of the equation. Revenues are fixed. The only remedy is to layer on a whole bunch of incentives based on performance measures. No free market forces here - just a very strictly defined set of targeted forces trying to emulate a free market. The construction, maintenance and subsequent negotiations over the performance measures add a layer of "no value added" work to the whole process. (I better watch my step here. This is what I do for a living!) This guy will do the bare minimum to fulfill his contract and cherry pick the performance payments he thinks he can get. He'll also try to "manage the measures" and question the data since this is usually easier than really doing something. Another example is Amtrak. The forces that act on them cause them to concentrate on getting their subsidy each year. Cutting cost is a zero sum game - it just means less subsidy. So is improving revenue. Customer satisfaction is only required to keep the noise level of complaints to congress down.
Excellent summation! Thank you.
I'd like to add that reports show Chinese auto sales are strong.
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-05/08/content_11338765.htm
http://www.chinacartimes.com/2008/04/08/how-many-drivers-in-china/
You want to see traffic jams, try Beijing, Shanghai or almost any other Chinese city. Lots of folks have cars now and all in the last 15 years. But they are building or have completed several high speed lines where none existed plus much subway construction. It is really something to hear all this chest-thumping about how everything here is so great and we can't or shouldn't do anything to change that when in many areas of infrastructure, we are beginning to look like some underdeveloped country in the 3rd world. The USA has many things to feel proud of. But that doesn't mean we need to retreat to a defensive jingoistic narcissism where we are unable to "borrow" foreign concepts. "Welcome to Lake Wobegone, where everything is above average!!"
How about those of us who won't fly. There is no way I will give any of the lousy and unsafe airlines any of my money. Service is very poor to say the least. I don't care to be strip searched and my suitcase dumped out on the floor. If I have a ticket for a certain date and time I expect to go on that plane not another when the airline gets around to it.
As for subsidies all airports are owned and operated by a taxing district of some kind. Portland Oregon Airport is owned by the Port of Portland which collects taxes from the residents of Portland for operating the airport. The air traffic control system is tax supported and is operated by the FAA that gets it's money from the Federal income tax. IMHO the airlines are very poorly operated and should be shut down tomorrow.
The railroads get no federal money and pay taxes. When the track needs repair the railroad companies pay for it. When a runway at a airport needs repair the taxpayers pay for it. The airlines should own and operate the airports at the airlines expense.
I'm not afraid to fly I just don't care for the hassle and lousy service.
The previous photo, and that below, are from the 100th Anniversary of Rosario celebration on June 21, 2009. I am not sure what railroad was preferred by Robert Moran for travel East from Seattle, but he understood how industry must be of service to our nation, and vice-versa. The plaque below refers to his yacht SanWan, which he built at Rosario; it is on the fireplace of Moran's final cottage and is rarely seen. Rosario is open daily to the public.
By maui_67photos, shot with Canon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XT at 2009-06-26
Mr. SP How about those of us who won't fly. There is no way I will give any of the lousy and unsafe airlines any of my money. Service is very poor to say the least. I don't care to be strip searched and my suitcase dumped out on the floor. If I have a ticket for a certain date and time I expect to go on that plane not another when the airline gets around to it. As for subsidies all airports are owned and operated by a taxing district of some kind. Portland Oregon Airport is owned by the Port of Portland which collects taxes from the residents of Portland for operating the airport. The air traffic control system is tax supported and is operated by the FAA that gets it's money from the Federal income tax. IMHO the airlines are very poorly operated and should be shut down tomorrow. The railroads get no federal money and pay taxes. When the track needs repair the railroad companies pay for it. When a runway at a airport needs repair the taxpayers pay for it. The airlines should own and operate the airports at the airlines expense. I'm not afraid to fly I just don't care for the hassle and lousy service.
Unfortunately for you, that puts you in a small and shrinking minority. The security hassle is not so much the fault of the airlines as the fact that the citizenry of the United States expects perfect security and is apparently willing to put up with a lot of indignities to assume that they're getting it. As far as service is concerned, I find it adequate.
Airline tickets are greatly underpriced and don't cover the cost of the service. All the gimmicks like "Free Flyer Miles" need to be done away with too. Every trip needs to be paid for and the price of a ticket must cover ALL the costs.
TRAINS ONLINE
PARIS - France's state-owned railway SNCF would be interested in operating a high-speed rail network in the United States, the French newspaper Les Echos reported Thursday, according to Reuters.In France's experience, high-speed rail systems are most efficient when they link large cities 600 to 900 miles apart, the newspaper quoted SNCF International President Jean-Pierre Loubinoux as saying.Such conditions exist on the U.S. East coast, in California, and in Texas and Florida. "We could have more than a track, we could have a network," Loubinoux said. "If there is the possibility (of operating this network), we would definitely study it with great interest."
I guess the SNCF think they could do it. Go for it!!
schlimmMr. SP does make an important point. Whether or not we can tolerate airline service (largely no choice) that there is, of course, the enormous subsidy in physical plant (airports, ATC) and operating expenses (airports, ATC workers, etc.)that the airlines are getting . Even so, most are laying off workers like crazy (check Dallas for American layoffs) and service declines while losses mount. I suppose the accountant types are fine with disposable contract workers (no loyalty to employees, let them go if costs mount just like closing a door). Or if worse comes to worse, let the legacy carriers (remember Pan Am, TWA, Eastern, etc.?) go out of business and replace them with more "low cost, start up" airlines. Great! Look how short most of their lifespans are. Even Southwest (hardly a start up - 37 years old) is having some troubles (3 straight quarterly losses). IMHO, that's no way to run an airline transport net any more than Amtrak is the way to run passenger service.
If the above quote represents the position of the mainstream passenger train advocacy community, and I am by no means singling out Mr. Schlimm as that argument is pretty much mainstream among the bricks-and-morter community with whom I have contact, the days of Amtrak are pretty much over and done with.
I will grant you all of the problems with the airlines -- intrusive security checks, poor service, airline workers losing their jobs. Lets say that Amtrak and passenger travel have minimal security checks (for now), great service (?), and Amtrak workers have secure jobs. Sam1 might chime in that no one is entitled to a secure job, or at least not at the cost of government subsidy, but for the sake of discussion, let's assume all the good things of Amtrak are worth some level of subsidy.
Airlines are to Amtrak in passenger miles in the ratio of 100:1. Let's leave aside whether all the money spent on airports and air traffic control, etc, etc constitutes a direct subsidy or whether the ticket tax and the av-gas tax constitute taxes or user fees and so on. Let's just say that we are going to ramp up the Amtrak subsidy of about 1.5 billion/year to replace what the airlines are doing.
We are talking about subsidizing Amtrak at the rate of 150 billion per year. That's right, about 3-4 times the amount of the current Federal Highway budget. There are people in the advocacy community who would have no problem with spending 150 billion/year on rail if that is what it would take, and an added dollar a gallon in gas tax would raise that amount of money, if it could be spent only on passenger rail, and I know some people in the bricks-and-morter community who think that would be an absolutely great idea.
But 150 billion/year on trains is not gonna happen. Not . . . gonna.
The notion behind the Vision report is that someone had the bright idea that 150 billion/year is completely unrealistic, but about 10 billion/year could somehow be snuck into the budget. That 10 billion/year would pay for infrastructure improvements to bring Amtrak from 1 percent of airline travel to 10 percent of airline travel. And that money didn't account for any subsidy. Everyone in the advocacy community was hootin' and hollerin' that someone was finally listening to us and we are going to get all kinds of trains. I don't think that 10 billion/year for the next 40 years is going to happen either.
The community is going to have to get over picking at the airline industry or the highway and auto situation and get our own house in order before anything is going to get off dead center with trains. The 8 billion we are getting out of ARRA needs to be spent wisely, and the first person to suggest any of it to be spent on new Superliner sleeprs will be further evidence of what I am warning about.
Entrenched positions. NOBODY I know of would support a rail net at the tune of $150 Bil/year. I never suggested that Amtrak (or some other rail net) could or should replace the air transport net. That is a rahter misleading and silly reductio ad absurdum (straw man) argument. We clearly need road, rail and air, but in a more sensible balance than currently exists. And the point of my and others' pointing out the financial difficulties in the air business is to show that even as lousy as Amtrak is, transportation nets really don't work very well as "free markets." I actually believe it would be better to phase out Amtrak and phase in other methods of getting up-to-date rail passenger surface transport, probably largely parallel to the major freight lines.
BTW, the FAA alone typically has a budget of $14-16.7 Bil., much of it covered by ticket tax. Airport improvements have averaged $13 Bil./yr., funded primarily by capital improvement bonds. Though only some of these nearly $30 Bil. in costs come out of the airlines pockets, they still are having trouble even breaking even. So clearly it costs a lot of subsidy to keep our essential air transport system operating. I'm only saying some larger subsidy to have a decent up-to ~1000 mile passenger rail net is also needed. We surely don't need more Superliner sleepers.
schlimm Entrenched positions. NOBODY I know of would support a rail net at the tune of $150 Bil/year. I never suggested that Amtrak (or some other rail net) could or should replace the air transport net. That is a rahter misleading and silly reductio ad absurdum (straw man) argument. We clearly need road, rail and air, but in a more sensible balance than currently exists. And the point of my and others' pointing out the financial difficulties in the air business is to show that even as lousy as Amtrak is, transportation nets really don't work very well as "free markets." I actually believe it would be better to phase out Amtrak and phase in other methods of getting up-to-date rail passenger surface transport, probably largely parallel to the major freight lines.
Strawman argument? Nobody you know advocating such a position? I do in fact know people who advocate just that -- European level of gas taxation with all of the proceeds earmarked for passenger rail of some form or another.
What is the sensible balance? Is the Vision Report proposal with a 90%/10% split between air and rail, with air and rail getting comparable levels of Federal funding a sensible balance? Does a a 90%/10% split between air and rail do anything meaningful of alleviating the problems associated with air?
What is misleading or silly about anything I have said? Europe has a 25%/25%/25%/25% split between air, rail, bus, and boats. Their government support of passenger trains is about at the level of our highway program, with of course, orders of magnitude fewer passenger miles.
schlimm BTW, the FAA alone typically has a budget of $14-16.7 Bil., much of it covered by ticket tax. Airport improvements have averaged $13 Bil./yr., funded primarily by capital improvement bonds. Though only some of these nearly $30 Bil. in costs come out of the airlines pockets, they still are having trouble even breaking even. So clearly it costs a lot of subsidy to keep our essential air transport system operating. I'm only saying some larger subsidy to have a decent up-to ~1000 mile passenger rail net is also needed. We surely don't need more Superliner sleepers.
In FY08 the FAA required a General Fund transfer of approximately $2.7 billion to cover the difference between its budgeted costs and the receipts generated by ticket taxes and other revenues. This gap (19 per cent) reflects the numbers for previous years.
Approximately 26 per cent of take-offs and landings controlled by the FAA involved the airlines, whilst 35 per cent of center traffic was attributable to airline traffic. Contrary to popular belief, the airlines do not make up the majority of controlled air traffic movements in the U.S. The biggest user is general aviation in all of its forms.
The controlled movements are a pretty good indication of the percentage of all air facilities, i.e. airways, airports, buildings, etc. used by commercial carriers. Of course, in some locations, e.g. LaGuardia, Kennedy, DFW, a higher percentage of the traffic is commercial air, but in many other locations, e.g. Austin, Dallas Love Field, El Paso, the percentage of traffic attributable to commercial air carriers is lower than the national average.
On a prorated basis, the amount of the federal transfer attributable to commercial airline operations was in the neighborhood of $826 million. In addition, the Essential Air Services Program required a General Fund transfer of approximately $141 million, whilst the TSA required a transfer of approximately $1.6 billion to close the gap between the security fees paid by airline passengers and the cost of providing airport screening. All up the general fund transferred approximately $2.6 billion for FAA activities used by the commercial airlines that were not covered by fees and taxes. This amounted to an average federal subsidy per airline traveler of $3.92 or .45 cents per passenger mile. For comparative purpose, Amtrak's got an average system subsidy of $48.50 per passenger and 22.61 cents per passenger mile.
The cost of constructing airports in the United States has been covered for the most part through the issuance of tax free, municipal bonds. They are usually issued by an airport authority. The bonds are serviced from landing fees, vendor revenues, fees and investments.
The ability to finance airport construction with tax free bonds means that the costs are lower than they would have been had the airport authorities been required to issue fully taxable bonds. These lower costs can be passed on to the airlines, as well as all users, in the form of lower landing fees. However, the spread between fully taxable bonds and tax free bonds, depending on when they were issued, is not as significant as might be imagined. Moreover, what a commercial operator saves in lower landing fees, as well as other fees, would be made up in part by the higher taxes paid on higher than otherwise taxable income.
Paul M.:
"What's misleading or silly about anything I have said? Europe has a 25%/25%/25%/25% split between air, rail, bus, and boats. Their government support of passenger trains is about at the level of our highway program, with of course, orders of magnitude fewer passenger miles."
I wonder about the accuracy of the split you cite. That sounds awfully high for boats. What's the split here?
According to the European Commission for 2003 the split on market shares of passenger transport was rail and rail-based transit 6.9%, buses 8.6%, air 1.6% and autos 78.2%. No figures given for boats and ships.
The Feds' estimate of vehicle miles in the US is 933 Bil. On funding the 2004 total national US spending on highways was $147.5 Bil., $33 Bil from the Feds. Also in 2004, total US spending on "transit" was $39.5 Bil., only $7 Bil. was from the Feds, $11 Bil. system generated.
Figures are from http://www.irfnet.eu/media/press_release/statistics/erfeuropean_road_statistics_2008_booklet_150x210mm_v08_press_passenger_transport.pdf
under http://www.irfnet.eu/en/2008-road-statistics/
In terms of the general notion of a transportation crisis and rights to mobility and lifeline transportation services talked about on this thread, the societies with much heavier rail usage have much lower per capita passenger miles. In the US, we travel more than anyone. Does this mean we get more done? Have more suburban sprawl? Have a more spread out country? Some combination of factors?
But the numbers show that 1) other societies rely on cars as their major mode, 2) Europe has trains, but it is the minority common-carrier mode to air and buses, 3) US has common carrier transportation, but it is mainly airlines.
I had seen numbers that water borne passenger travel is a significant market in Europe, and I can come up with passenger boardings but cannot find the passenger miles.
Those percentages pretty much reflect my family's travel patterns. For our wedding, my aunt flew from Florida to Eastsound--and stayed one night, because my cousin was getting married two days later back in Florida. The hotel where I worked here on Orcas Island catered many weddings; guests from the east coast or midwest were comon, and they almost always traveled by air.
In three and a half years working at the hotel here, I met only a few people who traveled here by train, or indeed had ever been on Amtrak. There was a constant stream of seasonal and short-term employees in and out of there, and they were about the only people I know who would travel by long distances bus. However, there is an airport shuttle bus between the San Juan Islands Ferry and SeaTac that was frequently used by those traveling without cars.
So, again, I know how the numbers add up. I am familiar with Amtrak, and know how the costs don't add up. But Amtrak is necessary, because we keep finding that segments outside the corridor system need expansion of service, and so the system must be preserved. For example, Des Moines seems to have realized that they are not in a "corridor," (see other thread) and highways are getting clogged. Orbitz shows fares of $1,026 for non-stop Des Moines to Chicago; there is a low fare of $224 but it's to Madison, WI...
We will soon see that one train a day to cities like Minneapolis Denver and Des Moines is not sufficient.
Correction--I see that Minneapolis is on the HSR map. Let's say that Denver is a city that might want some more service, like to Cheyenne / Portland or to Las Vegas / Los Angeles??
Your figures sound similar to the ones I got for Europe 2003, except air seems to have grown a lot in just a couple of years. I am curious then what you were previously referring to in the 25/25/25/25% split? I doubt boats would account for much passenger traffic. Even on the Rhine, Danube, Elbe or Mosel, where there are extensive tourist river lines, the load seems much less than on even only the parallel rail lines, let alone the other lines.
I have among my bookmarks the Web site http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/energy_transport/figures/pocketbook/2006_en.htm
which has a document (click on Statistical Pocketbook 2006 Transport)
http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/energy_transport/figures/pocketbook/doc/2006/2006_transport_en.pdf
that has a modal market share chart on p 30. Yes, what I have reported about the share for water borne passenger transport is way to high, I may have been thinking of another site. On the other hand, the charts show that air has had a comparable market share to rail for a very long time although air has been growing.
I suppose that Europe has the kind of "balanced" transportation system the advocacy community here has been asking for. The chart on p 30 has a different scale for auto passenger miles because in Europe as here, auto is orders of magnitude bigger than any common carrier mode.
This "balance" is that if you want a common carrier alternative to driving, instead of pretty much having one as in the US, the airlines, with buses a distant second and Amtrak a far distant third choice, in Europe you have three common carrier choices: buses, airplanes second but growing, and rail, all with pretty much an even split. Based on what I had seen in the Vision Report appendices, providing the rail choice to air travel is expensive in terms of public funding, with subsidy rates per passenger mile comparable to our much smaller Amtrak.
The other part of European "balance" is the strong market share of buses. My guess is that intercity bus is subsidized in a way that buses in the US are not, in order to get that much patronage. Many European countries have Postal Buses -- you see this big hunting horn emblem on the side of intercity buses, which is the emblem on mail boxes, carried over from the day when letter carriers rode horses. So just as the Post Office is regarded as one of these necessary services to be run at a loss, intercity buses are part of the post office.
There is a passenger train advocacy community which kinda, sorta supports the idea of public transportation in all forms in the US, but I don't see much passion on this Web site for Federal subsidy of intercity passenger buses. The advocacy community draws heavily on rail fans, who frankly, are not thrilled about the prospect of taking long journeys on buses. I don't think Europe has anything at all like the more-than-one-overnight continent-spanning Empire Builder, although if you add in Asiatic Russia, there is the Trans Siberian Express.
In terms of public policy choices, Europeans have long felt themselves vulnerable in terms of lack of domestic oil and in some cases coal supplies, and there is a long Mercantilist tradition predating Adam Smith among European countries about avoiding imports. Europe perhaps avoids importing oil by having the high gasoline tax and the large subsidized rail network, but the policy may be carried well beyond the economic break-even point. Similarly in Japan, they try to grow their own rice on a patchwork of small plots, where it would be much cheaper to import rice from Arkansas, USA.
France is both oil-poor and coal-poor, and back in the day they had de Glehn four-cylinder compounds and later Andre Chapelon building those nifty higher thermal efficiency steamers. The US back in the day had abundant coal and oil (until the 1970's) and built such affronts to CO2 emission such as the Big Boy and other high-power, lower thermal efficiency, let's burn tons of coal to make tractive effort machines. Today France is 80 percent nuclear electric power whereas in the US we dither about the moral implications of nuclear power, mire it in environmental regulation, and build natural gas fired plants. One thing you have to admire, perhaps, about France, is that it is a much more technocractic meritocratic society driven by their elite schools, and when they, the leadership class trained in those schools, decides to get something done, they go ahead and do it. Many in the advocacy community would like to see this "get it done" attitude on these shores with trains and admire the French for "not wasting money as we do on the military", but the French are also not deterred by environmental protesters in rubber boats and are not shy about blowing one up "to send a message."
If Europe has, say, a 10 percent market share on trains, 10 percent is mere window dressing if you are serious of cutting back on oil imports or saving the environment from Global Warming. They get much more bang-for-the-buck from their high gasoline taxes. Their cars are smaller, but they also drive much faster, and I don't see they use much less auto fuel per passenger mile, but it seems they have half the passenger miles per capita than the US. The main effect of their policies is that they simply get around less, with implications for here if the worry is that people will not be able to get around here in the US.
I don't see European levels of trains here because I don't see willingness for European levels of expenditure on something with marginal payback in terms of the environmental effects, imported oil, and Global Warming. I think we need to look hard at the costs of intercity rail instead of simply throwing money at it. Yes, I heard, knowing the cost of everything and the value of nothing, but when the value is outside the market economy of what people are willing to pay, the cost goes ever upward.
I agree with much of what you say in your thoughtful posting. Buses of various types seem fairly plentiful in some parts of Europe. The postal buses (I recall those yellow buses with the hunting horn on the side also), I think are a relic. But some private concerns (not sure how much subsidy they get) have gotten pretty big (the Eurolines consortium, Deutsche-Touring, National Express, etc.) with nice, roomy, almost luxurious coaches, often cheaper prices, though usually not as fast as rail. The discount airline have also made longer distance travel within Europe and even within some countries pretty fast and cheap. In May I flew on good ol' British Air, Frankfurt to London for $13.00 + taxes, total $74 - much cheaper than the Eurostar under the channel. Clearly they have found a mix of all three depending on factors like distance and city vs. more rural areas to work. Europeans drive shorter distances (each country is pretty small) than we do and they use transit much more because it is usually quicker and cheaper than auto commuting, parking being terrible. London has a punitive charge for driving into the city on weekdays. In Germany, at least, but I think this is true in France as well, around 1/2 or more of autos are Diesel. Germans drive fast, but mostly on Autobahns and even there traffic (and some speed zones) limit the formerly unlimited speed. Nothing like seeing a Benz or BMW flashing its lights at you from behind in your mirror and then whizzing by at 120+ mph.
Water traffic is an important concern. In touring Scotland, we took about as many ferry trips as train trips.
Washington State Ferries carries as many passengers per year as Amtrak (about 25 million). And the condition of the system is about as dire as Amtrak. See Seattle Times June 26:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/ronjudd/2009385642_trailmix26.html
First, I must defend the Amtrak and ferry workers. The Times article says the worker at the terminal here looked at Mr. Judd as if he were from outer space. Well, I am sure she knew who he was and that whatever she said would end up in the Seattle Times. Mr. Judd, whose photo accompanies all his by-lines, is a resident and journalist, and certainly should not need to ask what is wrong with the ferry system.
Now, I know you all actually think I'm from outer space, going off about cold fusion and orbiting cabooses... But once public infrastructure is gone, things are hard to replace. People in Washington State seem to believe that our ferries are vital and they will be saved by the government. People in Washington D. C. seem to believe health care is vital and can be saved by the government. That is certainly not how we are treating Amtrak.
Maglev Water traffic is an important concern. In touring Scotland, we took about as many ferry trips as train trips. Washington State Ferries carries as many passengers per year as Amtrak (about 25 million). And the condition of the system is about as dire as Amtrak. See Seattle Times June 26: "Waiting for a ferry at Orcas Island and pondering our incompetence" http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/ronjudd/2009385642_trailmix26.html First, I must defend the Amtrak and ferry workers. The Times article says the worker at the terminal here looked at Mr. Judd as if he were from outer space. Well, I am sure she knew who he was and that whatever she said would end up in the Seattle Times. Mr. Judd, whose photo accompanies all his by-lines, is a resident and journalist, and certainly should not need to ask what is wrong with the ferry system. Now, I know you all actually think I'm from outer space, going off about cold fusion and orbiting cabooses... But once public infrastructure is gone, things are hard to replace. People in Washington State seem to believe that our ferries are vital and they will be saved by the government. People in Washington D. C. seem to believe health care is vital and can be saved by the government. That is certainly not how we are treating Amtrak.
Compare that with BC Ferries, which is proud to serve decent food on modern ships (according to members of the local Ferry Advisory Council). And Via Rail, which is supported by CN dispatching (see this August Trains, p. 38), in contrast to Amtrak.
Much has been said about the subsidy Amtrak gets. A bit was also mentioned about the subsidies the airlines get.
Another industry recieving a subsidy is the trucking industry. The highways are paid for by the public yet the trucking industry uses them at very little cost. When a highway needs repair I have never seen a trucking company paying for or making the repair. When the winter snows need plowed to clear the highway I never have seen a trucking company plow doing it. All the costs are paid for by the public.
The illegal and over weight trucks are the cause of most of the damage to the highways. Maybe the trucking industry needs to pay 75% of the cost to build and maintain the highways instead of the public.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.