Get rid or rethink Amtrak

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton
[brAs a member of the Amtrak Board of Directors, I would think Mineta and all the other directors have the legal right to see any document involved in the business and I would be extremely surprised if they or anyone else with a right to know were to claim that they were not getting information needed for proper oversight.

Good point. Back in 1979, when the Carter Administration ordered Amtrak to cut its routes - for political reasons - not ridership - , one congressman from Oklahoma, disappointed that Amtrak was gutting its 7th most ridden LD train, the Lone STar, which ran from CHI to OKC to Texas, tried to obtain ridership data on the train.

Amtrak management at the time wanted to charge him $800 (or maybe that's what they wanted to charge a private individual). The congressman nearly had to sue Amtrak to get the data which, among other things, showed thousands of potential riders turned away because Amtrak had cut the trains coaches to only one or two, therefore limiting the number of seats available and thus showing more losses. It appeared Amtrak management AT THAT TIME wanted to "prove" the train wasn't doing well - like the private freight RRs did in the 60s - by creating conditions that led to bad results.

The SP did the same with the Sunset by removing sleepers and dining service. No meals for a 2-3 day trip. How many people would want to ride that kind of train?

So, I'm in agreement that Amtrak isn't perfect.
It does need reform but not the kind of "reform" that so-called reformers want - train discontinuances.

Every time they've cut trains, ridership has suffered and costs have increased.
Just look at the Pioneer and Desert Wind. Two popular trains that were cut only to save costs.
They ended up costing the system more.

Amtrak management knows that now and its CEO- who used to work for ATSF - is making needed reforms. Allow him to do his job.

[gabe]

Parting thoughts from John Q Voter:

Although I will certainly respond to new posts on this topic, this will be the last two cents I add to it.

First and formost, thank you everyone for educating me so well. I have printed out the entire list of responses and plan on reading it more than once. I do not think I could have learned more had I taken a college course on Amtrak.

Second, I find many of your arguments persuasive. I don't think we should get rid of Amtrak. I never really did; my contention all along has been that I don't think the benefits of getting rid of Amtrak have been seriously and realistically explored. That statement does not mean that I think we should get rid of Amtrak.

Finally, the area I find the keeping Amtrak/increasing Amtrak funding arguments to be the weekest (not to be confused with wrong or implausible) is that few start out by defending the premise that if Amtrak funding were increased and Amtrak service improved: (1) more people would ride Amtrak or (2) the continued or increased funding would net a better or equal return than highway or airport subsidies.

Both of these premises seem to be assumed by most responses. Everyone--I think correctly--argues the faults of Amtrak aren't Amtrak's fault and Amtrak can be improved if . . . Few attempt to establi***hese premisies before making such arguments.

As a voter--rather than a railfan--I want to be convinced that spending 1 billion on Amtrak is at least as good of an investment as spending the same amount on highway or airport subsidies and that increased Amtrak spending will equate to increased ridership. I am not contending either of these premisies cannot be established. But, if we want to keep Amtrak around, I think we need to direct our arguments toward such premises. That is what I think taxpayers want as a return on their investment. Not a profitable Amtrak, but an Amtrak that Americans use and receive a benefit from.

Some would argue that if Amtrak were FREE to ride, kept a perfect schedule, and always ran at 80 mph, people would still take their car for short distances and fly long distances.

I am surprised no one has made the argument that we need to keep Amtrak around because, even though neither of these premisies can be established at the present point in time, it will be useful to have an established rail service to improve and sink money into in case population should increase and fuel decrease--making airline travel and highway travel more difficult. In other words, Amtrak is a long-term investment that is not expected to pay dividends of riderships until twenty years from now.

In any event, thank you all. You have certainly enlightened me on many aspects of Amtrak operation.

Gabe Hawkins

[jeaton]

While it isn't a government plan, Amtrak has laid out 5 year plans focusing on the objective to get the railroad in "good working order". These plans are on the Amtrak web site along with the other reports that I mentioned. This follows Dave Gunn's promise make the organization "transparent". To that extent he has suceeded. Although he is touting the Adimistration's $900 million funding for FY 2005, even Transportation Secretary Mineta agrees that that Gunn has the numbers right.

As a member of the Amtrak Board of Directors, I would think Mineta and all the other directors have the legal right to see any document involved in the business and I would be extremely surprised if they or anyone else with a right to know were to claim that they were not getting information needed for proper oversight.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by RudyRockvilleMD

All of the long distance, intercity passenger trains should be discontinued because their schedules are frequently slow and inconvenient so they are rarely suitable for business travelers. Their ridership has been
declining between fiscal years 1991 and 2001 - the last year for which I have figures - and they incur substantial losses. According to an article in the March 19, 2001 US News and World Report and a General Accounting
Office (now General Accountability Office) audit for fiscal year 2001 many of these trains continue to incur substantial losses per passenger. Although Amtrak’s ridership reached record levels - 25 million passengers -
(That is about equal to the number of passengers who pass through the three Washington, DC airports in one year) my guess is most of the ridership increase is in short-to-medium haul services - the Northeast Corridor, the
Empire Corridor or the West Coast. Some of the long distance passenger services might be converted into privately operated ‘land cruise trains,” and the Auto Train is a possible candidate.

I respectfully disagree and the public's ridership of Amtrak - REPEATING - NOW AT RECORD LEVELS - shows the weakness in that argument.

It doesn't matter that the three Washington airports handle the same amount of passenger Amtrak handles. Amtrak, by design, has never been given the resources it deserves. Most cities such as Denver and Dallas, have only one train a day.

railfans should know, trains aren't planes.

Imagine a single airplane trying to serve all the markets the Southwest Chief serves between Chicago, Kansas City, Albuquerque, Flagstaff (Grand Canyon) and LA.

Imagine one plane taking off and landing at all those cities plus Topeka, Lawrence, Dodge City, Garden CIty, Lamar, LaJunta, Trinidad, Raton, etc.

Train travel isn't just getting from point A to point B. Amtrak's LD ridership is greater in its intermediate cities - such as from Topeka to Flagstaff - than CHI to LA, though some ride the entire route of course.

Since automobiles handle 85% of U.S. transportation, should we then not fund air service, since a vast majority of people prefer driving?

We shouldn't also fund waterway improvements or port construction since the 4 million people that take cruises every year pales compared to train and bus ridership. Right?

Your assertion that LD trains shouldn't run because they're slow (due to freight RRs mostly) and not suited for business travel is also off the mark.

Most travel in the U.S. over 100 miles is personal, not business. Therefore, business travel, while important, should not be the determining factor.

Business travelers receive so many subsidies in terms of airport construction, security costs, the FAA, etc.

LD trains are also NOT LAND CRUISES. This is another myth that has been repeated ad infinitum.

Visit any major terminal and look for yourself how many travelers are there for a cruise. You'll see lots of college students, disabled, elderly and others.

That data you quoted is also very old. Judging a service by its market share only points to its potential and need for improvement, such as more equipment and routes, not fewer. More trains = more ridership. Almost everywhere new train service has been added, it has resulted in higher ridership levels. With more riders, you have less costs and therefore a more efficient system.

Amtrak's critics want to trim they system to disjointed corridors that also have high costs. THose corridors will require more subsidies as well since each of those trains won't be able to share station costs, such as CHI and STL, with the other LD trains.

[Junctionfan]

QUOTE: Originally posted by M.W. Hemphill

Andrew: Overmod is referring to improvement of existing routes. Japan and European high-speed railroads built all new ones on all-new alignments, with extensive tunnelling and viaduct construction. The cost is extraordinary; as I recall, when Japan was extending its high-speed system to the northern island of Hokkaido, their per capita consumption of cement was twice that of the U.S.

Thankyou for the clarification.

Would the cost of building new lines for this service be cost effective enough or would it be better to just maybe add tracks where it's necessary but keep the service with traditional F-59s etc?

[Junctionfan]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Overmod

If you've been to California, you'll know the difference between southern California operations and northern ops. None of the mountain railroading is suitable for particularly high-speed corridor track rebuilding, even if routes could be used that didn't have freight congestion. I think the Talgo speeds represent about the fastest effective prospective timings you could reasonably expect.

I haven't researched the traffic pairs recently, but a substantial amount of the 'need for speed' involved traffic between, say, Silicon Valley and the Seattle area. Look at the track mileage involved, then at the topo profile of the lines between those points, then at the speeds with which modern trains could traverse such lines -- including the maximum comfortable speed for sleepers on the Starlight services.

Enhanced passenger service in Southern California, or even on hilly stuff like the Altamont trains, is scarcely representative of what would be involved in a "Pacific corridor" of any substantial length north of where the mountains close in.

What does some of the European countries and Japan do? They have tons of hill and mountains; what makes them different than a possible Pacific Corridor?

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Overmod

Consensus from the real-roaders, please:

Would it help, or hurt, if the present "deficit reduction tax" revenue railroads are charged on diesel fuel were redirected into an Amtrak support fund? Perhaps made retroactive back to the initiation date?

It would help, but it would be like saving your loose change to help pay the mortgage. There's not much there, there. The RR fuel tax total is only in the tens of millions which is why the RRs don't howl too loudly about it.

[Overmod]

If you've been to California, you'll know the difference between southern California operations and northern ops. None of the mountain railroading is suitable for particularly high-speed corridor track rebuilding, even if routes could be used that didn't have freight congestion. I think the Talgo speeds represent about the fastest effective prospective timings you could reasonably expect.

I haven't researched the traffic pairs recently, but a substantial amount of the 'need for speed' involved traffic between, say, Silicon Valley and the Seattle area. Look at the track mileage involved, then at the topo profile of the lines between those points, then at the speeds with which modern trains could traverse such lines -- including the maximum comfortable speed for sleepers on the Starlight services.

Enhanced passenger service in Southern California, or even on hilly stuff like the Altamont trains, is scarcely representative of what would be involved in a "Pacific corridor" of any substantial length north of where the mountains close in.

[Junctionfan]

This is strickly commentary but you might find something you like.

Amtrak could run a North West Corridor or Pacific Corridor (whatever you want to call it)

There is enough San Joaquins, Capitol Corridors and Pacific Surfliners to warrant it. The only thing that bothers me is how Amtrak would address the shakey ground of California as it along with other parts around the San Andreas Fault, is prone to earthquakes. I believe the answer comes from Japan. Japan is another country that is prone to earthquakes and yet they still run their bullet trains with little problem. I don't know if it is the track and roadbed design or the actual train design itself but it seems to work.

With such a dense populated area such as the Pacific Coast, extra trains would be no problem and ridership wouldn't be difficult to get as long as Congress can guarantee the funding so Amtrak can guarantee the service. There is a problem however that would be interesting to address. What would Amtrak have to do for track? If you have ever seen some of the UP and BNSF routes that they take, conjestion would be difficult if the new Amtrak service went high-speed. I can't say if adding track to existing lines or building brand new lines would inevitably be the answer but I don't have any reason to believe that Amtrak wouldn't be recieved warmly by the riders if they could put the effort into the service.

[Overmod]

JBToy, planning and policy at county and State level is usually very different from Federal. I believe I said that, but may not have made it clear. One of the points of the old civil-service reforms in the Progressive era was to 'decouple' line agencies from staff agencies, and ensure that long-term administration of Government activities were NOT subject to short-term whims of the people or parties in power. One wonders how much effective 'long-term policy' is actually implemented by the 'lifers' in DOT, FRA and various other Federal agencies ... but there's absolutely no such continuity on the side that debates and allocates the FUNDING for Amtrak implementation -- that's Congress, and as I said (I think correctly) there can be no reliable effective long-term planning with strict accountability (without which any plan is just a bunch of politicians' promises) for that body as currently constituted.

I also think that California is scarcely representative of most states with regard to passenger rail -- it's been made very clear that enhanced rail service is both desirable and necessary in absolute terms, which makes it 'embraceable' by successive generations of elected politicians. They also have the substantial tax base necessary to implement fairly large capital projects without strain, and to remediate them if unanticipated problems arise during implementation (Hollywood Boulevard subway, anyone?)

One of the shrewd points about the Interstate Highway development was the method of determination for funding -- they made early arrangements to make funding proportional to demand and increase in demand, and decoupled it as far as possible from later political temptations to 'dip' into HTF revenues for purposes not connected to "highways." You will have to admit that it's easier to conduct long-range planning ... or to justify it to elected "decision makers" as they march through their terms in office ... if you have the money to make the steps of your plan workable, and both a track record and experience in doing the steps of your plan.

Not that Federal agencies don't try. I didn't mean to say, or really imply, that long-range planning isn't conducted at Federal agencies, or that considerable effort and time may not be expended on it. Just that when there's a change of representation, all the 'previous' planning can be tossed, and new planning is then conducted.

Tell me what the operational definition of range is for a 20-year plan that's extensively revised, both in scope and detail, every 4 to 8 years ... or that's subject to 'sunset' review in a political atmosphere, especially when there are budget deficits to be tossed around in election years.

If you've done any investment banking, you'll know the value, and in some cases even the absolute methodological 'integrity', of pro-forma financials. Five-year projections of revenue from new business growth are useful more as indicators that people have thought about details and understand how finance works than as actual predictions about how the business will grow (even when they aren't given positive 'spin' as an incentive). I'd be interested to see the internal Amtrak documentation that led up to the decision to embrace the M&E market, including how the marginal cost and break-even analyses were conducted. My suspicion is that to the extent that Amtrak developed meaningful long-range plans, they would (perhaps by explicit statute) be mandatorily provided to members of Congress, from whom they would be speedily given or 'leaked' to people with vested interests in Amtrak's demise. Meanwhile, in this post-Entron era, any revelation that Amtrak personnel were "withholding secret planning information from Congress" would be, shall we say, not particularly promising for the careers concerned...

Don't mistake this as criticism of your idea, or of the thinking behind it. Just that the Federal decision process for Amtrak is very different from what affects civil-service agencies on lower levels. Even there, politicians and others -- notably people in 'media' -- can 'upset applecarts' with astounding rapidity, one way or another, by manipulating "public opinion" shrewdly. Look into why it was so excruciating to drive through Memphis on I-40, for example.

Be interesting to see the cost of maintaining a separate high-speed passenger rail network, nationwide, without alternative freight use -- I'd sure hate to be tasked with building coalitions of Congressional Representatives to support such a thing! It's bad enough when people -- I won't name names -- decide that Amtrak's budget can be 'enhanced' by using antiterrorist security for NEC tunnels as the reason, or perhaps excuse, to add an odd billion or so, and as a more or less proximate consequence arouse the ire of Kay Bailey Hutchison, who is one of Amtrak's great supporters.

[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 . They still believe that the future is entirely the private car, with other ground transportation for the poor folks only. The real economics is that no ground transportation, even walking, breaks even . (Your tax money supports the traffric lights that provide some pedestrian safety!) OK, the exceptions are rowboats, kiyaks and canoes! So our foreign policy gives equal wait to the most undemocratic nation on earth, the Saudi Monarchi, and "The Jewish State" which is a multi-cultural democracy with complete freedom of worship by all religions everywhere in the state, and the so the State Department had the most unwise policy of allowing anyone with a Saudi identity card to pick up a visa without consular review or any security check. To please the oil-highway-lobby. Roy Chalk tried to save the very modern and well maintained Wshington DC streetcar system, and felt he could keep it a profitable tax payng operation but Congress decided otherwise. Railfans have got to realize what we are up against when we try to preserve a national passenger rail system . Amtrak's main problem is simply not a fair shake, not near the subsidy, even on per passenger basis, that the highway travel and air travel get. If you break up Amtrak or privatize it whatever, you will lose the agreements that permit some economies in Amtrak running over freight railroads. To try to provide separate passenger tracks would be economically prohibitive and in many cases where land is tight absolutely impossible without major disruptions. Claytor fourght that problem, every head of Amtrak has fought that problem, and Gunn s probably the best choice we have got. I think most complaints are very misdirected if they simply do not address the funding problem.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Overmod

JBToy, the fundamental problem with what you suggest is the fundamental 4- and 6-year cycles of American politics. You can call for a 20-year plan, you can set one up, you can do whatever you want to implement one... but either Congress or the executive branch can, and will, change what they want while in power.....

I know of no organization or individual 'voice' like Walter Lippmann who would be capable of evolving and maintaining a 20-year long-term vision that would be CREDIBLE to all the players. .....

I can also say with great assurance that it is not practical to forecast demographics for the United States with a 20-year forecast.

Perhaps I've hung around more bureaucrats than you have. 20-year planning is routine in highway departments across the nation. 20 year planning is commonly done by land-use planners. My own county is working on its next 20 year plan as I write this. I remember when the last one was approved in 1984. California has a 10 year plan for intrastate rail services. (see: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/rail/railplan/csrp.htm )

Long-term planning is essential for any multi-billion dollar capital investment. For something on the scale of a national rail system, it would be more of an outline than a detail of every track and train schedule. It is the foundation, not the structure. A proper long-term plan would be flexible enough to accommodate changes in circumstances.

But if its gonna cost a lot of money, it has to be justified by providing a demonstrable long-term benefit. Amtrak can't keep muddling along from one year to the next without having some idea of where the company is going, where the demand will be, or what is required to provide for it.

We know that traffic grows. That is a fact. It has grown for aviation, it has grown for highways, and even with Amtrak's severely limited capacity, ridership continues to grow on nearly all of its trains. Building the infrastructire to accommodate growth takes a good deal of time, usually several years for even a simple project, so it is essential that we anticipate long-term needs so we can direct the financial resources into the right places. Forecasting the future is an inexact science, but without it we are working in the dark.

Of course, forceasts of ridership and traffic are not absolute, but they are based on observable trends and coordinated with things like land-use plans, which in turn affect demographics, which in turn affect transportation needs. I've read quite a few transportation planning reports and they take all of these things and more into account. These plans take quite awhile to develop, and require years of study, public hearings, environmental review, engineeering, design, and more.

So looking 20 years out is not unrealistic at all. It is, in fact, a matter of routine in many areas of government. But it has never been done for passenger rail outside of a few states, probably because the infrastructure is largely out of public control.

[jeaton]

Rudy & Futuremodal. Both have you have cited opinions or reports that date at the latest back to 2004 The Wendell Cox report is over ten years old. Guess what? Some things have changed. A big part of the criticism of Amtrak in early 2002 had to do with the fact that the financial and operating reporting had, to say the least become obscure and confusing.

Here is something for you. You need to have a connection, but you can obtain detailed numbers from Amtrak on everything they have done in 2004 up to the month of July, along with three previous annual reports, and the detailed plans as to how future appropriations will be spent.. If you have that connection and a computer and a mouse, you can go to amtrak.com, click on press & media, then other reports and select the report of your choice.

The monthly reports run about 100 pages. I might be more inclined to accept your arguements as credible if you were looking at some up to date facts

[Paul Milenkovic]

In an age when the State of Wisconsin imposes sales tax levies to pay for capital improvements to operate a football team and a baseball team (I love the Pack and don't pay much attention to baseball, but these entities are supposed to bring economic activity into the state), I suppose subsidies for rail are not completely off base.

I am beginning to think that the successful operations are the ones with state-Federal partnership, and maybe with Amtrak we should start over and pattern the whole rail subsidy thing after the highways -- the highways require state funding but the Feds kick in money for I-system projects. That way if passenger is a boondogle, it will be a state level boondogle -- kinda like the Miller Park. The minute you start getting Federal financing for baseball parks (gee, its called the National League), it is time to move to Canada.

I also hear that the Amtrak long distance trains are booked solid (at least in summer) and may even be slightly profitable if Amtrak didn't have goofy accounting. The real Amtrak money pit is the NEC (can anyone say Acela? I knew you could!) where there is no end to the expenditure on track, catenary, overpriced over tech rolling stock that can't keep a better schedule than the old GG1-hauled Congressional. And where the ridership pattern is that they are really running a very expensive commuter service between NY and Philly, with much less through traffic beyond.

[CG9602]

Rudy: A few quick remarks:

Traffic is measured by the Revenue Passenger Mile, *_not_* per passenger. The Revenue Passenger MIle is thought to portray a more accurate measurement of traffic. ANYTHING measured per passenger is suspect. Do you have the loss/profit per Revenue passenger MIle?

Remember the "per passenger" numbers came into existance in part because certain political groups needed to create numbers that sounded bad.

I like your suggestion for a Trust Fund. Much of passenger rail's issues stem from the fact that it has no dedicated source of funding like the Highway Trust Fund or the Airline Trust Fund. However, when you wrote that Railroad passengers pay no user fees, I have to point out that they certainly do - it's called a ticket price.

You may have to leave several long distance trains in existance if only to provide connectivity for the nationwide systems, and also to get the political support of folks who don't have a high speed train in their own district.

Any discussion of High speed rail is just an academic exercise unless you figure out some way to defray the capital costs ( i.e. come up with a Trust Fund, like the highways, where some gov't entity can issue bonds in order to supplement the income from the tax). You want high speed rail? tell and show us how to set up a trust fund. There are several High Speed corridors throughout the nation where the several state DOTs are waiting on the matching funding from the Feds

See the following link: http://www.narprail.org/r03.htm#0716

Scroll down to the part titled "Debunking Common Myths About Amtrak."

[Overmod]

Consensus from the real-roaders, please:

Would it help, or hurt, if the present "deficit reduction tax" revenue railroads are charged on diesel fuel were redirected into an Amtrak support fund? Perhaps made retroactive back to the initiation date?

[RudyRockvilleMD]

For Gabe:
I agree with you and others Amtrak doesn’t work in its present form; it - and passenger rail service - hasto be restructured; a better title for your topic might have been how to restructure passenger rail service. Here are my 2 bits worth on this topic.

Amtrak’s services fall into four different categories: long distance intercity, regional-corridor, Northeast Corridor (aka “high speed rail”) and contract commuter: we only should be concerned about the first three in that
commuter passenger rail - regardless of who operates it - is doing well. Note: Regional-corridor services are those origins and end points within short to medium distance markets, most with frequent service. Examples of
regional - corridor services might be the Empire Services, the Keystone Services, or the West Coast services.

All of the long distance, intercity passenger trains should be discontinued because their schedules are frequently slow and inconvenient so they are rarely suitable for business travelers. Their ridership has been
declining between fiscal years 1991 and 2001 - the last year for which I have figures - and they incur substantial losses. According to an article in the March 19, 2001 US News and World Report and a General Accounting
Office (now General Accountability Office) audit for fiscal year 2001 many of these trains continue to incur substantial losses per passenger. Although Amtrak’s ridership reached record levels - 25 million passengers -
(That is about equal to the number of passengers who pass through the three Washington, DC airports in one year) my guess is most of the ridership increase is in short-to-medium haul services - the Northeast Corridor, the
Empire Corridor or the West Coast. Some of the long distance passenger services might be converted into privately operated ‘land cruise trains,” and the Auto Train is a possible candidate.

The supporters of long distance passenger trains try to justify keeping them because they serve many more cities than say any airline, they may serve some of the smaller towns that have no airline or bus service, or a
few people either prefer the train, or they don’t want to drive. Perhaps. However, their schedules are frequently inconvenient in that you can’t travel between many of the major cities that they do serve “without going all the way around Robin Hood’s barn and in the back door,” without an overnight stay enroute because the connecting train leaves before your train arrives, or without an “o’dark thirty” arrival or departure.

The near term future for restructured intercity rail passenger service lies in either the regional - corridor service or in high speed rail service out of either hubs or in corridors which are short to medium distance trips since the trend in that ridership has steadily increased since fiscal year 2000, and according to fiscal year 2001 figures their losses are much less. Little, if any, federal support for the operation of regional - corridor trains should be necessary since many states previously supported them alone or by interstate compact as 403(b) trains operated by Amtrak.

Federal financing of intercity rail passenger service in the Northeast Corridor should continue. It is justified because the corridor is densely populated, and a multi-state financing compact may be too unwieldy to
be practical since it covers several states. Additional justifications for federal financing of the Northeast Corridor are the trains are heavily used - it accounts for more than half of Amtrak’s ridership - and the highways and the airways are congested. The Northeast Corridor financing package should include the necessary capital funds to rehabilitate the Washington - New York end of the corridor’s infrastructure.

The long term restructuring of intercity rail passenger service may also lie in dedicated high-speed passenger rail corridors where the door-to-door, or the portal-to-portal, travel time by high-speed trains might be
competitive with or faster than flying. High-speed trains might also be cheaper than flying as well, and they have the potential for forestalling airport and air traffic control system capacity upgrades. Moreover, the high-speed rail corridors must meet certain requirements if they are to be viable, and neither their first cost nor their operating and maintenance costs will be low.

The high-speed rail corridors should pass through areas whose end points have a high population density to provide sufficient ridership although predicting credible ridership figures for high speed trains still remains a challenge. The high-speed trains must be attractive to a wide segment of the population, and convenient to use with sufficient ridership to warrant weekday hourly service. The corridors should be between 200 - 500 miles long, their average speeds should be at least 150 mph, and the trains should travel over dedicated high-speed passenger train tracks for substantial parts of their journeys.

Amtrak runs the commuter rail services in many cities which should continue. Since the states or the local commuter agencies already subsidize the operation of most of these services federal funding is not an issue here although some federal subsidies will be necessary. Commuter trains which were formerly operated by Amtrak could be, and in some cases have been, turned over to other contractors or the local commuter agencies.

Federal financing for both long term and short term passenger service should continue although the operating subsidies for the long distance intercity trains should be dropped. As pointed out earlier most of the
short to medium distance intercity trains are already supported by their respective states, and most of them were 403(b) trains so federal financing should be limited to capital and infrastructure expenditures; However, some
states may undertake the development of high speed passenger rail service on their own as California is planning to do so the federal government should help by paying for some of the capital and infrastructure costs. Bus and
railroad passengers currently do not pay any user charges as do motorists through their fuel taxes, or airline passengers through their taxes on tickets or airport passenger usage fees. A 10% tax should be levied on all
intercity passenger rail tickets although reduced fare multi-ride commuter tickets would be exempt. The revenue from this tax should be deposited in a passenger rail trust fund, similar to the aviation trust fund, and it would be
used strictly for passenger rail infrastructure and capital improvements.

So the answer to your question is to phase out Amtrak starting as early as possible - possibly starting in 2005. All of Amtrak’s expenditures should be examined critically, and those that are not necessary should be placed on hold until the future rail passenger service is sorted out. Phasing out Amtrak rather than abruptly liquidating it would allow for a smooth transition between changing passenger service operators, and it would also provide time to work out a solution to the problem of Amtrak’s heavy debt load. Succeeding passenger carriers or authorities should not have the right of statutory access to the freight railroads, nor should their passenger trains have mandatory priority dispatching on the freight railroads.

Rudy

[Junctionfan]

A little of topic but I just opened a package of Maxwell House Coffee to find a VIA rail voucher inside. Does Amtrak do things like this and how well does it work?

[Overmod]

JBToy, the fundamental problem with what you suggest is the fundamental 4- and 6-year cycles of American politics. You can call for a 20-year plan, you can set one up, you can do whatever you want to implement one... but either Congress or the executive branch can, and will, change what they want while in power. This has been a fundamental issue with public-policy planning since before 1828...

I know of no organization or individual 'voice' like Walter Lippmann who would be capable of evolving and maintaining a 20-year long-term vision that would be CREDIBLE to all the players. In part, these are the chickens of factionalization coming home to roost.

I can also say with great assurance that it is not practical to forecast demographics for the United States with a 20-year forecast. There are too many singularities beyond which extrapolations only produce garbage math. Tell me this: Will or won't the cohort corresponding to the children of this upcoming generation of Hispanics ride Amtrak or not? Where will they go? What media or public figures might be effective spokespeople? (Etc.)

If general systems theory allowed us to produce a ferroequinological Seldon Plan, perhaps your idea would produce the positive results you indicate -- and I, for one, wi***hat were possible.

Meanwhile, the first, last and greatest rule of venture capitalism is the same as the first rule of the world's oldest profession: GET THE MONEY FIRST. You do not start wondering how to fund something until you think you know how big the need will be -- you arrange as many tranches as possible, set up your alliances early, etc. "Vulture capitalists" are like the arbitrageurs who trade in people who didn't know to ask for enough money up front...

I can guarantee you that very, very little of the actual work on the Interstate Highway System was conducted before the HTF was set up and started pumping money. It's easy to draw lines on a map following DDE's childhood vision. A very different thing to translate them into subgrade drawings, paving contracts, etc. How many of today's Interstate routes are actually following the routings called for in the mid-'50s? And how many of the roads built early remain adequate for the traffic they now see?

I concur completely with your last sentence. I'm not sure the Washington process can produce something more meaningful, though, given the convoluted logic about not-always-stated secret agendas that characterizes so much of policy planning as it is really practiced -- what was it von Bismarck is supposed to have said: Laws are like sausages. It's better not to see them being made.

What I'd like to see is an unbiased organization with a continuously-optimizing plan, which would be capable of devising an initial strategy, testing it in the marketplace of ideas and opinions to keep it sharp, and perform the appropriate networking, liaison to other groups, etc. to ensure that both implementation and execution of policies are at their best. Note that, while this is a relatively slight difference from what you advocate, it's a very significant one.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal
It's real simple: Go to a search engine (Yahoo, Google, etc) and type in "Amtrak market share" and see what comes up. Just because it takes a Wendall Cox to use the DOT studies to support his views doesn't delegitimize the DOT study, does it? Facts are facts, no matter the source, and frankly you are a bit off saying such people hate rails. Reformers are not the enemy, they are your only chance at salvation for retaining a national passenger rail market in some form. By demonizing them, you come accross as hyperbolic and irrational, and if every Amtrak supporter is like you it won't be long until the nation gets so tired of the same old same old that they end up killing the whole thing for everyone, and then passenger rail in any form is a thing of the past.

I wouldn't in my wildest dreams characterize Cox as a reformer." He's a destroyer.

Even James Coston - a true reformer - said Cox - appointed by Newt Gingrich to the Amtrak Reform Council shut Amtrak down - only wanted to shut down the system, not improve it.

As you advised, do a web search on Wendall Cox. See all the arguments he uses to shoot-down passenger rail - short distance, corridors, commuter, and LD.

He hates trains. You can't have a rational discussion with someone that wants to destroy you.
If you don't know that, you haven't been to the issue long.

The far-right "think-tanks" - yeah, right - that you cited are also off base.

No matter how you characterize him as positive, 'taint such an animal. He like Sen. John McCain is one of the biggest Amtrak haters of all time.

Using Cox to argue for reforming Amtrak is like using only Howard Dean's arguments when arguing about the Iraq war.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by ohlemeier

QUOTE: Originally posted by artmark

I'm afraid folks won't support any greater funding of passenger service because of their fear that it will be a lot more bad service. If there had been some extension of quality long distance service to use as an example perhaps there would be some hope of positive public pursuesion. For instance, using my favorite, Chicago to New York. If the thing ran like it did in 1973 when it left Chicago at 4pm and arrived in NYC at 10 the next morning ithout fail, people would use it. But it doesn't. It leaves late in the evening to insure the 12 or so connecting passengers from the west don't miss it and have to stay in a hotel at Amtrak's expense. So who wants to eat dinner at 9.30pm? It arrives sometime in the middle of the afternoon rush hour in NYC. No chance of a business meeting or anything else. Just a mad attempt to find a taxi to get to your place for your stay. Many times over the years I've heard people on the train say, "Never again!" In 33 years, train by train, the medium has been able to turn off almost everyone in the nation to train travel. To say the least of what foreign visitors must think of the country as a whole. I remember a quote that goes something like this, "You can tell the quality of a modern industrial nation by the way it runs its trains."
Humpty Dumpty had a great fall, and all the king's horses and all the king's men can't put Humpty Dumpty together again. Why? Because they don't know how, they really don't want to and they're at seminars, meetings, focus group sessions, hiring consultants, taking trips to Europe to see how "they" do it, and getting brain storm ideas that goof things up. So the "show" stinks, and the audience is leaving the theater.
Mitch

I still haven't heard how any of this is AMTRAK's fault.

So Amtrak can cut say 2 hours off its CHI-NYC schedule. EVEN IF the hostile freight RR permitted that, how much more late - thanks to freight congestion and stabbing of Amtrak trains - do you think the train would THEN run?

What dispatching does Amtrak control outside of the NEC?

If it's normall 2-3 hours late now, would 6-7 be more likely?

I was on the Calif. Zephyr when it recently detoured through Wyoming. Everyone thought that trip would be a lot shorter since it's around the mountains, not throught them.

Despite the fact that UP had in some places a 3-track main, the train was constantly delayed. 40 MPH running over some parts. The train ran about an hour or two late into Salt Lake that night.
Checking Amtrak's train status online, the train ran late and got latter, thanks to uncle ***, every time it ran on the UP Wyoming line.

Amtrak doesn't have any control over the fregith tracks it runs on. Railfans ought to know this by now and stop whining about how bad Amtrak is.

Ohlemeier:
I'm not blaming Amtrak for much of this. You're certainly correct about dispatching on freight lines. I assign blame to Amtrak for the departure times for east coast passenger trains out of Chicago. That happened a long time ago to avoid mis-connect passengers.
But you're right on with the problem of cooperation by the freight railroads. This is what ruins the arrival times the next day. So what's an Amtrak to do? It's the only rail travel product most Americans are familiar with. What do we show Americans as an example of how good this really could be? Would we ever be able to get the point across to the Class 1 freight folks that good running of passenger trains is good for the entire industry? Is this a good notion of mine to begin with? I think it is, but it's merely my notion. Old time railroad presidents in some cases thought it so. So when I speak of an improved service level in my CHI-NYC scenarios I'm looking at a situation where there might be sufficient funding to make it worth while for the host railroads to perform. But these posts I've been mking are, of course, speculations and notions I'm throwing out for discussion.
Mitch

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by ohlemeier

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal
Ohlemeier, you have failed the test. I gave you references for my points of argument, you did not. Furthermore, even IF the groups and people who come out with these so-called anti-Amtrak talking points are biased against the current Amtrak structure, at least they themselves have referenced DOT studies to back up their arguments. For your information, I also went to NARP's website to find any contrary information regarding market share, and there is none. They just BS around the issue the way you do, telling us how Amtrak's market share has increased such and such percent, but not what the base number is. Who cares if Amtrak has increased market share 36%, when the base market share is 0.4%? A 36% increase of 0.4% comes to a whopping 0.5%, well within the range of variability i.e. statistically insignificant.

Why are people like you so opposed to trying to improve the passenger rail situation in the U.S.? Even you admit the current Amtrak situation is not ideal, but you offer nothing other than increased subsidies as your solution. What Amtrak needs is not so much a complete makeover, but a complete destruction and rebirth with a different government oversight and a willingness to foster passenger rail operations in a private market spectrum.

BTW, if you have any website links which reference a different analysis of Amtrak, I will gladly go to them to search for an opposing point of view that hopefully is backed up with facts, not feelgoodism.

Trouble is, the sources you referenced weren't legitimate. They're one-sided.

They're not just biased against the current Amtrak structure, THEY'RE BIASED AGAINST RAIL PERIOD.

I haven't conducted lengthy studies of Amtrak. Those sources conducted studies that were designed to ridicule Amtrak - AND commuter rail and SHORT-DISTANCE passenger rail corridors, BTW .

They'll often castigate Amtrak for having only 1% of the market, yet not mention air only has 12% or automobiles hog 85% - both of which are generously paid for by federal funds.

No one respects Wendall Cox. Even when he was on the Amtrak Reform Council, the other members stated how all of them were there to improve Amtrak - except Cox.

He's purely a highway man. Google his name and light rail, short-distance Amtrak and ANY rail. He's there and he's again' it.

Using those sources is like writing a paper on a certain political issue that only sourced one political viewpointt.

--

You said you didn't care about the facts. You said it didn't matter if Amtrak had a 1%, a 5%, a 10% or a 50% market share (paraphrasing), you still were going to hate Amtrak and blame it for its market share. That ended the discssion right there, pal, since you had already made your mind up and nothing anyone could do or say would change it.

I've told you it was impossible for Amtrak to improve its market share when it isn't given enough money.

I've pointed out WHY Amtrak has a low market share.
Those points don't matter to you, apparently.

With Amtrak carrying a record number of passengers - 25 million - I imagine market share is improving, if by little. Still, I imagine there will be those that will take issue with that statement.

Of course Amtrak can't compete against airlines that have 4-12 departures a day from a single airport. Congress - by reducing funding - gave Amtrak only enough money to run ONE TRAIN, not two, which are needed on most LD routes to provide decent service and- BTW- increase ridership.

You apparently aren't interested in improving Amtrak, just bashing it and those that support passenger rail.

I

It's real simple: Go to a search engine (Yahoo, Google, etc) and type in "Amtrak market share" and see what comes up. Just because it takes a Wendall Cox to use the DOT studies to support his views doesn't delegitimize the DOT study, does it? Facts are facts, no matter the source, and frankly you are a bit off saying such people hate rails. Reformers are not the enemy, they are your only chance at salvation for retaining a national passenger rail market in some form. By demonizing them, you come accross as hyperbolic and irrational, and if every Amtrak supporter is like you it won't be long until the nation gets so tired of the same old same old that they end up killing the whole thing for everyone, and then passenger rail in any form is a thing of the past.

[Anonymous]

JBToy...For being your first pay trip on the forum I think ya dun good.
This has been one helluva problem since May 1st, 1971. Filled with prejudice, and every other manner of strife.
Perhaps we should shut down Amtrak and retire the name, The very next day start a well funded International House of Passenger Trains and re-think the whole deal.
Pan Am is gone, TWA is gone, Braniff and Eastern were abandoned, the Concorde made its last pay trip, a new trolley with old equipment has just started up in Charlotte, NC, and you can still book a room on a train from Chicago to New York. If you asked someone in 1971 to recite this as a prediction for transportation life in the year 2004, they would have been laughed out of town as everyone tuned in on the Brady Bunch. There's interest and a desire for something better in rail travel out there.
Mitch

[Junctionfan]

In Austria, they load the autoracks before hand and when the train arrives, the train backs up into it. As far as interchange goes, ya I can see the challenge in that. In Austria, the author of the comment only mentions 3 cities so the amount of interchange is low but in the U.S, depending on how many cities you want to serve, could be really confusing as well as expensive. It could be done (being hypothetical again) but it would definately be expensive and would need the funding. As you mentioned, Amtrak (government) would likely need to spend a lot of money on liability insurance for such a service.

As for the slack problem, would the redesign of the autorack for Amtrak work? I know that some railroads consider the autorack as "intermodal" and so run them at that kind of speed (I think that is still true) Maybe if the design of the autorack was altered to work like a passenger car instead of a freight car, would that work? (yes another hypothetical question; sorry just interested)

[Anonymous]

I've never posted on this forum before, and I've barely had time to skim this monster thread, but all I see here is the same old tired arguments (some better than others) going round and round ad nauseum. Both the pro and anti Amtrak factions on this forum, on other forums, and in Congress are all riding the same merry-go-round, each thinking they're in the lead, and going absolutely nowhere.

It is time to shut down the merry-go-round. I have an idea that I think all factions can agree to.

First, forget all about your preconceived notions about what will or won't work regarding Amtrak. Everything I've seen so far amounts to little more than pet theories, based on incomplete information. Hardly the basis for sound policy.

What is needed is a comprehensive long-term (20 year) plan, based on sound transportation planning principles, comprehensive market studies and demographic research to figure out where the riders are, where they want to go, and what schedules they require. This is being done on the state level in a few areas, but needs to be done nationally. With that information in hand, we can design a truly practical national network. Without it we are just spitting into the wind. This will end once and for all the long-distance vs. corridor arguments. (My suspicion is that both will prove necessary, but without cold hard data, nobody can say for sure.)

Next we need to determine what sort of equipment and infrastructure improvements are needed to provide reliable and cost-effective service to those markets. Will it be high-speed, conventional or some combination thereof? Again, without a comprehensive study, nobody can say for sure.

This information willl enable this country to set realistic goals, establish a plan, and give us something to work towards. Then comes the funding. We complain about how underfunded Amtrak is, but we fail to realize that without a clearly defined plan, with defensible goals, Congress really has nothing substantive to fund. The interstate higway system started with a plan, not with money. The money came after plan was sold to Congress. Plan first, money second. I cannot emphasize that enough.

Also, without a plan, we really are in no position to say what sort of organization is best to operate passenger rail. The goals and plan will help guide us. It may be similar to the current Amtrak model, it may be some sort of public/private partnership, or something else altogether. We really need to keep an open mind, here.

So instead of arguing about this and that theory, let's all urge Congress and the USDOT to conduct some real planning. All interested parties need to be involved, including Amtrak, the host railroads, state transportation agencies, labor, and the traveling public.

The current state of Amtrak is not Amtrak's fault. It is a failure of fedreral policymakers to plan for the future of American railroads. Nothing more. Nothing less.

[Overmod]

The problem with auto trains in this country has to do largely with the very substantial size, weight, capital cost, and operating consists of the trains that can provide the service 'correctly' There's also a problem in the potential litigation, both in vehicle damage and personal injury, that comes from even one derailment or accident.

I was not privy to internal operations of the original Auto-Train, but read in Trains about the very, very substantial number of cars carrying automobiles... and the astounding problems with slack action, etc. trying to run these in concert with passenger trains.

I doubt you could run a service here where people could stay in their cars -- or even GET to their cars -- while the train was at speed. Or, for that matter, a service where people drove their own automobiles on and off circus-type enclosed consists, Iron Highway or not. Look who's the target market for going someplace and having your own car 'away' rather than renting something. I think, btw, that the revolution in car rental quality that seemed to start with Budget's mass Lincoln Town Car purchasing programs has done a lot to shift the 'equilibrium' of "bring vs. rent" strongly in the 'rent' direction...

Family travel is NOT a cost-effective niche for Amtrak's avowed priorities -- and isn't particularly cost-effective for the families, either, now that you mention it. You might get away with five in two beds in one of the highway lodging chains -- but on Amtrak everyone needs a ticket ... that adds up almost as fast as for air transportation. And you can't pull over for a bite of 'something different' or to see something interesting. (Or fall asleep in peace, listen to loud music without headphones, play family games that others might find irritating, completely avoid other families' rude brats or sick snifflers, etc. etc. etc)

I'd very much like to see a train ferry service.. to & from a lot more places than Chicago and New Orleans ... but I'd need to have it priced a lot less in the aggregate (e.g., my ticket, my wife's and children's tickets, and the cost for my truck to ride along) than the marginal utility cost of driving (essentially gas, fluids, food, lodging, and parking) And, to put it bluntly, I would need to see extremely carefully crafted real numbers before I'd believe we'd get there within at least two orders of magnitude difference from current levels of subsidy...

[tree68]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan

I was wondering if the auto train idea should be expanded for amtrak.

On the surface, a great idea - one reason I like to drive places is so I have a (my) vehicle when I get there. I'm sure there are many others who feel the same way.

The AutoTrain concept has been fairly successful VA-FL. It failed miserably out of Louisville. One important consideration regarding those two trains is that EVERYBODY got on at one end, and EVERYBODY got off on the other. The Chunnel trains operate very much the same way. I can't speak on the European operation, but it does sound like it's limited to a few points.

On your average long-distance train, however, people get on and off all along the route. That means that the vehicles need to be able to be loaded/unloaded individually at each stop. Certainly doable, but at what cost in infrastructure? Limiting the carriage of autos to the endpoints severely limits the marketability of the concept.

An expansion of the concept would require interchange between trains. I put my car on at Syracuse, but I'm going to Phoenix. There's gotta be at least one train change there... <"Waddya mean, you lost my car?!?!?"> And where do they store all of the vehicles that are "between trains?"

Certainly a good idea, but it still comes down to cash, and getting the owners to pony some up...

[Junctionfan]

I was wondering if the auto train idea should be expanded for amtrak. I was on the modelintermodal yahoo group and read how sucessful that type of service is in Austria between Vienna, Salzburg and Innsbruck. Having said this, since the U.S runs more cars about the country than Austria, instead of having the roadrailers and MHC service, maybe they would do better if they had auto train equipment along with them. I don't know how well the railroads would recieve another amtrak train (unit auto train) so maybe amtrak could just run it with the long-distance trains and see if it works.

I don't know, just wondering and making conversation.

[Anonymous]

One thing is for sure, Amtrak needs to be overhauled.
But, In over hauling, Amtrak needs to be Vastly expanded in both the Corridor and the long-distance sectors, and as much as the gov't would like to avoid it, AMtrak would need about a 200% increase in funding to do so, but as long as we have a republican controled gov't this won't happen unless they were all Kay Bailey Hutchinsons.


Gore Lieberman '04

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal
Ohlemeier, you have failed the test. I gave you references for my points of argument, you did not. Furthermore, even IF the groups and people who come out with these so-called anti-Amtrak talking points are biased against the current Amtrak structure, at least they themselves have referenced DOT studies to back up their arguments. For your information, I also went to NARP's website to find any contrary information regarding market share, and there is none. They just BS around the issue the way you do, telling us how Amtrak's market share has increased such and such percent, but not what the base number is. Who cares if Amtrak has increased market share 36%, when the base market share is 0.4%? A 36% increase of 0.4% comes to a whopping 0.5%, well within the range of variability i.e. statistically insignificant.

Why are people like you so opposed to trying to improve the passenger rail situation in the U.S.? Even you admit the current Amtrak situation is not ideal, but you offer nothing other than increased subsidies as your solution. What Amtrak needs is not so much a complete makeover, but a complete destruction and rebirth with a different government oversight and a willingness to foster passenger rail operations in a private market spectrum.

BTW, if you have any website links which reference a different analysis of Amtrak, I will gladly go to them to search for an opposing point of view that hopefully is backed up with facts, not feelgoodism.

Trouble is, the sources you referenced weren't legitimate. They're one-sided.

They're not just biased against the current Amtrak structure, THEY'RE BIASED AGAINST RAIL PERIOD.

I haven't conducted lengthy studies of Amtrak. Those sources conducted studies that were designed to ridicule Amtrak - AND commuter rail and SHORT-DISTANCE passenger rail corridors, BTW .

They'll often castigate Amtrak for having only 1% of the market, yet not mention air only has 12% or automobiles hog 85% - both of which are generously paid for by federal funds.

No one respects Wendall Cox. Even when he was on the Amtrak Reform Council, the other members stated how all of them were there to improve Amtrak - except Cox.

He's purely a highway man. Google his name and light rail, short-distance Amtrak and ANY rail. He's there and he's again' it.

Using those sources is like writing a paper on a certain political issue that only sourced one political viewpointt.

--

You said you didn't care about the facts. You said it didn't matter if Amtrak had a 1%, a 5%, a 10% or a 50% market share (paraphrasing), you still were going to hate Amtrak and blame it for its market share. That ended the discssion right there, pal, since you had already made your mind up and nothing anyone could do or say would change it.

I've told you it was impossible for Amtrak to improve its market share when it isn't given enough money.

I've pointed out WHY Amtrak has a low market share.
Those points don't matter to you, apparently.

With Amtrak carrying a record number of passengers - 25 million - I imagine market share is improving, if by little. Still, I imagine there will be those that will take issue with that statement.

Of course Amtrak can't compete against airlines that have 4-12 departures a day from a single airport. Congress - by reducing funding - gave Amtrak only enough money to run ONE TRAIN, not two, which are needed on most LD routes to provide decent service and- BTW- increase ridership.

You apparently aren't interested in improving Amtrak, just bashing it and those that support passenger rail.

I