The problem of current or future long distance Amtrak service anywhere is structural, and I don't mean the railroad tracks, I am referring to the organization. The Empire Builder is a good example. It's a $60 million or $90 million (depending on looking at revenue or expenses) operation.
Who is in charge? Who is actually out there looking for new ideas, new services, talking to people, creating an employee morale, going to places like Missoula, conducting studies, talking it up, doing things, making Amtrak a part of its communities?
A corporation the "size" of the Empire Builder, and many of the other trains, justifies "hands on" management. It doesn't have it. It's run just like any other government bureaucracy, from Washington, DC.
Even Lou Menk, the President of the Northern Pacific notoriously adverse to rail passenger service, would walk the North Coast Limited when his business car was catching a ride, chatting with people, asking if they were enjoying the trip, and sometimes even eating in the dining car with everyone else. He was a real ambassador for the railroad, and not unlike many senior executives when railroads ran their own passenger trains. But, it was also more than just symbolic. There was a credible name and a face that was willing to be out there and personalize the service and take responsibility for it -- even a service he personally could not stand.
Who'se in charge of the Empire Builder?
No one knows his/her name.
As a long time student of management, to me that represents a fundamental problem with effectively managing and growing an important franchise like the Empire Builder.
Amtrak is run just like the faceless bureaucracy that it is, and if there is a solution to a heavily subsidized service, that is not it.
To me, these individualized trains present terrific opportunities to let innovative managers take over and run with their ideas and their enthusiasms -- and be part of the trains they manage. It's a time-tested way of turning things around.
Vermontanan...thanks for the very valuable "history" of the Empire builder and bus service in the area.
I have a question, however, about frequency of bus service. Were not bus lines regulated, similar to the railroads, as being common carriers, in that they could not just drop a route (or frequency of travel on a route) without government approval?
The reason for the question lies in a suspicion that the thrice daily routes mentioned didnt really address load factors...there could have been 3 buses a day with few riders, which may have contributed to some bus line failures. Just a passing thought, not meant to minimize the value of the information presented.
An interesting adjunct to this discussion is that there is a movement afoot to try and get train service restored through Missoula. At the last Earth Day celebration in Karas Park, a coilition had set up an info booth to drum up support for such an idea. Their first priority was service to Chicago, meeting the Empire Builder somewhere near Great falls, I believe, to join forces. Possible expansion to include service to Spokane, thus connecting to Portland and Seattle via the Empire builder. I expressed my 2Cents worth that I thought there would be more traffice to justify a route if they focused on Missoula to spokane first, but I am not sure anyone at that booth was impressed...
jeaton wrote: The Fiscal Year-FY2007-for Amtrak ended with the close of business September 30, 2007.
The Fiscal Year-FY2007-for Amtrak ended with the close of business September 30, 2007.
And, after working for the Government for ten years, I should have remembered that. Apologies on that one.
MichaelSol wrote: VerMontanan wrote: According to the Amtrak website, the Empire Builder lost $34.8 million in FY2007 (and contrary to one earlier poster who claimed, "the more passengers, the greater the loss," this was $.7 million less than in FY2006, even though about 7,000 more passengers were carried). I understand that your background is neither in engineering nor finance, but your carelessness with figures and continual misunderstandings of what you read, does indeed add an element of tension to discussions with you. Your continuing infatuation with large displays of data, without meaningful context, reinforces the perception that you often don't understand what you are posting.And, this post is no exception. First, you misread the Amtrak website and you misunderstood the document you looked at. The latest route figures are posted "YTD" through September, 2007. You cite, as the loss for the entire year, the loss sustained only through the first nine months. It's not hard to miss: at the top of the page it plainly states "September, 2007 YTD".Amtrak has not posted the 2007 figures yet.Second. It is true that increasing the fares can mitigate losses. However, without the fare increases, as a matter of fact, subsidized operations do lose more with more passengers without fare increases. Amtrak's problem is that it can't get the fares up to cover the losses.
VerMontanan wrote: According to the Amtrak website, the Empire Builder lost $34.8 million in FY2007 (and contrary to one earlier poster who claimed, "the more passengers, the greater the loss," this was $.7 million less than in FY2006, even though about 7,000 more passengers were carried).
According to the Amtrak website, the Empire Builder lost $34.8 million in FY2007 (and contrary to one earlier poster who claimed, "the more passengers, the greater the loss," this was $.7 million less than in FY2006, even though about 7,000 more passengers were carried).
I understand that your background is neither in engineering nor finance, but your carelessness with figures and continual misunderstandings of what you read, does indeed add an element of tension to discussions with you. Your continuing infatuation with large displays of data, without meaningful context, reinforces the perception that you often don't understand what you are posting.
And, this post is no exception. First, you misread the Amtrak website and you misunderstood the document you looked at. The latest route figures are posted "YTD" through September, 2007. You cite, as the loss for the entire year, the loss sustained only through the first nine months. It's not hard to miss: at the top of the page it plainly states "September, 2007 YTD".
Amtrak has not posted the 2007 figures yet.
Second. It is true that increasing the fares can mitigate losses. However, without the fare increases, as a matter of fact, subsidized operations do lose more with more passengers without fare increases. Amtrak's problem is that it can't get the fares up to cover the losses.
"We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics
VerMontanan wrote: ... and contrary to one earlier poster who claimed, "the more passengers, the greater the loss," this was $.7 million less than in FY2006, even though about 7,000 more passengers were carried).
... and contrary to one earlier poster who claimed, "the more passengers, the greater the loss," this was $.7 million less than in FY2006, even though about 7,000 more passengers were carried).
I understand that your background is neither in engineering nor finance, but your carelessness with figures and continual misunderstandings and misrepresentations of what you read, does indeed add an element of tension to discussions with you. Your continuing infatuation with large displays of data, without meaningful context reinforces the perception that you often don't understand what you are posting, just posting.
It is true that increasing the fares can mitigate losses. However, you misrepresent what happened. Consumer inflation increased last year 2.4%. The RCAF, less. Ridership on the Empire Builder increased. Did direct operating cost per passenger go down, as you propose? Nope, they went up, and they went up substantially faster than RCAF, and about 50% faster than even the CPI. With the increase in ridership, the direct operating cost per passenger went up by more than 3.6%, not down as you contend -- which the subsidy model predicts. However, Amtrak fares increased by more than 7%; three times faster than the CPI inflation rate.
Without fare increases, as a matter of fact, subsidized operations do lose more with more passengers. This is a key indicator of a subsidized operation: rather than operating efficiencies enjoyed as numbers increase, the opposite happens; inefficiencies are leveraged. Rather than being able to offer lower fares as a result of efficiencies that normally occur with increasing utilization, Amtrak has to raise its fares to attempt to cover the higher losses resulting from the larger number of riders.
This is the exact opposite of a rational business model, and rather than showing Amtrak as a success, is a testament to its failure.
And, that is exactly the result of what I described, that under a subsidized model, if ridership increases, costs go up. You completely misrepresented that effect by carefully failing to note that the increased losses were covered by increased fares.
VerMontanan wrote: It's interesting how many consider funding of Amtrak to be a "subsidy" but government monies for highways, waterways, and airports as "investments."
It's interesting how many consider funding of Amtrak to be a "subsidy" but government monies for highways, waterways, and airports as "investments."
Who, for instance? Identify just one single person who has said this. Just one would make the comment credible.
The "straw man" nature of the remark does disguise the following significant differences in subsidy amounts:
Air: $17/passenger
Highway: $6/user
Rail: $48/passenger
I think most reasonable people consider them all to be "investments," but it is neither irrational nor unfair to question the relative benefits of the investment amounts and, if it were a business decision to seek the best cost/benefit ratio .... what "justifies" the rail investment?
As for the comment, "The current train that runs the same route is, depending on the day, the employee you have to deal with, and the food option you choose, run something like a very long, articulated Greyhound Bus," one really has to wonder what train this person was riding.
Gosh, enough people comment on it; I guess you read what you want to. I ride it more than you do. Sometimes experience is more meaningful than wishful thinking.
The reality is that in FY2007, over ½ million people saw value in riding the Empire Builder. Given that patronage at a station such as Shelby, Montana - 16,000+ in FY2007 - population 3,000 and not exactly a garden spot, was more than the patronage for Amtrak stations serving the state capitals of New Mexico, Arkansas, Kansas, or Nebraska indicates a lot of people are using train for basic transportation. That more people entrain and detrain in Minot, North Dakota than in Omaha, Nebraska (about ten times the size) does also. Therefore, it boils down to what you think a "real passenger train" is supposed to be....The Empire Builder, Amtrak's single most-ridden train for the past four years, had ridership topping one-half million (504,977) in FY 2007, more than half again the ridership of the second-highest "transcontinental," the California Zephyr. Some interesting comparisons: Minot, ND is about 1/10th the size of metro Omaha, Nebraska, with comparable train times, but ridership is half again more; Shelby, Montana (ridership 16,463) (population 3,000) has ridership greater than that on other trains at four state capitals: Lincoln, Nebraska, Topeka, Kansas, Little Rock, Arkansas, and Santa Fe (Lamy), New Mexico. More people show up in the middle of the night to ride the Empire Builder to and from Spokane than in San Antonio, the origin/termination point of the Texas Eagle. Spokane also has more ridership than at Salt Lake City, a station with similar train times, but serving a vastly larger metro area. More people ride the Empire Builder to and from St. Paul/Minneapolis than use the Southwest Chief AND two daily St. Louis trains at Kansas City.
...
The Empire Builder, Amtrak's single most-ridden train for the past four years, had ridership topping one-half million (504,977) in FY 2007, more than half again the ridership of the second-highest "transcontinental," the California Zephyr. Some interesting comparisons: Minot, ND is about 1/10th the size of metro Omaha, Nebraska, with comparable train times, but ridership is half again more; Shelby, Montana (ridership 16,463) (population 3,000) has ridership greater than that on other trains at four state capitals: Lincoln, Nebraska, Topeka, Kansas, Little Rock, Arkansas, and Santa Fe (Lamy), New Mexico. More people show up in the middle of the night to ride the Empire Builder to and from Spokane than in San Antonio, the origin/termination point of the Texas Eagle. Spokane also has more ridership than at Salt Lake City, a station with similar train times, but serving a vastly larger metro area. More people ride the Empire Builder to and from St. Paul/Minneapolis than use the Southwest Chief AND two daily St. Louis trains at Kansas City.
Which says nothing about the train, but rather, only that it runs a route that never attracted much transportation development otherwise. These public relations outbursts continually confuse the train with the region: the "train" and the "name" of the train have zero to do with the circumstances of its use. What your comments actually support is the conclusion that, when people have more alternatives to rail such as at Topeka, Little Rock, etc., they much prefer to use the alternatives. Just about the opposite of what you want to imply. Your data dump is actually suggestive that people don't use the EB because they want to, but because they have fewer options. Not exactly a sterling recommendation.
Indeed, even as you deny it, you state the case that the territory is so poor for business that even bus companies couldn't afford to offer service to the route. And, suggests that the historically subsidized rail passenger service acted to always keep bus service out. The route is so deficient on population that only a heavily subsidized service can survive which, ironically, naturally operates in favor of the heavily subsidized service.
Now, tell me where the surprise is there?
As I stated earlier:
Old Jim managed to build his railroad through "not much" for most of the route -- and so there was never any incentive for much development of air and highway transportation. The route of the EB is one of the last routes that, to this day, does not have an interstate highway alongside of it -- the old GN route just never had the people or industries to justify an Interstate routing -- with the result that the people who do live there are more dependent than most on the rail service. Always have been.
It is a generic service, unfortunately. It is not the "Empire Builder" of old, nor any of the other fine trains of an earlier era, when their operators took a pride in their trains. These constant data dumps always manage to confuse raw data with deeply held personal notions that have nothing to do with the service.
"Name" trains meant something under their former ownerships. They don't under Amtrak. It is a sad business reality that simply reflects what Amtrak is. I would like to see passenger service improve and attract more riders. The superimposition of nostalgic childhood memories on a business operation perhaps stands more as an obstacle to improving the record of long distance passenger train service -- because the motivation is ideological and romantic -- rather than assisting in its genuine promotion and development by recognizing deficiencies and seeking improvements rather than always repeating that "everything is fine, everything is fine".
And to put the Empire Builder's passenger numbers in perspective. The five or six train sets carry, between Chicago and Seattle/Portland and all of the stations in between, 45 total stations on a daily basis, fewer passengers than board and deplane aircraft in a single day at Glacier International Airport in Kalispell, Montana.
Serving a market area of -- what -- thirty million people between Chicago and Seattle/Portland and the Empire Builder is bested in ridership by one single country airport every day? Yeah, against that current reality, I guess I'd be talking about the bus system in 1960 too.
If you considered yourself a responsible lawmaker, and wanted a rational budget, which service would you shut down if you had to make the choice?
Nice write up, Mark. I particularly appreciate the comparison with bus service.
RWM
It's interesting how many consider funding of Amtrak to be a "subsidy" but government monies for highways, waterways, and airports as "investments." Some studies have shown that over the course of its history, commercial aviation in the United States has actually been operated at a net loss when one considers all the government assistance provided; everything from the obvious subsidies for communities served by the Essential Air Service system and providing infrastructure at airports to the less obvious ones such as that the U.S. Military, and not the respective airlines, has trained 40 percent of American commercial pilots, at no cost to their employers.
At a pro-Amtrak rally sponsored by Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer in Havre, Montana in June of 2005, George Chilson, president of the National Association of Railroad Passengers probably said it best when he referred to those who want to end long distance passenger trains as knowing "the cost of everything and the value of nothing." Clearly, this is salient point. Not the absolute subsidy, but whether the service provides value. Value does not always have to be measured by money alone.
Sometimes it can, however. According to the Amtrak website, the Empire Builder lost $34.8 million in FY2007 (and contrary to one earlier poster who claimed, "the more passengers, the greater the loss," this was $.7 million less than in FY2006, even though about 7,000 more passengers were carried). A study done by the Montana Departments of Transportation, Commerce and Agriculture in 2004 estimated that the state of Montana derived $14 million annually from the Empire Builder operating through that state. Given that only about 15 percent of Empire Builder passengers entrain and detrain in Montana, and assuming that the Empire Builder provides similar benefits to other states along the route, a case can be made (though the other states didn't do a study) that the monetary benefit from the operation of the Empire Builder exceeds the annual loss that Amtrak claims, and therefore the value of the train exceeds that of the supposed subsidy. I use the words "claims" and "supposed" because many think that Amtrak's accounting methods are not sufficiently transparent, and that many of the "shared" costs that bolster losses for long distance trains should be more born by corridor, especially the Northeast Corridor operations.
That the Empire Builder was/is a "mistake" is debatable, but I'm sure most of those featured in the article would disagree. Once again, it comes down to knowing the value. Obviously, the people in the article see the value of the train. In 2005, the Governor of Montana and the Congressional delegation (who represent the people of Montana) during the cross-state Amtrak rally saw the value, as did probably most of the 2 million people who have ridden the train over the past 4 years. I would offer another facet of railroading as a comparison, and the corresponding value. Many have claimed the Western Extension of the Milwaukee Road to have been a "mistake" too, or something that "should never have been built." Like the Empire Builder, a case could probably be made either way, but it again comes down to value. In the end, the indisputable fact is that not enough people saw value in keeping the Milwaukee Road, or it would still be here. The Empire Builder, especially as an Amtrak train, has been threatened numerous times. The Empire Builder was the original Chicago-Seattle Amtrak train; over the history of Amtrak, other Chicago-Seattle services (North Coast Hiawatha and Pioneer, lasting 8 and 20 years respectively) were added and then discontinued. Yet the Empire Builder endures, because on some level, enough people saw value in keeping it.
As for the comment, "The current train that runs the same route is, depending on the day, the employee you have to deal with, and the food option you choose, run something like a very long, articulated Greyhound Bus," one really has to wonder what train this person was riding. Since the Empire Builder received upgraded equipment in 2005, and is now only one of two long distance trains in America with full dining car service, it's easy to do an Internet search and find stories of numerous people that disagree and raving about their Amtrak experience on the Empire Builder. Sleeping car revenue on the Empire Builder in FY2007 shot up 12% (more than any other Long Distance train in percentage gain and total revenue), which means more people are taking advantage of, and willing to pay more for sleeping car service, something I've never seen on a Greyhound Bus. Also, claiming today's Empire Builder is not a "real passenger train" because it's being compared to the likes of an Olympian Hiawatha discontinued 47 years - or two generations - ago seems like simply nitpicking, and something that many who ride today can't relate to because they simply weren't around then (and why aren't the "real passenger trains" here today, could something have changed?) The reality is that in FY2007, over ½ million people saw value in riding the Empire Builder. Given that patronage at a station such as Shelby, Montana - 16,000+ in FY2007 - population 3,000 and not exactly a garden spot, was more than the patronage for Amtrak stations serving the state capitals of New Mexico, Arkansas, Kansas, or Nebraska indicates a lot of people are using train for basic transportation. That more people entrain and detrain in Minot, North Dakota than in Omaha, Nebraska (about ten times the size) does also. Therefore, it boils down to what you think a "real passenger train" is supposed to be.
As for the comment, "That is because Canadian politicians realize the general value of passenger rail of all types, and long distance passenger rail in promoting tourism. The Canadian is a first class operation that you can recommend to anyone. Fares are high, but the service is also very high and consistent. Cannot and should not the USA do as well as Canada?" : Canada does subsidize passenger rail of many types, from corridor operations between Windsor and Quebec City, a very few long distance trains, and services to remote areas such as Churchill, Manitoba on VIA Rail, the Algoma Central in Ontario, and between Sept Iles and Schefferville in Quebec (through Labrador). Not being Canadian, I can't comment on whether Canadian service is providing sufficient value for Canadian citizens, but as an American, I'm glad that American Long Distance trains do NOT mirror trains like the "Canadian." While the "Canadian" is a great ride, it seems to (as stated earlier) exist for tourists, but not Canadians. The "Canadian" serves but six staffed stations along its entire route between (but not including) Toronto and Vancouver (the Empire Builder route has that many between St. Paul and Havre alone). The "Canadian" runs three times per week, and has very few positive stops other than at staffed stations. Most stops now require 48 hours advance notice before the train to stop, and most of these stops have no station facilities whatsoever. In contrast, the Empire Builder has but one "flag" stop, and all stops have lighted and heated waiting areas, except for one or two stops (the number varies by season). In 2003, I rode the Empire Builder from St. Paul to Seattle and the "Canadian" from Vancouver to Winnipeg as part of the same trip. Passengers entrained and/or detrained at every Empire Builder stop. On the "Canadian," we ran non-stop from Vancouver to Kamloops, and from Kamloops to Jasper, and Jasper to Edmonton. We did stop in Unity and Biggar between Edmonton and Saskatoon. In other words, as an American, I'd rather have a service like the Empire Builder any day than the "Canadian." As an American, I could recommend a trip on the Empire Builder if for no other reason than to get a chance to meet people on board who live along the route and rely on the train for day-to-day transportation. Aboard the "Canadian," it could be a very good opportunity to meet American, British, and Japanese tourists, not quite the people you might seek out to give you a flavor of the Canadian people.
As for the question about bus service along the Empire Builder route or whether the "subsidized train ran off the bus company:" Bus service along the Empire Builder route, at least from Fargo to Spokane, was never part of through service between Chicago or Minneapolis and Seattle. Buses would operate on segments such as Grand Forks-Minot, Minot-Williston, Williston-Havre, Havre-Bonners Ferry, Bonners Ferry-Spokane, with changes over time, but never through service. Through Chicago-Twin Cities-Seattle service centered around US10, later I-94/I-90. There is no indication that bus service over time was affected by rail passenger service. For instance in 1960, there were 4 daily Greyhound buses between Chicago and Seattle more or less paralleling the former Northern Pacific Railway route, which also included parts of the Milwaukee Road route in Montana and Washington. After the Milwaukee Road Olympian Hiawatha was discontinued along this route in 1961 (or 1964, depending on segment), bus service did not expand, but actually decreased to 3 daily trips by 1963. By the time passenger service along the ex-NP route was discontinued with the advent of Amtrak in 1971, there were still 3 daily trips, and this remained basically unchanged even through the 8 years of the largely tri-weekly North Coast Hiawatha operation. In 1979, when passenger train service ended for good in Southern Montana and North Dakota, Greyhound was still fielding 3 daily buses along the route (with a fourth in the summer), and this continued with between 2 and 4 daily trips until 2002 or 2003 (I don't have a complete collection of bus guides) when Greyhound abandoned service between Fargo and Billings. This segment was picked up by Rimrock Trailways, but only one trip per day. Today, there is no through bus service on any route between Chicago and Seattle (it is still possible, with changes en route, however). Clearly, the presence of passenger trains had and has little to do with whether there is intercity bus service. First of all, buses and trains don't always cater to the same clientele (many who ride a train won't ride a bus), but the major contributing factor was the onset of carriers such as FedEx and UPS. Buses, like passenger trains before them, used to handle lots of smaller packages to isolated communities, basically subsidizing passenger service on buses, much like it did on passenger trains. As an example, my January 1960 Russell's Official Bus Guide has 928 pages (includes the United States, most of Canada, and some of Mexico). There were still 856 pages in May of 1975. The May 1985 issue had 736 pages, down to 456 pages in May of 1995. December of 2006 has 262 pages. In other words, Official Bus Guides have decreased in size much like their Official Railway Guide counterparts, just about 20 or so years later. Today, bus service in the United States is largely focused along Interstate highways. Northern Wisconsin is a good case in point. In 1975, most towns on major highways had bus service between the Twin Cities, Duluth, Eau Claire, Green Bay, or Milwaukee. Today, there is a bus from Duluth east to Michigan on US2, but other than that nothing North of Eau Claire and Wausau, with possibly still one run north of Green Bay toward Marquette. Air service is sparse, and very few railroads, and none with passenger trains. In other words, given the large number of towns without bus service in the United States today, it's unlikely that the number would increase appreciably if trains like the Empire Builder were not around.
Here are some figures about individual station ridership on Amtrak Long Distance trains between Chicago and the West Coast:
Empire Builder:
Chicago, IL....................................................2,774,651 (Note A)
Glenview, IL......................................................49,663 (Note B)
Milwaukee, WI...................................................471,752 (Note B)
Columbus, WI.....................................................16,850
Portage, WI.........................................................6,956
Wisconsin Dells, WI.............................................12,562
Tomah, WI..........................................................9,477
La Crosse, WI.....................................................27,616
Winona, MN......................................................23,171
Red Wing, MN...................................................10,134
St. Paul/Minneapolis, MN.....................................133,100
St. Cloud, MN....................................................12,641
Staples, MN..........................................................5,943
Detroit Lakes, MN................................................ 4,148
Fargo, ND.........................................................22,259
Grand Forks, ND.................................................19,916
Devils Lake, ND...................................................6,536
Rugby, ND..........................................................6,783
Minot, ND.........................................................38,254
Stanley, ND.........................................................3,190
Williston, ND..........................................................22,648
Wolf Point, MT.....................................................7,947
Glasgow, MT........................................................6,416
Malta, MT............................................................3,661
Havre, MT.........................................................16,836
Shelby, MT.........................................................16,463
Cut Bank, MT.......................................................3,030
Browning, MT(seasonal)...........................................2,263
East Glacier Park, MT(seasonal)................................13,663
Essex, MT...........................................................4,194
West Glacier Park, MT............................................6,416
Whitefish, MT.....................................................66,922
Libby, MT...........................................................5,360
Sandpoint, ID......................................................5,908
Spokane, WA.....................................................43,900
Ephrata, WA.......................................................3,571
Wenatchee, WA..................................................16,553
Everett, WA......................................................40,475 (Note C)
Edmonds, WA...................................................28,462 (Note C)
Seattle, WA......................................................584,753 (Note C)
Pasco, WA.........................................................23,445
Wishram, WA......................................................1,596
Bingen-White Salmon, WA......................................2,118
Vancouver, WA..................................................84,245 (Note C)
Portland, OR....................................................532,645 (Note C)
California Zephyr:
Naperville, IL....................................................42,986 (Note D)
Princeton, IL......................................................23,050 (Note D)
Galesburg, IL.....................................................87,004 (Note D)
Burlington, IA.....................................................6,654
Mount Pleasant, IA.............................................13,239
Ottumwa, IA.....................................................10,679
Osceola, IA......................................................15,976
Creston, IA........................................................5,011
Omaha, NE......................................................25,982
Lincoln, NE......................................................11,937
Hastings, NE......................................................4,068
Holdrege, NE.....................................................1,752
McCook, NE......................................................3,017
Fort Morgan, CO.................................................2,920
Denver, CO.....................................................123,273
Winter Park-Fraser, CO..........................................8,844
Granby, CO........................................................3,508
Glenwood Springs, CO.........................................32,697
Grand Junction, CO.............................................25,115
Green River, UT..................................................1,606
Helper, UT.........................................................1,645
Provo, UT.........................................................3,460
Salt Lake City, UT..............................................27,292
Elko, NV..........................................................3,957
Winnemucca, NV................................................2,197
Sparks, NV........................................................1,686 (Note E)
Reno, NV.........................................................62,509 (Note E)
Truckee, CA.......................................................5,815 (Note E)
Colfax, CA.........................................................3,176 (Note E)
Roseville, CA....................................................56,433 (Note E)
Sacramento, CA................................................970,939 (Note E)
Davis, CA.......................................................401,138 (Note E)
Martinez, CA...................................................380,477 (Note E)
Emeryville, CA.................................................482,777 (Note E)
Southwest Chief:
Mendota, IL......................................................15,510 (Note D)
Fort Madison, IA................................................10,797
La Plata, MO......................................................10,232
Kansas City, MO................................................117,155 (Note F)
Lawrence, KS......................................................3,732
Topeka, KS.........................................................6,937
Newton, KS......................................................14,126
Dodge City, KS...................................................4,063
Garden City, KS...................................................6,166
Lamar, CO.........................................................1,683
La Junta, CO.......................................................6,556
Trinidad, CO.......................................................3,956
Raton, NM........................................................18,245
Las Vegas, NM....................................................4,290
Lamy, NM........................................................12,506
Albuquerque, NM...............................................66,946
Gallup, NM......................................................10,945
Winslow, AZ......................................................3,970
Flagstaff, AZ.....................................................36,029
Williams Junction, AZ...........................................7,193
Kingman, AZ.....................................................11,001
Needles, CA........................................................7,138
Barstow, CA........................................................3,376
Victorville, CA....................................................4,821
San Bernardino, CA..............................................8,846
Riverside, CA......................................................8,121
Fullerton, CA...................................................425,469 (Note G)
Los Angeles, CA.............................................1,464,289 (Note G)
Texas Eagle/Sunset Limited:
Joliet, IL...........................................................................34,749 (Note H)
Pontiac, IL........................................................11,219 (Note H)
Bloomington-Normal, IL.....................................151,376 (Note H)
Lincoln, IL.......................................................19,497 (Note H)
Springfield, IL..................................................141,946 (Note H)
Carlinville, IL......................................................8,938 (Note H)
Alton, IL..........................................................46,717 (Note H)
St. Louis, MO...................................................219,593 (Note H)
Poplar Bluff, MO..................................................3,842
Walnut Ridge, AR................................................3,552
Little Rock, AR..................................................16,308
Malvern, AR.......................................................1,547
Arkadelphia, AR...................................................1,130
Texarkana, AR.....................................................5,760
Marshall, TX.......................................................5,469
Longview, TX....................................................21,610
Mineola, TX........................................................3,888
Dallas, TX.........................................................27,374
Fort Worth, TX...................................................85,069 (Note I)
Cleburne, TX......................................................1,831
McGregor, TX.....................................................2,382
Temple, TX......................................................10,349
Taylor, TX.........................................................3,464
Austin, TX........................................................19,388
San Marcos, TX...................................................3,084
New Orleans, LA...............................................125,978 (Note J)
Schriever, LA.........................................................744
New Iberia, LA....................................................... 775
Lafayette, LA......................................................3,206
Lake Charles, LA..................................................1,806
Beaumont, TX......................................................1,384
Houston, TX.......................................................13,214
San Antonio, TX.................................................40,908
Del Rio, TX........................................................1,590
Sanderson, TX.......................................................157
Alpine, TX.........................................................2,659
El Paso, TX.........................................................8,672
Deming, NM.........................................................722
Lordsburg, NM......................................................397
Benson, AZ..........................................................937
Tucson, AZ.......................................................13,067
Maricopa, AZ......................................................5,764
Yuma, AZ..........................................................2,409
Palm Springs, CA.................................................4,012 (Note G)
Ontario, CA........................................................4,228 (Note G)
Pomona, CA.......................................................1,063 (Note G)
Note A: Ridership includes all other long distance and corridor trains at Chicago.
Note B: Ridership includes Hiawatha Service trains.
Note C: Ridership includes Cascades Service trains and connecting bus service.
Note D: Ridership includes both Southwest Chief and California Zephyr, but also state-sponsored service between Chicago and Quincy.
Note E: Ridership includes Capitols and San Joaquins trains and connecting bus service, and Coast Starlight.
Note F: Ridership includes Missouri-sponsored "Mules" service.
Note G: Ridership includes Coast Starlight, Southwest Chief, Sunset Limited, as well as Pacific Surfliner trains and connecting bus service.
Note H: Ridership includes Chicago-St. Louis service.
Note I: Ridership includes Heartland Flyer.
Note J: Ridership includes Crescent and City of New Orleans.
Here's a recap of FY2007 long distance ridership on Amtrak:
Rank
Train
FY 2007
FY 2006
Change
(%)
1
Empire Builder
504,977
497,020
+1.6
2
Coast Starlight
343,542
331,939
+3.5
3
California Zephyr
329,840
335,443
-1.7
4
Silver Star
329,132
311,509
+5.7
5
Southwest Chief
316,668
300,416
+5.4
6
Lake Shore Limited
312,643
323,480
-3.4
7
Silver Meteor
291,735
272,879
+6.9
8
Crescent
263,136
252,072
+4.4
9
Texas Eagle
218,321
232,654
-6.2
10
Auto Train
217,822
207,544
+5.0
11
Capitol Limited
193,748
198,044
-2.2
12
City of New Orleans
180,473
175,237
+3.0
13
Palmetto
156,998
146,083
+7.5
14
Cardinal
96,896
95,076
+1.9
15
Sunset Limited
63,336
51,860
+22.1
Total Amtrak Long Distance
3,819,267
3,731,256
+2.4
Total Amtrak
25,847,531
24,306,965
+6.3
--Mark Meyer
Mark Meyer
daveklepper wrote:Should not this whole thread have been on the "Passenger" Forum?
Should not this whole thread have been on the "Passenger" Forum?
I started it here, frankly, because I only have room in my life for one railroad discussion forum, and this is it. This is the best forum on the internet for discussion of anything "railroad" (including Amtrak) precisely because it does not fixate on a single subject, and because the folks here, in general, make thoughtful contributions (like yours - thanks).
daveklepper wrote: Cannot and should not the USA do as well as Canada?
VIA Rail is viewed, at least partly, as a social program. And social programs are our sacred cows. We generally feel we can afford them, since our Federal Budgets have run surplusses going back 10 years. Our International trade figures are even better, and we have more oil than Saudia Arabia.
America's sacred cow would be the military, which obviously does not include Amtrak. And looking at the US trade balance and Budget deficits, I can't see support for Amtrak spending growing much in the future.
Regarding subusidies, on a per capita citizen basis, VIA is subidized at far higher levels per Canadian citizen than Amtrak is per USA citizen. That is because Canadian politicians realize the general value of passenger rail of all types, and long distance passenger rail in promoting tourism. The Canadian is a first class operation that you can recommend to anyone. Fares are high, but the service is also very high and consistant. Cannot and should not the uSA do as well as Canada?
IRONROOSTER wrote: MichaelSol wrote: conrailman wrote: What are talk about the Empire Builder is one of Amtrak money making trains carried more than 500,000 people last year in 2007 and going up every year. What are you drinking MichaelSol.One of the odd conundrums of rail passenger service is that, if the service is subsidized to the extent of the passenger paying for 90 cents of each dollar of cost for the service provided, and the government paying the other ten cents in the form of subsidy, each additional passenger carried increases the total loss incurred, increasing the total dollar amount of subsidy required.Unless something changes, the more passengers, the greater the loss. That's true only if the incremental cost of each additional passenger is not covered by their fare. The subsidy figures I've seen appear to be based on the (total cost of the train service - total fares collected) / total number of passengers. Once you already have the train, crew, usage fees/right of way, adding additional passengers doesn't affect cost very much unless/until you need an additional car or crew member to handle the crowd.
MichaelSol wrote: conrailman wrote: What are talk about the Empire Builder is one of Amtrak money making trains carried more than 500,000 people last year in 2007 and going up every year. What are you drinking MichaelSol.One of the odd conundrums of rail passenger service is that, if the service is subsidized to the extent of the passenger paying for 90 cents of each dollar of cost for the service provided, and the government paying the other ten cents in the form of subsidy, each additional passenger carried increases the total loss incurred, increasing the total dollar amount of subsidy required.Unless something changes, the more passengers, the greater the loss.
conrailman wrote: What are talk about the Empire Builder is one of Amtrak money making trains carried more than 500,000 people last year in 2007 and going up every year. What are you drinking MichaelSol.
What are talk about the Empire Builder is one of Amtrak money making trains carried more than 500,000 people last year in 2007 and going up every year. What are you drinking MichaelSol.
One of the odd conundrums of rail passenger service is that, if the service is subsidized to the extent of the passenger paying for 90 cents of each dollar of cost for the service provided, and the government paying the other ten cents in the form of subsidy, each additional passenger carried increases the total loss incurred, increasing the total dollar amount of subsidy required.
Unless something changes, the more passengers, the greater the loss.
That's true only if the incremental cost of each additional passenger is not covered by their fare. The subsidy figures I've seen appear to be based on the (total cost of the train service - total fares collected) / total number of passengers. Once you already have the train, crew, usage fees/right of way, adding additional passengers doesn't affect cost very much unless/until you need an additional car or crew member to handle the crowd.
Well, I should learn to just bite my tongue when I say these things, because of the inevitability of it being taken literally, passenger by passenger. Fine, when it ratchets to that one extra passenger that requires a whole additional car, then the costs really go up, and then decline on a per passenger basis as the load fills the car; until the next ratchet in costs.
Statistically, the breakdown on subsidized passenger operations tends to show higher absolute losses for larger numbers of passengers moved because such "ratchets" are averaged and, as well, higher passenger numbers often argue for higher rather than lower subsidies as fares are adjusted, in subsidized scenarios, to attract more passengers rather than fully cover expenses.
Enjoy
Paul
garyla wrote:I don't necessarily agree with James J. Hill on this one (and I mean no offense here, either), but isn't he the man who said:"The passenger train is like the male teat, neither useful nor ornamental" ?
I don't necessarily agree with James J. Hill on this one (and I mean no offense here, either), but isn't he the man who said:
"The passenger train is like the male teat, neither useful nor ornamental" ?
trans logis wrote: This Missoulian article could be a discussion topic for public policy students. Back in 1970, the federal government decided to subsidize passenger trains. Not surprisingly, in the 30+ years since then, Amtrak train service has become intertwined with the economies it serves, to the point that towns like Havre almost depend on it. Can the federal government today just pull the plug on these Amtrak trains and walk away, causing economic shocks to small towns like Shelby or Whitefish, Montana? Is that morally wrong? Even if the Amtrak Empire Builder was a mistake to begin with, can the government justly walk away on the grounds that it was a mistake, and as a result cause havoc with state economies? Or, as Colin Powell says, if you break a state, do you own it?I think the federal government has a moral obligation at this point to maintain the train service. And if they do insist on cutting it, then they owe towns like Havre some kind of mitigation for the economic injury.
This Missoulian article could be a discussion topic for public policy students.
Back in 1970, the federal government decided to subsidize passenger trains. Not surprisingly, in the 30+ years since then, Amtrak train service has become intertwined with the economies it serves, to the point that towns like Havre almost depend on it.
Can the federal government today just pull the plug on these Amtrak trains and walk away, causing economic shocks to small towns like Shelby or Whitefish, Montana? Is that morally wrong? Even if the Amtrak Empire Builder was a mistake to begin with, can the government justly walk away on the grounds that it was a mistake, and as a result cause havoc with state economies? Or, as Colin Powell says, if you break a state, do you own it?
I think the federal government has a moral obligation at this point to maintain the train service. And if they do insist on cutting it, then they owe towns like Havre some kind of mitigation for the economic injury.
Hmmm......don't know about that. I spent a lot of time around the Hi-Line, and if I'm understanding the jist of this article (wrote from a town that has absolutely nothing in common with Havre, etc.), it was locals riding the train from point a-b in northern Montana.
If so, it'd probably be cheaper for the govt. to buy all the people there a new car, and pay the entire operating expenses for said cars each year, than to keep funding Amtrak for the same function :)
Lots of land, not many people.
alphas wrote: ... or maybe the subsidized train ran off the bus company.
... or maybe the subsidized train ran off the bus company.
Well, that's an interesting notion to consider.
One question that comes to mind is the statement there's no bus service. Bus service really came into existed to serve the less traveled routes where there was not enough business for trains. So if bus service, especially locally owned bus service (note: locally owned bus service is not the same thing as local bus service) doesn't exist, that could mean either one of three things: the volume wasn't there anyway (hard to believe with the ridership numbers quoted), the buses couldn't make a profit (still somewhat hard to believe because of the ridership numbers quoted), or maybe the subsidized train ran off the bus company. Anyone who's more familiar with the history care to comment?
As for the talk about subsidy cutbacks for the smaller airports, that's happening in a lot of states. Just not enough Federal money to go around. In PA, they have quietly decided to concentrate almost all new construction and improvement monies on the 7 busiest airports although they keep enough funding to some of the smaller ones so they have at least a few scheduled flights. Partially, it is due to new roads making it easier to get to more distant but larger airports.
People talked about good and bad trips on the Empire Builder. I had one good one, one not so good one.
The good one was a West bound trip in Winter time. I had a sleeping compartment on the left side. The windy, snowy plains of Northern Montana were an impressive sight as we zipped along. The coulees we crossed were amazing too. Enjoyed that trip quite a bit.
The not so good trip was also a West bound. Again I had a sleeping compartment. Due to a problem in the Cascade mountains, the train ended in Spokane and we had to take the bus the rest of the way. It was not much fun to give up my bed in Spokane in the middle of the night, and transfer to a cramped bus and try to sleep with my knees in my face.
A friend had a weather-related incident on this train too. His train was held in Havre for at least a day (maybe longer) during a period of high winds in the Northern Rockies.
MichaelSol wrote: trans logis wrote: Can the federal government today just pull the plug on these Amtrak trains and walk away, causing economic shocks to small towns like Shelby or Whitefish, Montana? Is that morally wrong? Even if the Amtrak Empire Builder was a mistake to begin with, can the government justly walk away on the grounds that it was a mistake, and as a result cause havoc with state economies? The Empire Builder was always a "mistake". Old Jim managed to build his railroad through "not much" for most of the route -- and so there was never any incentive for much development of air and highway transportation. The route of the EB is one of the last routes that, to this day, does not have an interstate highway alongside of it -- the old GN route just never had the people or industries to justify an Interstate routing -- with the result that the people who do live there are more dependent than most on the rail service. Always have been.The GN had one of the worst passenger operating ratios in the country for its pet train. You would be hard pressed to find a passenger train that lost more money. No doubt, GN dearly wished to part with it, but its relative importance to the country it passed through presented insurmountable political and public relations obstacles to pre-Amtrak abandonment and so John Budd soldiered bravely on under the guise that it was the "public face" of the GN, even as his investors complained that a plainer face would be cheaper to operate. The Empire Builder is one of the top five money losing LD trains for Amtrak. If it is valuable to them, would its passengers step forward and pay higher fares for the service?People do, indeed, become dependent on subsidies. Your question poses the interesting idea that, having been heavily subsidized for their train service, communities like Havre should be ... subsidized some more if the service ends? What are talk about the Empire Builder is one of Amtrak money making trains carried more than 500,000 people last year in 2007 and going up every year. What are you drinking MichaelSol.
trans logis wrote: Can the federal government today just pull the plug on these Amtrak trains and walk away, causing economic shocks to small towns like Shelby or Whitefish, Montana? Is that morally wrong? Even if the Amtrak Empire Builder was a mistake to begin with, can the government justly walk away on the grounds that it was a mistake, and as a result cause havoc with state economies?
Can the federal government today just pull the plug on these Amtrak trains and walk away, causing economic shocks to small towns like Shelby or Whitefish, Montana? Is that morally wrong? Even if the Amtrak Empire Builder was a mistake to begin with, can the government justly walk away on the grounds that it was a mistake, and as a result cause havoc with state economies?
The Empire Builder was always a "mistake".
The GN had one of the worst passenger operating ratios in the country for its pet train. You would be hard pressed to find a passenger train that lost more money. No doubt, GN dearly wished to part with it, but its relative importance to the country it passed through presented insurmountable political and public relations obstacles to pre-Amtrak abandonment and so John Budd soldiered bravely on under the guise that it was the "public face" of the GN, even as his investors complained that a plainer face would be cheaper to operate.
The Empire Builder is one of the top five money losing LD trains for Amtrak. If it is valuable to them, would its passengers step forward and pay higher fares for the service?
People do, indeed, become dependent on subsidies. Your question poses the interesting idea that, having been heavily subsidized for their train service, communities like Havre should be ... subsidized some more if the service ends?
MichaelSol wrote: trans logis wrote: Can the federal government today just pull the plug on these Amtrak trains and walk away, causing economic shocks to small towns like Shelby or Whitefish, Montana? Is that morally wrong? Even if the Amtrak Empire Builder was a mistake to begin with, can the government justly walk away on the grounds that it was a mistake, and as a result cause havoc with state economies? The Empire Builder was always a "mistake". Old Jim managed to build his railroad through "not much" for most of the route -- and so there was never any incentive for much development of air and highway transportation. The route of the EB is one of the last routes that, to this day, does not have an interstate highway alongside of it -- the old GN route just never had the people or industries to justify an Interstate routing -- with the result that the people who do live there are more dependent than most on the rail service. Always have been.The GN had one of the worst passenger operating ratios in the country for its pet train. You would be hard pressed to find a passenger train that lost more money. No doubt, GN dearly wished to part with it, but its relative importance to the country it passed through presented insurmountable political and public relations obstacles to pre-Amtrak abandonment and so John Budd soldiered bravely on under the guise that it was the "public face" of the GN, even as his investors complained that a plainer face would be cheaper to operate. The Empire Builder is one of the top five money losing LD trains for Amtrak. If it is valuable to them, would its passengers step forward and pay higher fares for the service?People do, indeed, become dependent on subsidies. Your question poses the interesting idea that, having been heavily subsidized for their train service, communities like Havre should be ... subsidized some more if the service ends?
There is a Chinese proverb that says something to the effect that, if you save a man's life, you are forever responsible for him. In a wierd sort of way, I see an analogy to your moral question. Just like you are responsible for allowing a man to perpetuate that was not supposed to, perhaps you--AKA the government--is responsible for looking after an entity that owes its continued existence to government perpetuation.
All that having been said, you have to wonder how far over the cliff we have to be before we start rethinking some of these subsidies.
I agree with Michael's statements. But, I sure liked those green on green passenger trains going through very beautiful country. Also, I though Havre was pretty cool when I stopped there.
Gabe
Ironically, the Empire Builder might being doing even better these days if it emulated the old GN Empire Builder.
Notwithstanding the name, these are not the same trains. The GN Empire Builder was run like a "name train" -- a first class operation. The current train that runs the same route is, depending on the day, the employee you have to deal with, and the food option you choose, run something like a very long, articulated Greyhound Bus. For someone who rode the Olympian Hiawatha, the North Coast Limited, and the Empire Builder -- the real one -- I ride the train because I can still remember what it was like to ride a real passenger train, I can vicariously enjoy the trip through those memories, and imagine that this train might someday measure up.
Dan
It is getting brutally expensive too, if you want sleeping accomodations. Taking the family to Glacier National Park this summer would cost almost as much as a 12 day Alaskan Cruise WITH six (6) land/rail day component...
Alaska sounds good to me...
LC
Actually, that was the worst trip I have ever been on. I rode it during the flood of 93. The train was detoured three times on the way home. I like 24 hours on a train as much as anyone. But, around 32 hours without a full bed, I could have done without seeing a train for a while.
This article from The Missoulian raises the question of the importance of Amtrak to Montanans, and to rural communities in general.
Quote: “If they were to cut that rail service,” she said, “it would be devastating to Havre. It would devastate the entire Hi-Line, really. There's no bus service here anymore, and more and more people are relying on Amtrak. We're train people more than ever.”
Full text of article: http://www.missoulian.com/articles/2008/02/11/news/local/news02.txt
trans logis
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.