Get rid or rethink Amtrak

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by ohlemeier

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

Here are some "lies" regarding Amtrak's market share:

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-vranich062802.asp

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/WM118.cfm

http://www.publicpurpose.com/hu-amtrk.htm

2. The definitive 1990 DOT study on Amtrak's true market share has it at 0.4% based on passenger trips and 0.6% based on passenger miles. Lies, lies, all lies, huh? I guess this is all part of a giant government coverup, right?

I'm waiting on the edge of my seat for someone to present the opposition view with such references.......

You're going to be disappointed, then. Those sources are avowadly anti-Amtrak bigots.

1) "Public Purpose" - so called - is the brainchild of Wendall Cox, a noted ANTI-RAIL TRANSIT type.
Any city anywhere that proposes adding light rail, he always shows up, writes op-ed pieces, etc., distroting the facts, claiming how "unsubsidized" cars are so much cheaper (yeah, right).
He's a right-wing ideologue that likely gets his money from the petro industry. Few, except Sen. McCain and other Amtrak enemies, hold any respect for him.

Interesting how his own town, Belleville, Ill., ignored his tripe and went on ahead and built a VERY SUCCESSFUL light rail system in the St. Louis area. Still, Cox will try to smear it and claim rail is all a big waste.

2) The Heritage Foundation? You've got to be kidding.

Ron Utt, the flame thrower who lives and breathes anti-Amtrak, is another biased "source."
All he talks about is how getting rid of Amtrak will help the world.

Utt's also a name-caller. He called David Gunn, Amtrak's reform-minded CEO, "an SOB."
Utt couldn't support his arguments with the facts so he hurls insults. I guess Utt doesn't want Amtrak to reform and improve its performance - just shut down, thank you.

The NATIONAL REVIEW is another case. "cept that WILLIAM F. BUCKLEY - the godfather of conservatives- like Paul Weyrich - has come out of the conservative closet and endorsed passenger rail. He logically rejects the fallacious assertions by the so-called think tanks.

Amtrak's MARKET SHARE in the NEC from DC to NYC is 50+%. The national market share of course is a lot smaller.

U.S. airline travel share is 12% with automobiles hogging 85%. Bus and rail are aournd 2%.
Most trips over 100 miles are personal and are by car. Should we then castigate the airlines because they have such a pathetic market share? Dittos for buses?

And don't forget the cruise industry. Cruise ships only carry about 4 million people a year - a tiny market share compared to rail and bus. Yet the federal government builts and maintains ports and rivers.

Why would you expect a gigantic market share from a rail system that's only been given crumbs for 30 years?

Do you think Delta Airlines would have been as successful as it is if it were given only enough money to fly THREE TIMES A WEEK from very few cities?

Sure, Amtrak should run more than 3 trains a week to Houston, and at better hours. But that's not Amtrak's fault. That's Congress,. which has failed to properly fund it.

Instead of whining about how bad Amtrak is - and I do acknowlege its shortcomings - railfans should work to improve it. David Gunn IS reforming it.

Just don't rely on the blind ideologues that only want to shut it down and use that money to build more roads and highways.

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.

[oltmannd]

It's a term I lifted from engineering economics years ago. Not sure it's entirely appropriate, but it's a way to do apple to apples comparison of alternatives.

Basically, its a measure of how much all the future benefits are in today's dollars less how much you'd have to have in your pocket right now to cover all the costs. That's the net present value.

For example, if you were comparing paying your neighbor to take you to work versus buying your own car, you have to figure out how big a lump of money you'd need now to pay your neighbor each day, figuring you'd invest that lump in some manner. That would be the net present cost for that alternative. For the car purchase, you'd have to figure the price and then all the expense in the out years, brought back to today's dollars. That would be the net present cost of buying a car. In this case, since the net benefit is the same (you get to work each day), you can just compare the net present costs to find the cheapest. If the benefits vary between alternatives, like they do when you compare Amtrak to highway construction, you have to apply the same concepts to the benefits. It's also useful to do a sensitivity analysis, too. That is, if one of the benefits or costs vary - what's the impact on the net present value. That gives an idea of the risk.

[gabe]

I am neither challenging the contention that we should fund Amtrak more nor asserting we should necessarily get rid of Amtrak. But, this is a legitimate question:

Forgeting--for a moment--profitability and political questions, if Amtrak were funded perfectly--lets say 10 billion a year insteal of a little over 1 billion--how much do you think it would increase ridership? Ten times, twice as much, hardly at all?

I understand the frustration of saying the government spends more on highways in one week than on Amtrak in a year. But, I think the distinction is, when the government builds a new highway people drive on it. The return on the investment isn't profitability but citizens enjoying the highway's use and the benefits deriving therefrom.

Because of the dearth of intra-city transportation, there are advantages to taking your car no mater how perfect Amtrak's performance is. You can drive right to your destination without having to move your luggage around with each transfer and you get to play the conductor. The advantage of having an extra 8-14 hours on vacation will always give long distance air traffic an advantage over Amtrak.

"If you build it they will come" model has to apply to government spending, and there are many who are not sure that the increase of Amtrak budget will corespondingly increase ridership. Until this is proven, I don't think I can be too hard on those who want to spend the money on a highway rather than Amtrak. As someone who more than understands the advantage to rail travel, I hope one, or all, of you prove me wrong on this one.

That having been said, if you give me a 60mph train that runs on time at a reasonable hour between Indy and Chicago or Indy and Cinciannati, I will gladly take it. I am not sure everyone else will come to that conclusion though.

Gabe

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan

Their operations are rather odd to me. There doesn't seem to be any train service into Detroit or Colombus, Ohio which are major cities. The only thing I see in the Amtrak National Timetable for those routes are Greyhound references (competition selling?)

This is a good point. Columbus used to have Amtrak service, on the NATIONAL LTD. line.
The train ran NYC-PHL- Pittsburgh - Columbus - Dayotn - Indianapolis - St. Louis - KC and had a through car that connected onto the Southwest Chief (then called the Southwest Ltd. or Super Chief).

Unfortunately, under Jimmy Carter, the DOT ordered a huge Amtrak budget cut. That train, and about 6 other popular ones, were discontinued SOLELY BECAUSE OF POLITICS, not ridership.

It was also interesting how employees of the hostile freight host RR testified before Congress that the route wasn't needed. People would drive or fly, etc.

Passenger Train Journal reported that PC employees - or whatever name the freght was called then - Conrail? - bad mouthed the service. Therefore, freight RRs ARE and have been responsible for the poor passenger rail service Amtrak provides.

Interesting how railroaders say Amtrak service must be improved but when push comes to shove, they go to great links to shut it down.

[Junctionfan]

I can't figure out why any thinking person in Congress, would want to shut down amtrak for a reason that it could be used as a tourism boost if it was funded better. There are a couple things I find will hurt Amtrak's prosperity other than Congress. Their operations are rather odd to me. There doesn't seem to be any train service into Detroit or Colombus, Ohio which are major cities. The only thing I see in the Amtrak National Timetable for those routes are Greyhound references (competition selling?) I here they are getting rid of the Three Rivers? At least they are removing the station at Fostoria was what I remember. Why would they do something to hamper railfan tourism which is being embrassed by even the town's chamber of commerce. You can't take a train from Toronto to Chicago now unless you take the Maple leaf to Buffalo and than wait for the soon to be eliminated Three Rivers. That means that I would have to take the Maple Leaf into Penn Station and take an even more scenic route to Chicago. I also find it kind of wierd that I can't take a train from Chicago to Houston. The best way I can do this is take the Texas Eagle to Longview, Texas and take the bus the rest of the way. There are probably more unusual passenger operations but I don't want to rant to much on it.

It doesn't seem right to make the long distance customers who would more than likely be tourists, to be givin bad service. This seems to be the reason that long-distance trains isn't profitable. Tourist will take the plane, bus or a rental car if they have to.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by artmark

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."

I've often wondered the same thing. How backward this country might look, in terms of providing modern transportation.

Why then isn't this nation comitted to providing a modern rail travel system?

You get what you pay for. And in this case, giving Amtrak crumbs for over 30 years is squarely the fault of the people who send their elected representatives to DC.

The Big Dig in Boston costs at least $30 billion - about the same amount of money Amtrak has gotten over 30 years. Yet politicans don't fail to slam Amtrak but never go against highway and air funding.

If you were told you had to run a certain business and only given a fourth of what it requires to run it, then even that funding was cut - and then given to your competitors - how successful do you think your operatoin would be?

It's also very intersting how Amtrak gets all the blame when the trains run late, when it's often - but not all cases - the not the fault of the freight RR.

I've been in terminals such as PGH and seen the disappointment customers have when they hear the train is a couple of hours late.

Amtrak ticket counter people ought to start saying something such as "because of trackwork delays, or CSX delaying the train on a siding for an hour.... the train is late."

Rail travel has so much potential, yet private freight RRs, lawmakers, loud-mouth ill-informed "think tanks" and even some railfans go out of their way to squash it.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by M.W. Hemphill

I think what grates on many about passenger rail is that it appears to them that the people who are using passenger rail appear to be getting something for nothing: the farebox make-up.

Good point.

Amtrak's farebox recovery used to be as high as 80%. That was until Congress started stiffing Amtrak of funding - even though the money had been approved.

Know what the BIGGEST MONEY-LOSING form of transporation is?

Your personal car. The moment you drive that new car off the dealer's lot, you lose 40% of its value.

Plus the DOT says fuel taxes, etc., so-called "user fees" only pay for about half - or less- of automobile travel costs.

Don't forget court costs, state troopers, prison costs, etc., when drunk drivers are sent to prison and state troopers and police patrol the streets ensuring smooth driving. None of this is paid for by drivers, BTW.

Interesting how the public doesn't express as much ire and finger-pointing when it comes to their own money-losing transportation.

But ask for money for tiny Amtrak and you've committed heresy.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

Here are some "lies" regarding Amtrak's market share:

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-vranich062802.asp

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/WM118.cfm

http://www.publicpurpose.com/hu-amtrk.htm

2. The definitive 1990 DOT study on Amtrak's true market share has it at 0.4% based on passenger trips and 0.6% based on passenger miles. Lies, lies, all lies, huh? I guess this is all part of a giant government coverup, right?

I'm waiting on the edge of my seat for someone to present the opposition view with such references.......

You're going to be disappointed, then. Those sources are avowadly anti-Amtrak bigots.

1) "Public Purpose" - so called - is the brainchild of Wendall Cox, a noted ANTI-RAIL TRANSIT type.
Any city anywhere that proposes adding light rail, he always shows up, writes op-ed pieces, etc., distroting the facts, claiming how "unsubsidized" cars are so much cheaper (yeah, right).
He's a right-wing ideologue that likely gets his money from the petro industry. Few, except Sen. McCain and other Amtrak enemies, hold any respect for him.

Interesting how his own town, Belleville, Ill., ignored his tripe and went on ahead and built a VERY SUCCESSFUL light rail system in the St. Louis area. Still, Cox will try to smear it and claim rail is all a big waste.

2) The Heritage Foundation? You've got to be kidding.

Ron Utt, the flame thrower who lives and breathes anti-Amtrak, is another biased "source."
All he talks about is how getting rid of Amtrak will help the world.

Utt's also a name-caller. He called David Gunn, Amtrak's reform-minded CEO, "an SOB."
Utt couldn't support his arguments with the facts so he hurls insults. I guess Utt doesn't want Amtrak to reform and improve its performance - just shut down, thank you.

The NATIONAL REVIEW is another case. "cept that WILLIAM F. BUCKLEY - the godfather of conservatives- like Paul Weyrich - has come out of the conservative closet and endorsed passenger rail. He logically rejects the fallacious assertions by the so-called think tanks.

Amtrak's MARKET SHARE in the NEC from DC to NYC is 50+%. The national market share of course is a lot smaller.

U.S. airline travel share is 12% with automobiles hogging 85%. Bus and rail are aournd 2%.
Most trips over 100 miles are personal and are by car. Should we then castigate the airlines because they have such a pathetic market share? Dittos for buses?

And don't forget the cruise industry. Cruise ships only carry about 4 million people a year - a tiny market share compared to rail and bus. Yet the federal government builts and maintains ports and rivers.

Why would you expect a gigantic market share from a rail system that's only been given crumbs for 30 years?

Do you think Delta Airlines would have been as successful as it is if it were given only enough money to fly THREE TIMES A WEEK from very few cities?

Sure, Amtrak should run more than 3 trains a week to Houston, and at better hours. But that's not Amtrak's fault. That's Congress,. which has failed to properly fund it.

Instead of whining about how bad Amtrak is - and I do acknowlege its shortcomings - railfans should work to improve it. David Gunn IS reforming it.

Just don't rely on the blind ideologues that only want to shut it down and use that money to build more roads and highways.

[oltmannd]

Wow. Very well put. You can even see these values played out in these forums. We seem to LIKE going round and round....

Just one observation.

Americans have tended to value gov't capital investment in transportation, but not direct operating subsidies. One of the first gov't works was the National Highway. The ACE is constitutionally empowered to make waterway improvements. Western RRs were granted land to help progress construction.

Where I live, Atlanta, highway projects find smooth sailing while transit/commuter rail projects cause much wailing and gnashing of teeth because they require an operating subsidy.

You can make a great case that that net present value should govern, not whether the investment is in capital or operations, but that apparently does not fit the values of most Americans.

[jeaton]

Gabe,

Even if you are not a native, you do have a clearer view of Indiana than I.

Here is a thought. Can you imagine where the highway system would be if instead paying the unitemized gas tax when we filled the tank, we got a separate bill at home for our monthly gas usage?

Maybe someday you will be able to use a reasonably convenient train service to go to Chicago. Dreams can come true.

Jay

[jeaton]

oltmannd

Your response is fair. I like facts, but in this case I am speculating about the possible favorable consequence of improved "overnight" service. And most certainly, your friend might have questioned my sanity, had an inquiry been made.

Books, articles and comments on this forum have have gone to great lengths to describe the details of the change in travel patterns in the last half of the Twentieth Century. It boils down to the obvious simple fact that the development of air travel and highway systems, including the associated vehicles, provided speed and convenience that for most people can't and probably will never be matched by a passenger conveyance that rides on steel wheels on steel rails. The development of these modes have had a profound positive influence on our economy and our lifestyle, and I for one do not bemoan the fact that a good chunk of my tax payments have gone to airlines and highways. I am also glad that some of my tax money is going to rail passenger service. Even if I am still upright 30 years from now, I expect to have seen only modest incremental improvements in rail passenger service, but I have no doubt that as improvements are made, use of the service will continue to rise.

Jay

And yes, I've put up with a lot of hassle myself to get home as soon as possible.

[gabe]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton

One last thing for Gabe. There are 19 Amtrak services that are state supported. The Hoosier State is not one of them. If your fellow citizens didn't go for the political canditates with the theme of good highways and tax cuts for everyone, you could probably have a very nice little train service meeting your needs for travel from Indianapolis to Chicago. Since I do the I-65 tango 10-12 times a year, I wouldn't mind.
Oh yes, I usually buy a tank of gas in Indiana each time through.

Jeaton,

(1) Your point is well taken. However, I have to laugh at the thought of Indiana being a "good highway" state. The only thing I can say for certain about the Indiana road system is that it indicates that Indiana needs to revamp its special education system--as the special education system obviously didn't work for the guy who designed the highway system.

Your "tax-cut contention" is more to the point. Though I am hesitant to speak for Hoosiers, as I am not a Hoosier native and have only lived here six years, Hoosiers hate taxing anything and spending government money. It is not as though Hoosiers voted for pro-highway anti-Amtrak politicians. Hoosiers hate to raise taxes for anything, highway, Amtrak, or otherwise.

(2) Your point speaks to my ultimate point. It seems to me that one of the things keeping Amtrak going is that people somehow view Federal money as someone elses' money and are more prone to spend it. When it comes to state money and the voters see a closer corelationg between Amtrak funding--as you say--, only 19 out of 50 states support it.

The commentary on here as to why we should not take Amtrak away has been excellent, and I am not attempting to refute it. But, I doubt Amtrak would be in existence if voters really believed they were paying for it with their own money.

Gabe

P.S. With regard to why Hoosiers and the other 31 states do not more actively fund Amtrak, it brings up an interesting chicken or the egg question. Is Hoosier Amtrak service poor because the State wont add funding, or will Hoosiers not provide funding because they view it as poor service/return on investment?

I don't know the answer to that question, but I do know that it is not just that Amtrak isn't profitable. I don't think those who argue that we should get rid of Amtrak are contending that we should do so because it is not profitable. It is that the service it provides is widely viewed as a poor return on their investment compared to other forms of transportation.

[Anonymous]

Aurora

The Metra/BN line already goes there from Union Station and the express trains do 70mph to Naperville, with stops at Route 59, and then Aurora. Reverse commuting and suburb to suburb across spoke commuting are growing faster than traditional suburb to city. Metra has been adding more trains on reverse schedules and redoing the feeder bus routes to serve reverse commuters, but this service may be too onerous for the business traveler coming into the central city. Maybe looping the corridor trains around the city following the Interstate bypass routes could better serve these destinations. They're quite common where the Interstate bypass loop meets the older spoke-type expressways. Make the airport a major stop as well. Taxi service from these stops would probably be more usefull to business travelers than buses or light rail.

IMO a fundamental problem with Milwaukee/Chicago is they're not quite far enough apart. People are used to much longer commutes, and especially if the destination is on the Interstate bypass, don't give driving a second thought. I don't recall if it's been tried, but maybe a corridor with Chicago as the midpoint would work better. How about Milwaukee, Chicago, Indianapolis(maybe even Cincinati)?

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton

oltmand

If he is still doing that traveling, ask him if he would now consider a train at least some weekends, if there was a 5pm deprture to 9am arrival. If he was traveling back when there still was a Conrail, you are talking about a time when those home for the weekend trips by air were one hell of a lot easier than they are now.

For about 15 years from 1975, I flew on business at least 20 times a year, and some years up to 40. There was the occasional problem, but never so much I had any great dislike for the experience. My brother is now taking about 20 trips a year, and beside the extra hour spent at the airport for the security thing, about half the time he will tell me about some other crap he had to put up with. I would be very surprised if surveys of business travelers didn't show a huge drop in satisfaction levels. Unless, of course, the flight was on the company jet.

Regrettably, Amtrak is not in a position to be an option for business travelers in many markets. The NEC is an exception where I believe they have over 40% of the for hire carrier market.

No, he's retired now.

To add a bit, I agree that flying is more of a hassle and a Chicago to Phila trip probably takes about an hour longer now than it did pre 9/11.

But, it was the DC-5 that stole the overnight business traveller from a very good Broadway Limited. Jet travel raised the bar quite a bit, so I have a hard time believing that bringing back the Broadway would have the effect of attacting many business travellers (except, of course, us railfans). Don't underestimate the allure of getting home to sleep in your own bed.

[rich747us]

Although the problems related to Amtrak are numerous, I think it would be a great start if the government would stop sending all our money overseas, and invest it here on projects that would benefit Americans (e.g. AMTRAK!)

[Anonymous]

Junctionfan...Thanks for your kind words. Conrailman, I agree.
Perhaps my notion of Oconomowoc and Aurora as end points would mean that on those segments speeds could be held at normal track speeds which are respectable. Those segments amount to 38 miles and about 32 miles each.
Remeber. The service has to be upgraded on image as well as on-time performance before you can get the market share. There has to be that investment. My analogy for the evening is, "I won't spend a dime on new clothes,a haircut, a decent car, or bathe and shave until I get 3 women to accept a date with me." With that attitude you're going home with a video, ma boy. Once, when I was art director in the offices of the South Shore Line, and after my first wife passed away, I became dispondant about not being able to find a girlfriend. One of my friends in the office replied, Mitch, we're railroaders. We've learned to thrive on rejection." I think there was a lot of depth in that statement. It went far beyond social circumstances. I think our industry has come to the point in its relationships to the outside world that it expects to fail, and has a degree of comfort in that. Not much is expected other than equipment showing up at some point.
Mitch

[conrailman]

About 30 Million people in the U.S. don't even Travel to Citys or Beaches, Because alot of them don't care to stay in Hotels or Travel in General and alot of don't have alot of money. Them people would care less about the Airplanes or Amtrak. I Love to Ride amtrak and Stay in Great Hotel across the U.S.. The people who Travel in the U.S. should have some Choices to Travel like Amtrak,Airplanes, Boats, Greyhound Bus, and Cars. The Greyhound Bus Systems is going down the Tubes in Services cutting most 1800 miles from they System's, and UsAir is going down the Tubes Too. We need Amtrak more than ever Before to Travel in the U.S. People Its about Choices to Travel. We the people need Choices here to Travel by Amtrak, airplanes, Bus, Boats, and Car.
[:)][8D]

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

Here are some "lies" regarding Amtrak's market share:

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-vranich062802.asp

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/WM118.cfm

http://www.publicpurpose.com/hu-amtrk.htm

Read 'em and weep.

Some interesting discoveries:

1. Amtrak's percentage share of the federal budget is double it's market share, whereas highways and airports are paid for by user fees and ticket taxes, not out of the general budget, thus not truely subsidized in that respect. Indeed, much of the highway budget has been used to cover Amtrak's losses..........

2. The definitive 1990 DOT study on Amtrak's true market share has it at 0.4% based on passenger trips and 0.6% based on passenger miles. Lies, lies, all lies, huh? I guess this is all part of a giant government coverup, right?

3. Contrary to populare wisdom, privatized rail passenger operations do exist in Japan and New Zealand, and apparently they do make a profit. How much of this is due to tax favors and the like I do not know, but there it is.....

4. Even the European market share of rail passengers is less than 7% based on passenger miles. Interesting.

I'm waiting on the edge of my seat for someone to present the opposition view with such references.......

I'll bite.

1. True enough. But it's hardly apples to apples. RRs have to pay property tax and highways/airports do not, for example. The bottom line is this arguement is irrelevant. If a majority or Americans want to keep Amtrak around as a bizzare, costly form of kinetic art, Amtrak will and should exist.

2. OD pair/lane comparison would be better. Airlines are in more major markets than Amtrak.

3. who knows. Does it really matter?

4. So maybe the current underfunded version of Amtrak really isn't all that terrible? Is that the point?

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton

oltmannd and others on "market share"

Amtrak's July monthly report for July came out yesterday and the ridership numbers indicate that the 25 million pasenger count will be made for FY2004. This does NOT INCLUDE the passenger counts for the commuter services run by Amtrak nor any of the services that use Amtrak owned track. Getting to the number of individuals takes some guesses, but I have made a stab at it. First, it is reasonable to assume that 100% of the riders are on round trips, which drops the number to 12.5 million.

The commuters I'm referring to are the regulars who ride Clockers, Harrisburg Line, NEC regional, etc. You may be surprised how many people commute from Philly to NY each day and Harrisburg/Lancaster to Philly for example.

[Junctionfan]

Interesting thing I and others might of missed. Can you see the problem of having an NEC high-speed service along the west coast? I'm thinking of the San Andreas fault. How would somebody address this problem if such a proposal was to be passed do you figure?

[daveklepper]

I still wi***o bring up that matter of preparedness for national defense. Energy independence. How may pieces of passenger rolling stock can the troops use today as compared with either WWII or even the Korian War? Probably about 5%! Also, back then you could takejust about any kind of passenger car, commuter, MU, lightweight, whatever, and couple it together . Brake systems were compatible, steam heat was normal (OK, except for mu's), and you could even mix a few freight cars in if you wanted. Today? Mark and NJ transit have some commuter equipment that is compatible with Amtrak's Amfleet. Most of the others? And try mixing Amfleet with Suuperliners? A few transition cars? I think a lot more money should be spent on Amtrak than David Gunn is asking for, just for this reason alone! It would be a far better investment toward energy independence than any fuel cell research, that is for sure!

[Anonymous]

Here are some "lies" regarding Amtrak's market share:

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-vranich062802.asp

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/WM118.cfm

http://www.publicpurpose.com/hu-amtrk.htm

Read 'em and weep.

Some interesting discoveries:

1. Amtrak's percentage share of the federal budget is double it's market share, whereas highways and airports are paid for by user fees and ticket taxes, not out of the general budget, thus not truely subsidized in that respect. Indeed, much of the highway budget has been used to cover Amtrak's losses..........

2. The definitive 1990 DOT study on Amtrak's true market share has it at 0.4% based on passenger trips and 0.6% based on passenger miles. Lies, lies, all lies, huh? I guess this is all part of a giant government coverup, right?

3. Contrary to populare wisdom, privatized rail passenger operations do exist in Japan and New Zealand, and apparently they do make a profit. How much of this is due to tax favors and the like I do not know, but there it is.....

4. Even the European market share of rail passengers is less than 7% based on passenger miles. Interesting.

I'm waiting on the edge of my seat for someone to present the opposition view with such references.......

[Overmod]

Interesting thought that I haven't seen directly addressed (not that it hasn't been done), coming off Mitch's remark above about "Aurora-Oconomowoc"

For the high-speed FRA/DOT-identified 'corridors' -- what are the likely endpoints for the actual high-speed service, and what are the required feeder routes (perhaps including "limousine" bus service) that would be necessary to provide adequate volume from corporate "endpoints" and other desirable traffic areas that are either off the high-speed routing or would kill the schedule to include as additional stops?

I'm not advocating a NYW&B 'suicide' approach that thinks a transfer to public transit at the earliest point it can be reached is an alternative to reaching city population concentrations, but I do think that more and better kiss 'n rides isn't going to be the answer for Amtrak in making their service actually useful to a wider variety of target markets and potential riders. I do know that without effective public bus and subway service, I would never ride Amtrak to central New Jersey or Philadelphia -- it would be far more convenient and cost-effective (net of tolls and parking) just to drive there. The question is what approaches to providing 'appropriate' feeder service (instead of pathetic Greyhound-leaser "thruway bus services") would make 110mph corridor trains practical time-savers (instead of political showpieces)

Personally, I don't think a high-speed train to Oconomowoc would fare well in Congressional debate -- "And you thought a train from Kalamazoo to Timbuctoo was stupid...!" -- regardless of what common sense might indicate otherwise. It would need some clever service name -- a 21st-Century savvy name, not something like 'clocker' that has a very different meaning to lots of folks. Any takers on ideas, both humorous and serious, on what this corridor line should be? (The Chicago-Madison Bucky Badger Bullet is already taken)

[Junctionfan]

QUOTE: Originally posted by artmark

An up-grade of a product increases patronage. The South Shore Line in 1925 carried very few passengers. In 1926 the whole thing was re-done, new cars purchased, and the line was extended (via tackage rights) into Chicago. Ridership immediately rose into the millions. You can't go about things waiting for optimum useage and then make the improvements. Everything good in life has been a gamble. You have to have the will to operate. The clear vision of the future. That's something you can sense. I feel that any quality improvement of any rail service will bring dramatic increases. Playing it safe spells stagnation and that's just what we have now.
I worked the Chicago-Milwaukee corridor in the '70s. When I hired out there were 7 departures from either end that were well patronized on a memory schedule. Then the thinkers got involved and played with departure times and the number of trains. That tended to shake patronage off the trains. A train every hour, on the hour, with red-cap assistance for luggage, a club car with a small parlor section for those who want a reserved seat and you'll get business. It's convenience, dependability, cleanliness, ample parking, et al, that brings and keeps patronage. The business itself has to portray respectablity, and the service has to have respect and confidence in itself. I base my sentiments on conversations I've had, and remarks overheard from passengers throughout the years.
I agree that perhaps a corridor such as CHI-MKE might be re-thought to Aurora-Oconomowoc via Chicago-Milwaukee as corporate centers now reside far outside the traditional downtown sectors.
Mitch

Pleasure to read your remarks.[:)]

[Anonymous]

An up-grade of a product increases patronage. The South Shore Line in 1925 carried very few passengers. In 1926 the whole thing was re-done, new cars purchased, and the line was extended (via tackage rights) into Chicago. Ridership immediately rose into the millions. You can't go about things waiting for optimum useage and then make the improvements. Everything good in life has been a gamble. You have to have the will to operate. The clear vision of the future. That's something you can sense. I feel that any quality improvement of any rail service will bring dramatic increases. Playing it safe spells stagnation and that's just what we have now.
I worked the Chicago-Milwaukee corridor in the '70s. When I hired out there were 7 departures from either end that were well patronized on a memory schedule. Then the thinkers got involved and played with departure times and the number of trains. That tended to shake patronage off the trains. A train every hour, on the hour, with red-cap assistance for luggage, a club car with a small parlor section for those who want a reserved seat and you'll get business. It's convenience, dependability, cleanliness, ample parking, et al, that brings and keeps patronage. The business itself has to portray respectablity, and the service has to have respect and confidence in itself. I base my sentiments on conversations I've had, and remarks overheard from passengers throughout the years.
I agree that perhaps a corridor such as CHI-MKE might be re-thought to Aurora-Oconomowoc via Chicago-Milwaukee as corporate centers now reside far outside the traditional downtown sectors.
Mitch

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton

Milwaukee-Chicago??? What do you want? That business is up by 12 percent for the year, is looking at about 230,000 passenger round trips, and the people who can use it from Milwaukee to Chicago save at least thirty minute for the trip.

That's exeactly my point. Despite almost 25 years of promotion, $2+ gasoline prices, 6 trains a day in each direction service, excellent end-point connections in Chicago, and allowing for seasonal and daily variances, each train is hauling an average of only about 100-200 passengers. That's equivalent to 1 double deck commuter car on Metra or assuming it's not gridlocked, maybe 30 seconds worth of traffic on I94.

Again I'm not suggesting paving it. A thousand passengers a day is enough to continue the service, but not nearly enough to spend a couple billion turning it into a high speed rail corridor - Catch-22

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by dgwicks
NYC has about 8 million but I doubt many of them ride Amtrak. A lot ride the subway, Metro North, and NJT. MN has an annual ridership of approx. 62 million. And that is trips. So obviously there aren't a lot of New Yorkers riding Amtrak in comparison to Metro North. NEC ridership is about 11 million.

serving, or being available doesn't mean people will ride it. New York City proves that. A population of 8 million, more if you incude everything on the Bos-Wash corridor, and only 11 million riders in a year?

So what? Amtrak doesn't have a big market share in the commuting market of New York?

AMTRAK DOESN'T SERVE NYC COMMUTERS. Therefore, few, as you point out, ride Amtrak.
Last I looked, Amtrak's next stop out of NY was some ways out. There's no way Amtrak would compete against the subways or MN.

So you doubt many ride Amtrak? Have you had your head buried in the sand?

How can Amtrak command the leading market share of travel from Washington to NYC? It was around 50% last I heard and cause Delta to grumble about Amtrak "muscling in" on its subsidized market.

Where do you think the bulk of Amtrak's Florida service passengers come from?

I forget. No one from New York rides Amtrak.

Man, the knowledge on this board is impressive.
Another case of "railfans" citing false information to denegrate Amtrak.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal
Who are you calling a liar? Myself and others are repeating the statistics that are well known and available to anyone who bothers to pull his or her head out of the sand and see the truth about Amtrak. Whether or not Amtrak's ridership is increasing or not is totally irrelevant to the miserably low market share. I don't care if it's 0.3%, 1.0%, 4.3%, or even 10%, it is still not enough to justify a national subsidy. Highways and airports are legitimate in their subsidization (if indeed there is such a thing as a legitimate subsidy) because a majority or plurality of the nation's population use them. If highways and airports only resulted in Amtrak-esque ridership numbers, we'd be calling for those subsidies to end too, but the fact is they do garner enough of a market share, so case closed.

Most of us so-called "so-called railfans" would probably even support an increase in subsidies for passenger rail if it earned at least a 25% or 30% share in today's transportation climate, but the fact may be that the market niche necessary for such a share probably doesn't even exist, even with tax breaks and other incentives. And no, we don't want to start quadrupling the gas tax to force people to use passenger rail, because such a move would destroy the economy and we'd be left with double digit unemployment like France and Germany. Quadrupling the gas tax would not result in people switching to passenger rail, because the fundamentals needed for them to use it still would not exist, and the end result would only be to make peoples lives more miserable, without really aiding the cause of passenger rail.

Dave,
With all respect, the initial statement that 99.7% of the public doesn't have access to or doesn't ride Amtrak, despite how much you want to spin it, is incorrect.

Amtrak serves 85% of this country's metropolitan statistical areas. 500 cities v. 150-200 at most from any single airline.
Just because you want that contention to be accurate doesn't mean it's so.

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal
Whether or not Amtrak's ridership is increasing or not is totally irrelevant to the miserably low market share. I don't care if it's 0.3%, 1.0%, 4.3%, or even 10%,"

How can INCREASING RIDERSHIP (!!!!!!!) be irrelevant?
If you didn't know, Amtrak has a new private-industry background CEO. He's changing things.

Therefore, if I understand you correctly, facts don't matter.
The fact that Amtrak is seeing more passengers means nothing to you. You've disqualified yourself in this argument.

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal
Most of us so-called "so-called railfans" would probably even support an increase in subsidies for passenger rail if it earned at least a 25% or 30% share in today's transportation climate"

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal
If passenger rail can somehow be allowed to evolve into a transportation option that a plurality of all Americans will use, then and only then will we see if all the ascribed characteristics associated with the concept of passenger rail worldwide (e.g. can't make a profit, can't compete with airlines without high speed spending, can't compete with highways, et al) are fundamental truisms or simply steriotypical urban myths.

How can a system designed - and funded - to serve only a small part of the travelling public earn such a market share?

The airline industry doesn't even have THAT big of a market share. It's more like 12% with automobiles being 85%.

A lot of "railfans" - they're not real railfans if they hate trains - demand unreaslistic goals for Amtrak, since airlines don't even have a 20% share of the marketplace.

Just how are subsidies deteremined?
Before the Interstate highway system was developed, auto travel had a very small percentage of the market. Only after subsidies to build the high-speed highways did market share improve.

If the airline system was as subsidized as Amtrak- if it received only a billion or so a year v. $15-30 billion - there would only be tri-weekly flights and many cities wouldn't have service.
I imagine that kind of service would be bad-mouthed too.
To build ridership and market share, you have to have service. To have service, you have to pay for it.

And there's the blind spot of many "railfans" - they narrowly think only passenger rail has to pay for itself. They seem to ignore that taxpayer-built freeway they drive on to their favorite railfan site or the federally-funded aviation system and airport when they fly on the personal trips.

[jeaton]

Dave,

Sorry, you're wrong.

Jay