Increasing Empire Builder capacity ?

[John WR]

schlimm

I have to agree with Paul M. about at least one of his points, namely that it is important for passenger rail advocates to have their facts straight.  Otherwise it results in the speaker losing credibility and thus has a negative impact on convincing neutral folks of the trains' value. 

Schlimm,  

It is always desirable for all of us to have our facts straight no matter what we may "advocate" or even comment on.  But to single out one group for that kind of criticism is to suggest that human beings who take one particular position are somehow different from all other human beings.  I can think of no greater distortion of the facts than that.  

John

[ecoli]

Sam1

MidlandMike

Sam1

...

There is no reason that route has to be operated by Amtrak, although the American Association of Railroads has said that the freight carriers will not deal without anyone other than Amtrak. The courts probably could fix that issue.  

IIRC the Amtrak legislation specified that if a RR turned their passenger trains over to ATK, they had to let ATK use their tracks.  The courts can't rewrite a law, and I doubt Congress will pass a law requiring private railroads to accept other passenger trains.  Of course RRs could allow other passenger operators on their lines, but probably just not at the bargain prices ATK enjoys.

Lets expand my point.  Congress could rewrite the law.  In fact, I may be wrong, but it sticks in my mind that the law has been modified.  Up to two of Amtrak's long distance routes can be bid out to other potential operators.  There have, of course, been no takers.  No money in long distance trains except to lose heaps of it.  

I am not a lawyer, but I suspect push come to shove the courts could rule that refusal to allow other passenger train operators access to a freight carrier's tracks ala Amtrak would be a violation of the Commerce Clause.  It has been used to justify heaps of changes.

You're not a lawyer. The Commerce Clause gives the US Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce. For example, if Congress decides that it's in the public interest to pass a law giving Amtrak a monopoly (and the courts agree that's rational), the Commerce Clause is what gives Congress that power. Conversely, if Congress were to force freight carriers to let non-Amtrak companies use their tracks (and the courts agree there's a rational public interest, and it doesn't violate another provision of the Constitution), the Commerce Clause would give Congress the power. But absent legislation from Congress, a non-Amtrak company can't argue that the Commerce Clause gives it access to freight-carrier tracks, because the Commerce Clause gives power to Congress, not to companies. As MidlandMike remarked, it's politically unlikely that today's Congress would force freight carriers against their wishes to allow open access; besides, depending on the details, today's courts might find that such a law constituted a taking of private property forbidden by the 5th Amendment.

[VerMontanan]

schlimm

Glacier National Park is #10 in patronage and had 1.6 million last year.  According to the official Amtrak state report for fiscal 2012, there were 21,061 boardings and alightings at the East and West Glacier stations.  So divide by 2 = 10, 530 visitors.  That is 0.66 %.   So it is highly unlikely that  "part of Glacier National Park dies" because of such a tiny loss of patronage.  Or maybe 10 sq. miles?    And please do not make ridiculous assumptions about others feelings concerning our National Parks. (" I suspect that those "who know the cost of everything and the value of nothing" would not care, and they'd likely not care if the national parks ceased to exist, either.")   They remain one of the US's crowning achievements.

I have to agree with Paul M. about at least one of his points, namely that it is important for passenger rail advocates to have their facts straight.  Otherwise it results in the speaker losing credibility and thus has a negative impact on convincing neutral folks of the trains' value. 

 

I see you missed the point.

 

Part of the park would not die because of the loss of visitors, but because of the loss of what made the park what it is.  Indeed, national parks are one of America's "crowning achievements" and so many of them were developed because of a railroad.  Without railroads, many would not be what they are today.  But none is more tied to a railroad than Glacier National Park (at least in the United States).  For example, the ex-Union Pacific station in West Yellowstone, Montana does a great job explaining the history of how no fewer than five railroads vied for Yellowstone National Park tourists.  Exhibits and displays are interesting, but they can have nowhere near the impact of detraining from the Empire Builder at Glacier Park station, walking up the flower-lined walkway to the railroad-built Glacier Park Lodge - 100 years young in 2013 - and being completely enveloped in the whole train-to-park experience.  Taking the train to a national park was commonplace early in the 20th Century, but it's a rarity now. In addition to the comfort (unique to train travel) and utility passenger trains provide, that we can still actively participate in this part of American history has value in itself, and is worth preserving.  You may feel differently.

 

And, by the way (per my previous post), Glacier Park visitors arrive at stops other than East Glacier and West Glacier.  Whitefish, with rental car facilities, certainly is a preferred stop for park visitors, especially during the summer.

[VerMontanan]

 

 

Sam1

One anecdotal observation by a retired Amtrak ticket agent is not a valid statistical sample anymore than my sample fares from Chicago to Minot or Spokane to Minot or Williston were a complete survey. Which I believe that I acknowledged.  

In my company, which was a Fortune 250 energy company, and was engage in oil and gas exploration in Texas, people were expected to plan and book their travel arrangements well in advance. Of course, emergencies arose, and people needed to book immediately, but they were rare.  So why would oil field workers in North Dakota, most of who appear to be employed by major drillers, be any different?

You claim going out a bit more than three weeks is unrealistic?  Where is your evidence?  Who employs the oil field workers?  What is the travel policy for the company(s) that they work for?  What is the booking distribution for the workers who are traveling by Amtrak.

Again, what percentage of the oil field workers arrive or depart on the Empire Builder.  What would happen, for example, if the Builder did not run?  Would the oil fields shut down?

If I remember correctly, I stated several times that I was using examples and, furthermore, that individual situations would differ.  Are your sure my example is completely unrealistic?  How about just unrealistic.  Or better yet, how about skipping the inflammatory language (unrealistic) and sticking to facts albeit how imperfect they may be. That sounds better, don't you think.  

 

An anecdotal single obersvation?  More like common knowledge among Amtrak employees not only at Williston but working the Empire Builder route and on the train itself.  After all, leaving Williston isn't the only place that people involved in the boom travel on short notice, it's also going to Williston when they discover their work schedule has been changed.  This is verified by numerous ticket agents along the line, and the onboard crews who pick up people at Stanley (an unstaffed station with significant growth in patronage) who entrain passengers with no reservation, and, on occasion, leave them behind when the train is full.

 

While Sam dismisses the testimony of the Williston ticket agent who I would wager he does not know, just about everyone along the Empire Builder route was aware of her dedication and professionalism and campaigned nearly in unison that her work there be acknowledged by Amtrak, and indeed, it was: http://www.willistonherald.com/news/olsen-receives-president-s-award-from-amtrak/article_67606bdc-4de6-11e2-91e4-0019bb2963f4.html

Here is someone who had worked for Amtrak for nearly 40 years in Williston, and witnessed the boom in the 80s, which of course was nothing compared to this.  I believe she has more than sufficient experience and recognition to be good source of what's really going on.

 

I don't know why things are different than in your "Fortune 250 company," but here are a couple of reasons.  First of all, there are very few rules with regard to anything during a bona fide boom.  Therefore schedules are bound to changeable as are the number and scope of jobs.  The other point is that not all "workers in the oilfield" work for oil companies.  As with any boom, there are support people such as restaurant employees, public sector employees to maintain an expanding infrastructure, and those in the "hospitality industry."  There are also many, many small trucking and support companies involved in moving materials like pipe, sand, and water to the various drilling sites.  These are far from the resource-rich "Fortune 250".  All these people could use the train on occasion and might have employers that don't have the strict scheduling abilities, resources and clairvoyance to create a perfectly-planned work schedule. 

 

I do not know what percentage of oil boom workers use the Empire Builder.  I would wager you also don't know how many use air service or bus service or highways at a specific location and why they're really traveling.  Of course the oil boom wouldn't "shut down" if the Empire Builder ceased to exist (quite the ridiculous question to even pose).  What we do know is that this long distance passenger train is contributing, or very simply, if it wasn't, people wouldn't be riding it.  The real question is that if the cost of the Empire Builder exceeds the benefits it provides, and unlike the data on the Amtrak website, that amount, unfortunately, is not easily quantifiable.

 

 

[VerMontanan]

Sam1

"If the Empire Builder dies, part of America's heritage dies, because part of Glacier National Park dies with it.  I suspect that those "who know the cost of everything and the value of nothing" would not care, and they'd likely not care if the national parks ceased to exist, either."

Where is the evidence to support this claim?  What percentage of the people who visit Glacier National Park arrive on a once a day train.  Again, don't confuse Amtrak's data regarding station activity.  It shows people getting off and on the train for each station.  Presumable most of the people who get off the Builder at one of the stops serving Glacier National Park get back on the train or depart via another means. Unless, of course, they are eaten by a bear.  Thus, the true activity is half of what Amtrak shows in its fact sheets, i.e. if one person gets off the train and gets back on at a later time, that is one customer using the train to and from a station..

Yup.  That's why when I gave the amount in the previous post (about 1 percent of total park visitation), I doubled the boardings at FCA to give a numer comparable with Amtrak's figures.

[calzeph]

If Amtrak had the equipment a good idea would be to revivie The Western Star. I git to ride that train when I was little when we went to Glacier Park.

[schlimm]

Of course.  And on the heavy traffic routes, especially out west, that gets a "No thanks" from the rails.  But there are some lighter trafficked routes in the east-midwest, like the decrepit old PRR Lines West, that if fixed up by the states from Chicago to Columbus that wold accept some fast trains in exchange.

[John WR]

schlimm

So it seems like states could contract with someone else for new services, at least as i read it.  But subsequent legislation may have changed that.  I do not know.

My point, Schlimm, is that if a state wants to provide a service and that service either is not on an Amtrak route or Amtrak is agreeable to the state providing it the state still must ask the railroad that owns the track to allow its trains to use their track.  The private railroad may refuse to do so.  

John

[John WR]

I guess I should have been more explicit in my original post.  I added a clarification to show that the figure covers 5 years.  

[schlimm]

In the charter legislation, Section 401(c) explicitly prohibits any railroad or person from running passenger train service over any route where Amtrak is already providing services, without permission from Amtrak..

In Section 403 (b), it says any state may contract with Amtrak to provide new service if the state or other agency agrees to reimburse Amtrak for a "reasonable portion of any losses associated with such services."   Section 403 (c) specifies reasonable to be between 66 2/3% and all "the solely related costs, including associated capital costs."

So it seems like states could contract with someone else for new services, at least as i read it.  But subsequent legislation may have changed that.  I do not know.

[Anonymous]

John WR

Sam1

am not sure where you got the $840 million for state supported funding.

Sam,

The $840 million annual payment to Amtrak by states for state subsidized routes comes from Table 1 of the Brookings Institution report to which you referred.  Just now I double checked to be sure the number I used is accurate.  Actually it is something over $841 million.   I did not look at the Amtrak reports as you have.  I suspect the different reports refer to different expenses.  

John

Table 1 shows the state capital payments for the five years ended FY11.  Divided by five $841 million is $168.2 million per year on average.  These payments can vary significantly.  Best to look at Amtrak's financials for the latest numbers.

[John WR]

MidlandMike

IRC the Amtrak legislation specified that if a RR turned their passenger trains over to ATK, they had to let ATK use their tracks.  The courts can't rewrite a law, and I doubt Congress will pass a law requiring private railroads to accept other passenger trains.  Of course RRs could allow other passenger operators on their lines, but probably just not at the bargain prices ATK enjoys.

Mike,  

As the law is now written you are absolutely correct.  Individual states have no power to do anything more than bargain with private railroads if the states wish to use their tracks.  And the private railroad is not obligated to bargain; it can simply decline to rent its tracks to a state transportation agency.  In all probability different railroads will take different positions.  Some would come to terms with a state that wants to rent their tracks.  Others would not.  

As far as taking a case to court or lobbying for new laws I think those solutions are much easier said than done.  Of course we should never say never but I would not expect those kinds of solutions.  

[John WR]

Sam1

am not sure where you got the $840 million for state supported funding.

Sam,

The $840 million annual payment to Amtrak by states for state subsidized routes comes from Table 1 of the Brookings Institution report to which you referred.  Just now I double checked to be sure the number I used is accurate.  Actually it is something over $841 million.   I did not look at the Amtrak reports as you have.  I suspect the different reports refer to different expenses.  

John

[Anonymous]

MidlandMike

Sam1

...

There is no reason that route has to be operated by Amtrak, although the American Association of Railroads has said that the freight carriers will not deal without anyone other than Amtrak. The courts probably could fix that issue.  

IIRC the Amtrak legislation specified that if a RR turned their passenger trains over to ATK, they had to let ATK use their tracks.  The courts can't rewrite a law, and I doubt Congress will pass a law requiring private railroads to accept other passenger trains.  Of course RRs could allow other passenger operators on their lines, but probably just not at the bargain prices ATK enjoys.

Lets expand my point.  Congress could rewrite the law.  In fact, I may be wrong, but it sticks in my mind that the law has been modified.  Up to two of Amtrak's long distance routes can be bid out to other potential operators.  There have, of course, been no takers.  No money in long distance trains except to lose heaps of it.  

I am not a lawyer, but I suspect push come to shove the courts could rule that refusal to allow other passenger train operators access to a freight carrier's tracks ala Amtrak would be a violation of the Commerce Clause.  It has been used to justify heaps of changes.

[MidlandMike]

Sam1

...

There is no reason that route has to be operated by Amtrak, although the American Association of Railroads has said that the freight carriers will not deal without anyone other than Amtrak. The courts probably could fix that issue.  

IIRC the Amtrak legislation specified that if a RR turned their passenger trains over to ATK, they had to let ATK use their tracks.  The courts can't rewrite a law, and I doubt Congress will pass a law requiring private railroads to accept other passenger trains.  Of course RRs could allow other passenger operators on their lines, but probably just not at the bargain prices ATK enjoys.

[blue streak 1]

Many interesting comments and I will examine as many as possible on my trip.  some points in no order.

1.  Had no idea that williston was such a growth station as I had to split my accomodations in Minot and used it as a turning point.

2.  My experience in airline work was that persons who cannot get last minute reservations from a station soon quit tryint to travel at any time.  a person needs to know he can get last minute reservations or make other plans to cover the trip.

3.  There is an assumption that more seats would men greater losses.  The PRIIA for the Meteor states that the addition of a single coach for a summer season to each of its train sets allowed a net decrease of $700,000 operating loss  for the trip.  There is no indication of the time involved for this reversal but the most it would be is the 3 months that it operated with 5 coaches.  The mileage CHI - Williston is just 381 miles shorter that the Meteor.  If the cars went all the way to Spokane ? ? 

4.  Probably a fairly quick return of investment for this type drop in losses ?

5.  Load factor is measured end to end point ( unless passenger cars do not do that ) .  When flying a puddle jumper the endpoint legs almost always had a smaller load than the mid point(s)

6.   the EB now as a transition car so no problem putting single level cars in front of the transition or ---,  .  The PDX section is now on the rear with no transition car so that section might have to be moved to the front  of the combined train ? ?

7.  It is recognized that CHI - SPK will require another 2 cars  for a total of 5 cars for each train set.  whereas CHI - W8illiston would not requie any more and might be a sarting point ?

8.  Refurbishment might be done in two stages to increase seats more rapidly with a reduction in fare costs.

SOME NEGATIVES

9.  Train length could increase significantly which would require long walks in CHI, MKE, MSP ( until ST. Paul station opened ), Many more stations might require split stops and maybe even triple stops.

10.  More crew would be needed including attendants, assistant conductors,  and maybe an additional dinner lite with crew ?

11.  Boarding would need speeding up to remain on time(? Ha)

12.  Unknown if any sidings presently used would be too short for a longer train ?

.    

n.a

[schlimm]

Glacier National Park is #10 in patronage and had 1.6 million last year.  According to the official Amtrak state report for fiscal 2012, there were 21,061 boardings and alightings at the East and West Glacier stations.  So divide by 2 = 10, 530 visitors.  That is 0.66 %.   So it is highly unlikely that  "part of Glacier National Park dies" because of such a tiny loss of patronage.  Or maybe 10 sq. miles?    And please do not make ridiculous assumptions about others feelings concerning our National Parks. (" I suspect that those "who know the cost of everything and the value of nothing" would not care, and they'd likely not care if the national parks ceased to exist, either.")   They remain one of the US's crowning achievements.

I have to agree with Paul M. about at least one of his points, namely that it is important for passenger rail advocates to have their facts straight.  Otherwise it results in the speaker losing credibility and thus has a negative impact on convincing neutral folks of the trains' value. 

[Anonymous]

John,

I am not sure where you got the $840 million for state supported funding.

According to Amtrak's financial statements and monthly operating report for Septembe 2012, state capital payments totaled $179 million for FY12.  Of this amount $32.5 covered operating losses and the remainder funded a variety of capital projects.

[Anonymous]

"If the Empire Builder dies, part of America's heritage dies, because part of Glacier National Park dies with it.  I suspect that those "who know the cost of everything and the value of nothing" would not care, and they'd likely not care if the national parks ceased to exist, either."

Where is the evidence to support this claim?  What percentage of the people who visit Glacier National Park arrive on a once a day train.  Again, don't confuse Amtrak's data regarding station activity.  It shows people getting off and on the train for each station.  Presumable most of the people who get off the Builder at one of the stops serving Glacier National Park get back on the train or depart via another means. Unless, of course, they are eaten by a bear.  Thus, the true activity is half of what Amtrak shows in its fact sheets, i.e. if one person gets off the train and gets back on at a later time, that is one customer using the train to and from a station..

[Anonymous]

VerMontanan

Sam1

August 11th is tomorrow.  Yep, walk-up fares for flights and/or other forms of commercial transportation tend to be very high for next day or next week travel.  For comparison purposes I priced Amtrak, air, and bus on September 4th.  Potential travelers who do not plan ahead will pay for it.

As is the case with many oilfield workers in North Dakota.  Their work schedules can be very "changeable."  The long time ticket agent at Williston who retired this year told me that purchasing tickets at the last minute was a daily, commonplace occurrence.  These people don't always know when they will get their time off, but when they do, they want to leave ASAP.

That's why your choice of fare comparison nearly a month out was completely unrealistic.

One anecdotal observation by a retired Amtrak ticket agent is not a valid statistical sample anymore than my sample fares from Chicago to Minot or Spokane to Minot or Williston were a complete survey. Which I believe that I acknowledged.  

In my company, which was a Fortune 250 energy company, and was engage in oil and gas exploration in Texas, people were expected to plan and book their travel arrangements well in advance. Of course, emergencies arose, and people needed to book immediately, but they were rare.  So why would oil field workers in North Dakota, most of who appear to be employed by major drillers, be any different?

You claim going out a bit more than three weeks is unrealistic?  Where is your evidence?  Who employs the oil field workers?  What is the travel policy for the company(s) that they work for?  What is the booking distribution for the workers who are traveling by Amtrak.

Again, what percentage of the oil field workers arrive or depart on the Empire Builder.  What would happen, for example, if the Builder did not run?  Would the oil fields shut down?

If I remember correctly, I stated several times that I was using examples and, furthermore, that individual situations would differ.  Are your sure my example is completely unrealistic?  How about just unrealistic.  Or better yet, how about skipping the inflammatory language (unrealistic) and sticking to facts albeit how imperfect they may be. That sounds better, don't you think.  

[VerMontanan]

Sam1

August 11th is tomorrow.  Yep, walk-up fares for flights and/or other forms of commercial transportation tend to be very high for next day or next week travel.  For comparison purposes I priced Amtrak, air, and bus on September 4th.  Potential travelers who do not plan ahead will pay for it.

As is the case with many oilfield workers in North Dakota.  Their work schedules can be very "changeable."  The long time ticket agent at Williston who retired this year told me that purchasing tickets at the last minute was a daily, commonplace occurence.  These people don't always know when they will get their time off, but when they do, they want to leave ASAP.

That's why your choice of fare comparison nearly a month out was completely unrealistic.

[VerMontanan]

schlimm

Questions and thoughts:

1.  How many riders to the oil fields ride to/from MT?

2. For Glacier Park tourism, I suggest you check the Amtrak state annual reports for the appropriate stations.  The ridership is small, as I recall, both as a percentage of park visitors and absolutely...

3. If there is a demand for passenger rail from Chicago to the oil fields (including intermediate stops, would it not make far more sense to run a train from Chicago to ND?  Why continue it all the way to the coast, losing another $50 million?

4.  Let ND pony up some bucks for a state-supported train.   With all that oil money pouring in, they should be able to find the funds in loose change. 

 

But it wouldn't take another $50 million.  The additional cost to operate another frequency would be minimal.  This is because revenue increases as the service becomes much more attractive due the creation of more choices of times for travel, and the expenses are pretty much only the cost of operating the train (crews, fuel, etc.).  Stations, station personnel, and servicing facilities are already there.  (Also, of course, there would be the cost of creating equipment for another train, which is currently not available.)

.

This is the problem with Amtrak's long distance service: no economies of scale.  For the most part, infrastructure and support personnel are in place for one train daily each way.  The worst performers are the tri-weekly Sunset Limited and Cardinal which are really an inefficient use of resources.

.

As stated earlier, Amtrak doesn't keep track of ridership by purpose, but that Williston is one of the top or a top destination for many stations from Washington to Wisconsin along the route cannot be a coincidence.  That people are using the train means that the train is contributing to economic development of the area without doubt.  Transportation alternatives are scarce, and this energy development in this area is very important with regard to how America's dependency on foreign oil is changing, I would think that anything that is contributing to this phenomenon should be encouraged.

.

Ridership to Glacier Park is not small, in my estimation.  There are 4 stops that service Glacier National Park.  The respective ridership in 2012 at East Glacier Park, Essex, West Glacier Park, and Whitefish was 14,886, 3,354, 6,175, and 66,614.  East Glacier Park is only open 5 months of the year, yet still averages about 50 people entraining and detraining for each train during this period.  From when the station opens at the end of April or first part of May to mid-June, patronage is very low, because most park facilities do not open until Memorial Day, and Going-to-the-Sun road, the primary tourist draw usually does not open until the third week of June.  So, from the third week of June to Labor Day, the stop is very busy.  Essex is almost 100 percent visitors to the Izaak Walton Inn, but in the summer patrons here can visit Glacier Park as this is a stop for the red bus tours and rental cars are available.  West Glacier Park is just about all Glacier Park-oriented business.  Whitefish also serves Glacier Park, but again, but we don't know who's doing what when they detrain.  Visitation at Glacier National Park averages about 2 million per year, so given the ridership at East Glacier and West Glacier, just over 20,000, this means that we can be pretty sure that about 1 percent of total visitors arrive by train.  This isn't much of a percentage, but it's probably more than any other national park by far, and we can't peg visitation to Glacier Park by airline passengers specifically because again we don't know for sure how many who use Glacier Park International Airport are really visiting Glacier Park.  (Boardings at Glacier Park International in 2012 were 194,030; doubling that to match "entrainings and detrainings" that Amtrak provides and you get a number like 388,060.  If one adds the Amtrak figures at GPK, ESM, WGL, and WFH, it's a total of 91,029 passengers, or roughly about one-fourth of that handled at Glacier Park International Airport - not bad considering that there is only two trains per day - one each way - on this route, but Glacier Park International can have as many as 38 flights arrive and depart in one day, as was the case today.)  Clearly, the train is disproportionately used in this area, and in the case of East Glacier and West Glacier, we know there is significant patronage that is directly park related.  (We also see that with a visitation of 2 million annually, the primary way to visit is by auto.)

.

Amtrak's service to Glacier National Park is yet another example of understanding the value of it that exceeds the dollar cost.  There is no other national park in America so tied to a railroad.  The Great Northern Railroad pushed for creation of the park, and when it happened in 1910, most of the roads and almost all of the lodging facilities were built by the Great Northern.  Today, Waterton-Glacier International Peace Park (the first international endeavor of its kind) has the greatest collection of railroad-built hostelries in North America still in operation (Great Northern built the majestic Prince of Wales Hotel in Waterton Lakes, Alberta, the only such hotel built in a national park in Canada by an American Railroad).  It's difficult to visit Waterton-Glacier and not be constantly reminded of the role the railroad had in the creation and development of these Canadian and American treasures.  Therefore, each day when the Empire Builder arrives at the classic station at Glacier Park Station (East Glacier), adjacent to the impressive Glacier Park Lodge - 100 years old this year -, visitors are reminded of the legacy of railroad involvement in creation of America's national parks, and it's most apparent here, because Glacier has long been (until Alaska became a state with Denali National Park along the Alaska Railroad), the only major national park directly on the main line of railroad in the United States.  If the Empire Builder dies, part of America's heritage dies, because part of Glacier National Park dies with it.  I suspect that those "who know the cost of everything and the value of nothing" would not care, and they'd likely not care if the national parks ceased to exist, either.

.

I agree that North Dakota should be more participatory in financing infrastructure to enhance the railroads given their tax revenue from oil, but they're much too busy building a truck bypass around Williston or four-laning US85 between Belfield and Williston as well as the constant upkeep necessitated by incessant truck traffic to and from the oil drilling sites.  This is too bad, because state assistance might help the movement of freight in and out of the area, which is a much more pressing issue than rail passengers.  But, we'll have to leave all that to the private sector (BNSF). 

 

[John WR]

Thank you for the link to the Brookings report, Sam.  Certainly its main point, that state subsidies for Amtrak are desirable is well taken.  Currently individual states provide about $840 million for Amtrak for the five year period covered by the report.   This benefits the Federal government because what the states pay the Feds don't have to.  It also benefits the states that provide the funding because it gives them a real say about important issues such as schedules.  States probably will not pay for middle of the night schedules but their funds can be an incentive for Amtrak to change its schedules.  And of course state funding provides more trains for more riders.  

Right now 15 states fund Amtrak trains.  A few states also fund trains but provide their own.  My own state, New Jersey, is one of those.  In theory states can make an objective decision based on their need. But I'm not sure that is the way it works out.  For example, North Carolina funds 4 trains, the Piedmonts.  They operate in NC and connect Amtrak routes among other things.  South Carolina funds no trains.  It that because SC objectively has no need for rail transportation?  Or is it simply because SC prefers not to spend money on rail transportation?  Or perhaps both.   

My state, New Jersey, finds it can provide commuter service for significantly less money that Amtrak would charge.  Since Amtrak owns the NEC tracks it will rent them to New Jersey and it does.  I suspect other states could provide their own commuter service more cheaply than Amtrak does but private railroads may be unwilling to allow the states to run their own service.   If Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana wanted to operate their own commuter service between Mobile and New Orleans would CSX, who owns the track, allow them to do so?  From what I read here CSX may not be willing.  Some states who feel they cannot support Amtrak might be willing to fund their own service but will not be allowed to do so by private railroad owners.  You suggest the courts could change this.  However, so far they haven't.  

Bookings argues that requiring state funding only for routes that are 750 miles or less is illogical and in fact the Federal Government should require state funding for all routes.  To make that a reality, though, it seems to me that the states would have to be required to fund those long distance routes.  I think that would be unpopular with states, especially those that do not want to fund any rail passenger transportation.  

John

[Anonymous]

schlimm

Questions and thoughts:

1.  How many riders to the oil fields ride to/from MT?

2. For Glacier Park tourism, I suggest you check the Amtrak state annual reports for the appropriate stations.  The ridership is small, as I recall, both as a percentage of park visitors and absolutely...

3. If there is a demand for passenger rail from Chicago to the oil fields (including intermediate stops, would it not make far more sense to run a train from Chicago to ND?  Why continue it all the way to the coast, losing another $50 million?

4.  Let ND pony up some bucks for a state-supported train.   With all that oil money pouring in, they should be able to find the funds in loose change.

Good idea as per #4.  

The Brooking Institutes's A New Alignment: Strengthening America's Commitment to Passenger Rail, contains some thoughtful suggestions on how to move forward with passenger rail in the United States. I highly recommend it.  Google the title.  It is readily available as a pdf download.

Amongst other things the study points out that PRIIA requires the states the pick-up the operating deficits for the State Supported and Other Short Distance Corridor Trains.  Why not have the same requirement for the long distance trains ask the authors, Robert Puentes, Adie Tomer, and Joseph Kane? The report is dated March 2013 and is one of the best reports on passenger rail in the United States that I have read.

As an example, if Illinois, Missouri, Arkansas, and Texas believe the Texas Eagle is vital for the well being of their states, as per the Brookings Study, they would cover the loses. If they did, in all probability, they would insist on having a say about its schedule, equipment, service levels and, hopefully, in time the operator. Requiring the states to cover the operating deficits of trains operating over distances of less than 750 miles whilst exempting the long distance trains does not make a lot of sense. 

There is no reason that route has to be operated by Amtrak, although the American Association of Railroads has said that the freight carriers will not deal without anyone other than Amtrak. The courts probably could fix that issue.

[Anonymous]

August 11th is tomorrow.  Yep, walk-up fares for flights and/or other forms of commercial transportation tend to be very high for next day or next week travel.  For comparison purposes I priced Amtrak, air, and bus on September 4th.  Potential travelers who do not plan ahead will pay for it.

The fares came from Amtrak.com, Travelocity.com and Greyhound.com.  

Amtrak, as well as the commuter airlines participating in the Essential Air Services Program, get a cash payment from the federal government for each passenger carried because the fares don't cover the costs. The difference is picked-up by the federal taxpayers. They are real and should be factored into the revenue/cost model.

[schlimm]

Questions and thoughts:

1.  How many riders to the oil fields ride to/from MT?

2. For Glacier Park tourism, I suggest you check the Amtrak state annual reports for the appropriate stations.  The ridership is small, as I recall, both as a percentage of park visitors and absolutely...

3. If there is a demand for passenger rail from Chicago to the oil fields (including intermediate stops, would it not make far more sense to run a train from Chicago to ND?  Why continue it all the way to the coast, losing another $50 million?

4.  Let ND pony up some bucks for a state-supported train.   With all that oil money pouring in, they should be able to find the funds in loose change. 

[VerMontanan]

Sam1

 

If Amtrak had a compelling case for additional equipment, it could arrange a lease for it in the capital markets. Unfortunately, making a strong case for additional equipment for a train that lost $59 million in FY12 before capital charges, especially for a country that is nearly $17 trillion in hawk, would be a difficult slog.

.

Yes it is difficult to make the case for additional equipment for a train that lost $59 million last year because too many people are sufficiently ignorant of history and take it at face value.  Amtrak "subsidies" are easy to see.  But we don't know what the subsidy would be per passenger if the government stepped in to provide infrastructure to run a second train, or even to allow the current one train to run dependably.  Again, it sucks when you have to rely on the private sector to get basic infrastructure in place. 

In 2003, the state of Montana commissioned a study on the economic benefits of the Empire Builder in that state, which was over $14 million annually.  I don't have a figure for the "loss" of the Empire Builder that year, but it has been rising, so it would have been less than now, and given inflation, the benefit today is probably greater.  Given that Montana is only one of 8 states served by the Empire Builder however, it's clear that the economic benefit provided by the train exceeds the cost to run it.  Would other modes of transportation using government-created infrastructure step in to fill the void if the Empire Builder was not around?  In the case of the Bakken, probably, but not having the train comes with a cost.  Workers to and from Western Montana, for instance, would spend more money driving or flying, which would decrease their spending capacity, which would reduce the amount of money pumped back into the economy at home.  In the case of places like Glacier Park or Whitefish, there are many tourists that would choose not to come to Montana at all if not on the train due to the enduring link of the railroad to the very existence of Glacier National Park, so their spending within the state would be lost.  In the case of many Empire Builder stops in North Dakota and Montana where the train is the only east-west public transportation, you would see the cost of isolation, not being able to attract new business, or deferred medical treatment because transportation would not be available.

Of course, there are many places in the United States without adequate transportation, so this is nothing new.  My point is simply that before we take a figure like $59 million and decide that we would be better off without that cost, just make sure that not having that service will not cost a greater amount, and make sure that ALL costs are considered, and that will be very difficult to determine.

At the very least, being that this is the United States, I don't believe that even rural areas that are lucky enough to have any public transportation should only have the absolutely most uncomfortable modes available (bus or air).  Passenger trains have value because people will ride them, and we really don't know how many because we don't have enough.  And, the allure and comfort of passenger trains and their ability to take traveler off highways (which are the most dangerous way to travel) is another rather unquantifiable benefit.

[VerMontanan]

Sam1

Comparing the cost of flying from Chicago to Minot or other smaller communities  locations was just an example. To get a clear picture of all the cost comparisons one would have to cobble together hundreds of point pairs to get a complete picture.  And he would need to include all modes of transport. Clearly, in many instances taking surface transportation from relatively close communities is more cost effective than flying, especially if one does not factor in a value to time.

From Spokane to Minot on the Empire costs $158.  A flight on Frontier would cost $162.90.  And a trip on Greyhound would be $99.  The cost to fly from Spokane to Williston would be $295.77. The cost of a coach seat on the Builder would be $145.  

I have no idea where Sam is getting his figures about how flying from Minot to Spokane is within $5 of the Amtrak fare, but I don't see it on my Internet.

.

For travel August 11, Minot to Spokane:

Amtrak $267

Cheapest Air $532

Bus $193

.

For travel about a month later on September 10, Minot to Spokane:

Amtrak $120

Cheapest Air $296

Bus $119

.

Sam's adding the per-capita "investment" in the Empire Builder to the cost of an Amtrak ticket is ridiculous because while it is a real cost, it's not a consideration if cost is a consideration when making a decision to travel.  It also does not include the cost of indirect subsidies to airlines, which is largely unquantifiable.   For years, the only air service Williston had was Essential Air Service which we all know is heavily subsidized.  When the boom hit, "regular" carriers stepped in, they had ready-made facilities to enable service to begin on demand.  It's impossible to figure the benefit of having this infrastructure in place.  And while the Empire Builder is suffering timekeeping difficulties while BNSF uses private capital to add infrastructure between Minot and Williston and mostly private capital to upgrade the route through Devils Lake, federal and state money has been used and will be used to upgrade the Minot and Williston airports to handle increased traffic.  Just having entities (the government) that provides the infrastructure needed to conduct business is such a huge, unquantifiable advantage to highways and airports, the true costs of their use will never be known.  Even the true cost of operating the Empire Builder isn't known because freight railroads will tell you Amtrak doesn't pay the total cost of their trains operating on private infrastructure, but at least, unlike all other modes of transport, it is private infrastructure for the most part.

 

[John WR]

Sam1

If Amtrak had a compelling case for additional equipment, it could arrange a lease for it in the capital markets.

Sam,  

I think two issues have become confused on this thread.   

The first issue is whether or not the United States should, as a matter of policy, have Amtrak at all.  Those who oppose the existence of Amtrak because it requires a Federal appropriation to operate will always oppose any expenditure for Amtrak.  The fact that Amtrak cannot keep up with the demand for service does not rebut the argument.  The argument is that Amtrak is just bad and we should not spend money on it.   

The opposing argument is not that Amtrak is good.  The opposing argument is that the US should have a rational transportation system, a system that will include air transportation, highway transportation, water transportation and rail transportation.  The issue then is one of balance.  What is the appropriate balance of funds between all of our transportation needs.   

I don't pretend to have a perfect answer to the question.  I imagine there will always be discussion and debate over the issue.  However, when discussing it I do think the discussion should be a little more sophisticated than it was in Andrew Jackson's day.