Get rid or rethink Amtrak

[Junctionfan]

Maybe the government should keep a detailed and public record of Amtrak's spending so that management's pockets don't attract the funds like a magnet of greed........just a thought.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan

Does anybody here believe Amtrak should mothball the MHC and roadrailer equipment just in case they need it in the future?

I have to say yes personally because you never know when you get rid of something, it tends to come back and bite your butt. Then you have to spend all that money on buying all those Wabash Nationals and more 60 foot highcubes again. (not cheap)

Of course they should mothball the MHCs. At some point there may very well be a need for the service.
What else would they make troop sleepers out of?
Mitch

[AntonioFP45]

Futuremodal,

Good idea about the money going to the rail infrastructure owners.

The scenario: The freight railroads don't even want it due to the incredible amount of bueracratic red tape that would accompany the subsidy. Add to that the high costs of liability coverage for any passenger carrier. Inspite of the tragic Amtrak accidents of the past, the Sunset Limited's wreck in a Lousiana bayou has become the most "infamous" for helping to boost the skyrocketing prices of liability insurance. Not long after the wreck a number of rail tour operators around the U.S had to shutdown operations as their premiums shot through the roof.

Subsidizing the Class 1s and Class II railroads to support passenger rail may be a viable alternative, but basically it's a "Thanks, but definetly No Thanks we haul freight" atmosphere. Who can blame them.

[tree68]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan

Can the U.S government fire management?

Certainly. And the voters can fire management's bosses.

[Junctionfan]

Can the U.S government fire management?

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by dfwguy

am curious. So many of you are anti-Amtrak but appear to have no problem with the US Govt. bailing out domestic airlines time after time after time. If Delta files soon -do you realize that aprox. 60% of all US carriers will be under control of the courts (bankruptcy) ...Lastly-it's interesting that US Air -the latest to get a govt hand-out is in a battleground state

I'm not sure any of us have stated or infered in any way that we have "no problem with the US Govt. bailing out domestic airlines". On the contrary, I oppose these bailouts, since the problems of Delta and other carriers are simply that they can't or won't compete with the cut rate carriers like Jet Blue and Southwest. BTW, if any of these carriers go under, it is doubtful the Govt. will be coerced into forming a "national air carrier" aka "AmAir" ir something to that effect.

You people need to realize that comparing the subsidies for highways and airports with the Amtrak subsidy is like comparing apples to buggy whips. Amtrak is an operating company, highways and airports are infrastructure. You subsidize infrastructure because ostensibly it is open to anyone who is qualified to operate on it or over it. You do not subsidize operating companies, because to do so is to unfairly aid one operating company over private competitors.

If we want to parenthetically "equalize" the playing field among rails, roads, waterways, and airports, there would first have to be some kind of separation of rail infrastructure from rail operating companies, then allow the rail infrastructure it's "fair share" of taxes/user fees/etc to level the playing field, then sit back and see what happens. I'm not sure if there is an objective way to quantify a "fair share" for rail infrastructure in comparison to roads or waterways. Maybe a $0.50 or so per gallon fuel tax on rail operating companies to pay for maintenance and expansion of the rail infrastructure (rather than a ton/mile fee).

In other words, if Amtrak's current subsidy went straight to the rail infrastructure owners rather than to Amtrak itself, things would become more equalized and the comparisons of subsidies among roads, airports, and rails would be more apt. That way, it could all be classified as "user fees" and then we'll see if that support for Amtrak over highways and airlines really exists.

[Anonymous]

Ladies and gentlemen of the forum: I have really enjoyed this thread. Things are being said here that I have heard many people speak of for what's now going on twenty years. Finally the place has surfaced and the time correct for these matters tobe heard. Quite frankly the time is close that this discussion will be heard in many wide and diverse places as well. I only hope that the moderate civility of this thread can hold in those arenas. An alternative, addition or enhansement to the current transportaion system will be needed sooner than later. Weather it be by conventional rail or by other mode not yet discovered is yet to be seen. Yet the need is real, try traveling most anywhere on an interstate highway without being crowded out or pushed around by an 18 wheeler or trying to get a flight without going through the hours long check in and if that were not enough and to drive the point a bit further THE PRICE OF OIL CLOSED AT $ 47.00 THE BARRELL today (9/21). This time of our lives looks a lot like what Winston Churchill once said about it not being the beginning of the end, but rather the end of the beginning, whatever that ends up being we will just have to wait and see. In closeing, it is always a pleasure to hear someone say something better than I could have imagined writing myself. Thanks for letting me sit in, even if I don't agree with everything I read.[2c][^]

[Anonymous]

am curious. So many of you are anti-Amtrak but appear to have no problem with the US Govt. bailing out domestic airlines time after time after time. If Delta files soon -do you realize that aprox. 60% of all US carriers will be under control of the courts (bankruptcy) ...Lastly-it's interesting that US Air -the latest to get a govt hand-out is in a battleground state

[Anonymous]

Thanks for the feedback. I expect there are regional preferences for rail passenger service that are stronger on the East Coast and the various pockets of Urbania throughout the U.S., and less in those areas in which current service is either spotty, inconvenient, or non existant. If true, that would beg the observation that rail passenger services should be primarily burdened on regional transporation authorities rather than the nation at large.

I'm not sure you can trust the validity of a poll by an outfit such as the Washington Post, at least any more so than a similar poll by a more mainstream news source. I expect that poll reflects the regional bias of the NEC, not a true representation of the nation at large (George Will's opine notwithstanding). There is a vast disconnect between extrapolating the results of such a poll to the nation at large when the market share numbers we've discussed do not validate that level of support. Like it's been said before, if there was legitimate national support for Amtrak, it would be reflected in the more localized support areas (state funding).

Regarding highway congestion, isn't that also a localized phenomenon related mostly to commuting characteristics? If so, how could increase a national passenger rail budget help this situation? More LD trains won't help, nor even medium distance trains. The short distance train corridors are more apt for transit concepts, not national passenger rail. In short, I don't see a correlation between increasing funding for Amtrak and relief from highway congestion.

[Anonymous]

Some points on public support for Amtrak...

Singling out Amtrak assumes taxpayers do not want to invest in passenger rail.

Polls consistently show that Americans support federal funding for a national rail passenger system.

A Washington Post poll taken July 26-30, 2002 found an overwhelming majority of the public - 71% - support for continued or increased federal funding of Amtrak.

Conservative Columnist George Will, in a June 4, 2003, column, said the poll indicated that "support for Amtrak is strong among all regions, ages, education levels and income groups."

A CNN/Gallup/USA Today poll conducted June 21-23, 2002 -- near the height of Amtrak's funding crisis -- found 70% support for continued federal funding for Amtrak. Votes in Congress have demonstrated time and again that taxpayers' duly elected representatives agree.

The above from NARP - The National Association of Railroad Passengers.

[Junctionfan]

Does anybody here believe Amtrak should mothball the MHC and roadrailer equipment just in case they need it in the future?

I have to say yes personally because you never know when you get rid of something, it tends to come back and bite your butt. Then you have to spend all that money on buying all those Wabash Nationals and more 60 foot highcubes again. (not cheap)

[Overmod]

Keep playing Devil's advocate, Dave; if better answers can't be honed, it'll at least get the complacent thinking a bit more.

There is no doubt that shutting down all passenger rail would have a dramatic effect on many hundreds of thousands of American lives. Ask any Manhattanite who's had to endure a subway strike (although I greatly enjoyed watching our Columbia shuttle driver run rush-hour traffic on 5th Avenue like a taxicab in a big MCI 8-wheel bus!) or anything that interrupts commuter service.

Of course, you meant Amtrak services -- here again, you have to rule out the NEC and all those little regional rail services like Trinity and VRE which have demonstrated an increasing utility which could not possibly be achieved using existing road facilities.

Naturally, there are a very large number of Americans -- perhaps an absolute majority -- who could care less if Amtrak's choo-choos shuffled off to Buffalo or wherever they go. But you'll find a substantial number who, for whatever reasons, prefer to use trains than to go by other modes. Would they find an alternative if there were no trains? Almost certainly -- the car, the dog, shuttle or car services, even if they didn't like to fly. There was a service in Wilkes-Barre in the 1970s that would provide a driver for however many days you wanted to go somewhere in your own car (if you paid his expenses plus a reasonable salary) and another one that would let you use car and driver by the day or week on similar terms. I remember a statistic in Trains sometime in the early '70s to the effect that Amtrak's subsidies at some point were such that it would have been cheaper for the Government to have bought everyone who rode the train a brand-new Volkswagen. It may be likely that the vast majority of riders, offered such an alternative, would take the car rather than ride trains.

I tend to disagree with those who think that Amtrak has value as a training exercise for the future. I think that it would be perfectly easy to start up or expand passenger railroading as a system 'from scratch', whether or not you mothballed equipment to cut capital expenses or not, and both future technology and contract manufacturing will only reduce the cost further. It would be traumatic to lots of the folks working for Amtrak, who care about providing performance and customer service to people ... but that isn't an objective financial reason for finding the best use of Government money. I also think that conditions that would lead large numbers of Americans to HAVE to take the train would also result in America being, or at least seeming, a very different place than it is today, and the kind of train service 'acceptable' in that world would be difficult at best and probably useless to predict.

Having said that, I do think that having a non-driving alternative to LD travel is important. Greyhound buses are NOT it, even if you ran the seat tracking out to where I have enough legroom not to have cramps. Airline service is too susceptible to various forms of interdiction without advance warning. Which leaves us what? Additional H.323 videoconferencing, with meetings led by a ridiculous face on a TV set? Don't make me laugh, and I've seen my share of laughable teleconferencing over the years since we did the first tech demonstrations at Cornell in the '80s.

Perhaps a full and effective "national" network is, and may remain, beyond Amtrak's means to achieve in a financially 'responsible' manner without subsidies. But I would expect that there are a large number of opportunities where trains make sense, and Government policies can be furthered by having trains for, or in, those opportunities. (In addition to which the capital equipment already procured by the Government for Amtrak has little or no practical resale value to private entities which are already more interested in opportunity uses for capital, so a case could be made that using it even for incremental marginal revenue is preferable to letting charges pile up on its finance, security, and storage if not running...)

[Junctionfan]

Is there rail service of any kind at LAX?

[CG9602]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

Two observations: Andrew Seldon uses the term "load factor" rather loosely. He is using it in reference to passenger miles per trip, when it would be more appropriate to use that term as a ratio of available space to "cargo", cargo being passengers, and use yearly figures rather than per trip figures. Using his logic, a LD train carrying 50 people 1000 miles per trip has a greater "load factor" than a shorthaul train carrying 400 people 100 miles per trip (50 x 1000 = 50,000 passenger miles while 400 x 100 = 40,000 passenger miles). Of course, the shorthaul trains have a greater cycyle frequency, and I would suspect the annual passenger miles totals are far greater for SD than LD. The truth is, LD's have poor utilization compared to SD's when far fewer people are using the relatively same amount of "cargo" space.

Also if interest, Mr. Seldon also states the fact that Amtrak's market share is less than 1%, and he's a passenger rail advocate, not a right wing extremist rail basher! Hmmmmmm!

Where there is a strong Amtrak presense in the transport marktplace (for example, the NEC & NYC - Albany), Amtrak has at times dominated the airlines and offers a significant alternative to car travel. Amtrak has, in the past, carried as much as 50 % of all non-auto travel between NYC & D.C. This includes newark/JFK/La Guardia & Reagan Nat'l/Dulles, as well as stations and traffic as far south as Fredricksburg, VA. As travel volume grows in the future, the construction of airport & highways will become more and more expensive, and more impractical. This could make the demand for passenger rail service all the greater. Amtrak, right now, is the only entity that the freight RR's allow to operate over their mains, and they are strongly opposed to any other operators. Amtrak's small market share is a result of being underfunded and undercapitalized to begin with. Where Amtrak offers several frequnecies per day, they are a significant player in the market place.

[AntonioFP45]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by daveklepper

The reason it has not been done is no Administration, neither Democratic nor Republican, has truly faced the fact that the USA, like any civilized nation, needs a strong passenger rail system .

WHY? What evidence beyond feelgoodism and wishful thinking supports that contention?

"Feelgoodism"? Wow!, based on personal experience I thought it was more like "highway gridlock" and deteriorating air service that goes with that contention. Unless it's an extreme emergency, I won't step on board an airliner. My last flight on a Southwest 737 was far rougher than an old Volkswagon Beetle speeding down a Georgia clay road! Instead of "Arriving Refreshed" I arrived with a giant headache!

A lot of complex bantering going on here with statistics being hurled around for and against Amtrak. $30 Billion in 3 decades? That's spent in one year subsidizing the airline industry! What are we moaning about????????

Fact remains: Inspite of the critics (including the ones on this thread), and the hostility of railroads like the UP, ridership is growing and many of the riders ARE NOT railfans either. In spite of Norm Mineta's and John McCain's stances, the public in general is willing to support Amtrak if the service were expanded that would include faster schedules and greater frequency.

Unfortuantely as seen here Amtrak simply has too many enemies. The "boys" in Washington have gotten to be "experts" at ignoring the wishes of the majority.

I'm looking forward to my rail trip as I have a training seminar to attend (Oh geez! I guess that's a business trip!) Hopefully the Silver Star will still be stopping at Tampa Union Station in 2005.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal
Mr. Seldon also states the fact that Amtrak's market share is less than 1%, and he's a passenger rail advocate, not a right wing extremist rail basher! Hmmmmmm!

Selden is a respected passenger rail authority. Wendall Cox isn't.

Cox hates rail period - high-speed, LD, short corridors, commuters. Again, do a web search on him. He's reactionary to any type of rail progress.
He will always find something wrong with rail in ANY form.

Agreed, right-wing may not have been the best term to use here.

I didn't dispute the 1% market share contention. I disputed the assertion that Amtrak isn't available to 97% of the population when train service is available to 85% of the public.

I also objected to the taking that 1% out of context. By only focusing on such a small number, and omitting the fact that air service is not much greater - like 12% - that's distorting of the facts.

The contention that since Amtrak only has such-and-such a market share, it isn't worth improviing to gain additional market share is what I'm arguing against.

[Junctionfan]

Now for some more hypothetical questions to broaden my understanding.

As far as the "man-made obstacles" are concerned, is it possible for Amtrak to build an elevated line like in Japan, or/and could they go underneath the ground like Boston has (or is in the process of completing) with their highways?

Also, if BNSF and UP own their own rails, do they own the space that is above it? As long as BNSF and UP have the clearances to run their excess height trains, can Amtrak build an elevated line over top of the railroads'?

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Overmod

Dave, you and I both know that there is SUBSTANTIAL evidence beyond 'feelgoodism and wishful thinking' that would support at least ongoing planning for a reasonable and strong passenger rail system.

Just because there isn't an immediate market for French-style TGV new lines going everywhere, at high implicit taxpayer levels, doesn't mean there aren't areas where 'proper' (note I do not define this term here, intentionally) levels of service shouldn't be given a guarantee of existence until the 'take rate' comes up to cover them.

If I can be allowed to play Devil's advocate for a moment, what specific evidence is there that a nation such as the U.S. "needs" some form of a passenger rail service? Or to turn the question around, what would happen to the quality of the lives of average U.S. citizens of all passenger rail systems were suddenly discontinued? Is there an alternative available to commuters, tourists, et al? Would there be any impact on the nation's GDP? Or would the impacts be more regionalized?

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by CG9602

Here are some more links, for the Forum members' edification:
http://www.unitedrail.org/pubs/corridors.htm
http://www.unitedrail.org/pubs/nrhs/index.html

These articles shoud provide a couple of points that are relevant to this post.

Two observations: Andrew Seldon uses the term "load factor" rather loosely. He is using it in reference to passenger miles per trip, when it would be more appropriate to use that term as a ratio of available space to "cargo", cargo being passengers, and use yearly figures rather than per trip figures. Using his logic, a LD train carrying 50 people 1000 miles per trip has a greater "load factor" than a shorthaul train carrying 400 people 100 miles per trip (50 x 1000 = 50,000 passenger miles while 400 x 100 = 40,000 passenger miles). Of course, the shorthaul trains have a greater cycyle frequency, and I would suspect the annual passenger miles totals are far greater for SD than LD. The truth is, LD's have poor utilization compared to SD's when far fewer people are using the relatively same amount of "cargo" space.

Also if interest, Mr. Seldon also states the fact that Amtrak's market share is less than 1%, and he's a passenger rail advocate, not a right wing extremist rail basher! Hmmmmmm!

[Junctionfan]

The only way that I can see "open access" to work is if the governments (state and federal) make the railroads do as they're told by changing the constitution and than pass some kind of bi-partisan legislation or trying to claim eminent domain in court. Neither option is easy or appealing from what I have heard.

[Overmod]

Dave, you and I both know that there is SUBSTANTIAL evidence beyond 'feelgoodism and wishful thinking' that would support at least ongoing planning for a reasonable and strong passenger rail system.

Just because there isn't an immediate market for French-style TGV new lines going everywhere, at high implicit taxpayer levels, doesn't mean there aren't areas where 'proper' (note I do not define this term here, intentionally) levels of service shouldn't be given a guarantee of existence until the 'take rate' comes up to cover them.

[Overmod]

Ohlemeier, it is NOT particularly unthinkable for an airplane to run 'the stops of the Southwest Chief'. I remember riding a Delta flight that made 'mail stops' at a whole bunch of little stops across northern Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama on its way into Atlanta; a relatively cost-effective way to provide air service (both passenger and cargo) to lots of little communities that could never afford a more regular service. Hub-and-spoke with major regionals at the hubs works quite nicely at airline-jet speeds. It would NOT work with Amtrak...

Naturally the aircraft used can't be of any great size if the airports involved are unimproved. Something quite interesting was that we were playing tag with a couple of lines of thunderstorms .. was interesting to watch the crew deciding how long to wait for the cells to move on before takeoff, and deciding on the turns and VOR path navigation to follow (dates it, doesn't it?) to avoid the locations of the weather on the way to the next puddle.

It becomes markedly less effective to run this kind of service with small airplanes though, especially 'feeder' turboprops which might otherwise seem like just the thing to do cost-cutting. In a way, this mirrors an implicit argument regarding 'minimum standards' for LD Amtrak service -- a couple of SPVs are NOT going to cut it, regardless of how limited the off-peak demand might be ... but it might be interesting to see how many amenities might be usefully 'modularized' into the space inside the carbodies at a given load factor, for higher per capita fare potential, and there is CLEARLY a minimum size, frequency, and timing that apply to make the service attractive.

But connections to connections will not be a workable solution for point-to-point LD travel, no matter how 'possible' it was back in the glory days of the Pullman heavyweights. The world has changed since then. In large part this is reflected in the automobile's share of the trip market, much of which might not be truly reflected in the statistics that are used...

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by daveklepper

If you break up Amtrak or privatize it whatever, you will lose the agreements that permit some economies in Amtrak running over freight railroads.

Again, whose to say that a federal oversight board would not be able to maintain access rights to private freight lines using the same powers Amtrak is granted now? Is there any difference to the freight railroads if online passenger trains are being operated by Amtrak or by some other entity?

I find it interesting that some of the people who are the most vociferous in their opposition to Open Access find no fault with Amtrak having that same privilege. Ideally, the implementation of Open Access policies would be the easiest solution to allowing private passenger rail services to thrive. Outside of that obvious solution, there will always be a gray area regarding the rights and privileges ascribed to Amtrak and whether those access rights are transferable to some degree.

[Overmod]

The FRA has identified quite a few likely or possible corridors, both for passenger rail in general and for high-speed service. While I can't take the time now to look up the references, you can get quite a bit of useful information by browsing the fra.dot.gov site... that's where I got my information in the first place.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by daveklepper

The reason it has not been done is no Administration, neither Democratic nor Republican, has truly faced the fact that the USA, like any civilized nation, needs a strong passenger rail system .

WHY? What evidence beyond feelgoodism and wishful thinking supports that contention?

[CG9602]

Here are some more links, for the Forum members' edification:
http://www.unitedrail.org/pubs/corridors.htm
http://www.unitedrail.org/pubs/nrhs/index.html

These articles shoud provide a couple of points that are relevant to this post.

[Clutch Cargo]

I Don`t know.
The Twin Cities (MSP) to Duluth (Dul) with a stop in St Cloud MN. would be nice. :-)

Two trains per day, to connect with the Eastbound and Westbound Empire Builder.

Kurt

[CG9602]

Junctionfan:
Here are a few examples of corridors, in some cases served by only one single train per day: CHI - KCS, CHI - CIN, CHI - MKE - MSN - MSP, & CHI - Omaha, NE. See midwesthsr.org.
Also search for "Debunking Common Myths About Amtrak."

[Junctionfan]

I can't think of any other corridor type ventures Amtrak could capitalize on that wouldn't meet any possible commuter competition. Does anybody know of any more corridors?

[Junctionfan]

QUOTE: Originally posted by M.W. Hemphill

Andrew: On some of the California lines -- notably the current corridor routes used by Amtrak, Caltrain, and Metrolink, 90-mph speeds would be achievable with investment in grade separations, signaling, crossovers, and additional main track. Additional capacity will require some or all of this work. But the higher speed wouldn't gain much except on perhaps the San Joaquin, as there are too many natural or man-made obstacles that limit speed.

Beyond 90 mph, the most cost-effective solution would be to leap to an all-new alignment ala TGV or Shinkansen.

If you wanted to connect Northern and Southern California, or Northern California with Oregon, with rail passenger service that has better speed or capacity than at present, then substantial investment would be required. At that point, the TGV-type solution is probably the only reasonable one. California is thinking of doing just that.

How do they plan to address the earthquakes and how they would interupt service and compromise safety?

(by the way, how am I doing with my questions?)