Bush Budget to Scrap Subsidy for Amtrak

[motor]

QUOTE: Now, I don't know about potential stops in between Allentown and Philly, but is about sixty miles distance so we'll say it takes an hour to get to Philly.

You need to borrow Mr. Peabody's Waybac machine to do this. [:D] SEPTA trains come no closer to Allentown than Lansdale, which is about halfway between Allentown and Philly, per http://www.septa.org/maps/click_map.html . Service north of Lansdale was discontinued in the summer of 1981. It actually had gone up to Bethlehem which is next to Allentown.

QUOTE: Unless everyone got attacked with a case of the stupids

I imagine that's what happened to SEPTA back then.

You can read about this if you can find a copy of Trains, Trolleys & Transit: A Guide to Philadelphia Area Rail Transit by Gerry Williams. The story of Bethlehem-Philly service on RDG/SEPTA is on page 83 thereof. According to Williams's book, the fastest Bethlehem-Philly train took 90 minutes to cover the 57 miles.

At the same time SEPTA ended trains to Bethlehem, it killed off service to Reading, cutting that line back to Norristown. Twenty-five years ago I took a train from Reading to Philly, a distance similar to Bethlehem to Philly. It took 2 hours (30 minutes longer than scheduled). The Reading-Philly trains actually originated in Pottsville.

There is talk from time to time of taking the Norristown-to-Reading ROW and making it a light rail line called the Schuylkill Valley Line. I don't know the status of the project right now. As for the stations that were abandoned, the one in Royersford (about midway between Reading and Philly) still stands, all boarded up. As for the Pottstown (not to be confused with Pottsville) station, when I drove by there in 1996, it had become a bank IIRC. And the Valley Forge station, when I saw it in 1997, had become some kind of equipment shed (it's near Washington's headquarters in Valley Forge NHP).

motor

[Anonymous]

[quote.
We could list industry after industry where the beloved freight rail industry has lost out market share to trucks.
Why? Trucks are a lot faster. Plus most shippers don't want the extraordinary longer transit times provided by freight rail.

[passengerfan]

I penned a diatribe in the Classic trains forum that should have been here. I am that person who complained about the amtrak reservation system it stinks to put it mildly. Especially if one is handicapped.

I do not enjoy flying as a regular airline seat for someone confined to a wheelchair is most uncomfortable for anything over about 1-1/2 hours. First class is better but still not enjoyable for anything over about two or three hours at the maximum.

The Superliner Sleepers are all equipped with one handicapped room per car and I am unable to reserve this very expensive space even five months in advance it is always sold out that far in advance. It's either sold out or the Amtrak reservations people are saying that to discourage riders. I understand they can get more for the space by selling it to a family than they can a couple who one being handicapped need the space for any long distance travel.

I am seriously considering bringing a lawsuit against Amtrak for violating the ADA act. I can't believe that all space in July is sold out on the Coast Starlight this far in advance. And if it is all sold out the problem with Amtrak is they should be running two twenty car Superliner equipped Coast Starlights every twelve hours to meet the demand for space.

But better yet I will bring suit against Amtrak to expose the poor treatment of those American's that are confined to wheelchairs. I have never looked for any special treatment just what they advertise as being available for the handicapped.

I have to admit that the airlines I have travelled on have done an excellent job of getting me from point A to point B, but I would like to make the trip part of the vacation and a bus is certainly out of the question. Amtrak is completely ignoring the handicapped or at least that is the impression I am left with. And yes I will be contacting lawyers just as soon as monday gets here.

[Anonymous]

You hit the nail on the head. There aren't enough sleepers, Superliners or Viewliners..... They are usually booked at least a month in advance..... I'm tired of hearing that the big o US government doesn't have the ca***o double their Amtrak's sleeper fleet..... And the diners and the cafe cars on the east coast are so old, not to mention their dome and coach cars........you wonder how the Viewliner sleepers were built......

But why stop there? Frankly, all of Amtrak's fleet of cars is obsolete compared to European standards......the only exception being the Acela fleet of cars.......but then again, the tracks of the NEC aren't up to speed.......

THE PROBLEM WITH AMTRAK IS ITS LACK OF CAPITAL FUNDING! Damaged much needed cars not being repaired, the roadbed allowed to fall into disrepair, and a complete failure to maintain the speeds necessary to double, triple, or ten fold its load capacity...... ITS BEEN MY EXPERIENCE IN BUSINESS IF ONE DOESN'T GROW SIGNIFICANTLY, YOU DIE!

[Junctionfan]

Personally I think the government should go out of business and the properties be liquidated. Government is becoming a financial joke at taxpayer's expense. The government hasn't made any smart financial growth or investment as of late. For business owners out there, don't you wish you could be just as financially irresponsible and get away with it as they do?

[PNWRMNM]

Junction,

You are confusing me. I thought you were a socialist. That being true you should desire outrageous government expenditures for any purpose, especially American Govt which you do not have to pay for but I do. What is happening to you??

Mac

[Anonymous]

Ok correct me if I am wrong here but, was not Amtrak basicly formed because the Railroads didnt want to perform passenger service any longer. I believe the government made this happen for them. So is it not possible that if the government allows Amtrak to (worse case) go under wouldnt that old agreement mean that the Railroads would have to pick up passenger service again? I do not think with the political clout that the Railroad has they would let this happen. Do you?

[Anonymous]

Polizi:

In the simplest possible terms: NO.

The railroads "not wanting" to run passenger trains was because the losses were inevitably driving them into bankruptcy. Amtrak was formed to keep the railroads from going bankrupt and ending all service, passenger AND freight. The legal requirements a railroad had to operate passenger trains ended for most railroads on May 1, 1971. For four others it ended by 1983 or earlier. For commuter trains it ended in the 1970s for all roads. If Amtrak was shut down tomorrow the requirement would not revert. If the government were to try to force the issue anyway, it would essentially mean tearing up the U.S. Constitution.

OS

[Anonymous]

Thanks OS I needed some clarity on that, But here is another question is there any Railroad offering passenger service in the world that makes money and is not using government subsidies?

[Anonymous]

Polizi: Yes, including dozens of them in the U.S. They are mostly categorized as tourist railroads; short lines looking for cash flow; companies that do not expect the passenger train to contribute to its share of track costs, capital costs, and overhead; and companies where the passenger train serves something such as a public-relations purpose or another purpose where the benefits are something other than pure contribution to profit.

But a large system that totally sits on its own without any significant government subsidy in any form? No. They all get one, in some form or another, and it's usually immense. Most people in most countries don't care -- I include the U.S. in that -- because they perceive the value they receive to outweigh the demand on their tax bill it creates.

OS

[Modelcar]

....So I wonder why it continues to be so difficult to fund our system each time of the year when budget time rolls around. Several Presidents tried to stop it and now especially this current one thinks he is actually going to get it done this time....

[passengerfan]

Reading an article in the local paper this AM as to the costs to bring U.S. airports up to standards for the new A-380 Airbus that is due to begin operating next year. The planes 261 foot wingspan alone precludes it from all but three or four airports in the US and its weight of 1.2 million pounds eliminates operation from many other airports. Only San Francisco International is equipped to handle the new plane, and it has the new terminal building for it. But when landing or taking off the airport can only use one runway at a time and some of the taxiways will have to be shut down for the new planes to get to and fropm the runway. At the very most maybe six A-380 planes a day will use SFO and the costs associated with the new planes are estimated at 6 Billion just to bring a few Airports up to standards to accomodate the new 555 passenger planes. Those Airports are Chicago O'Hare, New Yorks JFK, Atlanta's Hartsfield, Miami International, SFO and Los Angeles International. For those airports that will be designated emergency fields for the new plane and their are few interested the costs will never be justified. And who is going to pay for maybe twelve planes a day to land in the US the hard pressed American taxpayer. If the total passenger load in and out per day is only going to be 13, 320 then where is the justification for the new airport expansions. Now if the taxpayers want to get their monies worth put 6 billion into capital improvements for Amtrak and watch the return on investment. Amtrak certainly carries more than 13, 320 passengers daily and the money would be far better spent in turning passengers away from the beloved Interstate that in many places is fast becoming a paved parking lot with daily gridlock for miles in almost every direction around many American cities.

[Modelcar]

...Very well stated...Did anyone see the hour long program on the design and building of the A-380 Air Bus plane Sunday evening...It was presented on the Discovery channel. What a bulk of an airplane and If I heard it correctly in one configuration it would have a capacity of 800 and some passengers...! Seems to be a questionable risk to put that many passengers in the air in one machine...and the money involved in all aspects of it are mind bogging...

[CG9602]

The amount of misinformation regardinging Amtrak, in this thread, from certain Elected Representatives, and from the media, is amazing. What people choose to believe or ignore is also mind boggling as well. A few points need reitieration:

1. Passenger rail is a money LOSER everywhere. If it weren't, UP, CSX, etc. would still be in the business. I.e. we cannot have intercity passenger rail without some source of external financing to cover these losses.

2. Long distance passenger trains through rural areas are not lightly patronized. They are significant generators of passenger miles and passenger revenue. Many outperform short-haul corridor services. As a matter of fact, trains generate business BECAUSE of the stops along each route. Trains stop along each route to embark and disembark passengers. This is different than aircraft, because aircraft and air routes are designed with the end of each route being the sole generator of business. This is a crucial factor.

3. One can espouse preference for reliance upon free enterprises as opposed to state-owned operations. However, one cannot advocate this for transportation without acknowledge government's - and government policy's - role in establishing modal preferences. In other words, both highway and air transportation benefit from public subsidies. No airline has built any airports and no trucker has built its own highways.

Railroads, which own their right-of-way are at a competitive disadvantage, as a result. Not only must they maintain their track, but they must oay taxes on it. The high costs drove them out of the passenger business and the weakened state of their infrastructure creates additional costs for Amtrak.

4. There may be better ways to organize the U.S. intercity passenger system. Creating a separate entity to manage and maintain the NEC might make sense if it means Amtrak can concentrate on train operations. Competition could bring benefits in terms of service innovations and managing operations - i.e. a better or more efficient product.

No matter what happens, we have to have some sort of long term dedicated funding. That's right, something like a Trust Fund - or some other source of funding. The current set-up is poor, and allows for all of the shenanigans like what we are expereinceing right now.

[Anonymous]

I am sure the A-380 will be an engineering tour de force and all possible energy will be brought forward to achieve nearly perfect reliability. But near-perfect is not perfect. The risk that is being taken by the manufacturer and purchasers of these very large aircraft seems like a reverse-lottery -- while the chances of disaster are very small, the penalty would be very high. It will be interesting to see how the public reacts if one of these with a full passenger load falls from the sky. Who knows -- the public might just shrug. But if they don't, a sizeable investment could be wiped out. That's not a risk I'd undertake with equanimity. Considering that the net profit of the entire airline business to date is $0.00, I guess either the A-380 buyers fatalistically think they have nothing more to lose, or else we're getting more insight into why the profit to date is $0.00.

What was the source for the airport expenditures to accommodate the A-380? I'd be interested in reading the full discussion.

OS

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by motor

QUOTE: Now, I don't know about potential stops in between Allentown and Philly, but is about sixty miles distance so we'll say it takes an hour to get to Philly.

You need to borrow Mr. Peabody's Waybac machine to do this. [:D] SEPTA trains come no closer to Allentown than Lansdale, which is about halfway between Allentown and Philly, per http://www.septa.org/maps/click_map.html . Service north of Lansdale was discontinued in the summer of 1981. It actually had gone up to Bethlehem which is next to Allentown.

Conrail had extended the service to Allentown in the late 70s but it only lasted a few years.

[Anonymous]

We need to truly come together to support our railroads. If we all began to "use" Amtrak as our first or second mode of transportation we would then be able to demand, through our increased usage, a better quality product. If it is welded rails and improved beds, or easier access to the product, we need to urge many people to use the product. And, of course, write [in mass numbers] our Congressmen/Reperesentatives and demand immediate help to this cause. Imagine being able to drive to a train station, walk a few feet from the parking garage to the train, and be at another major city [within 500 miles] in the time it took just to wait to board an airplane. Sell the ability to walk around, the view, the fact you can load your car, and take it with you and have transpotation once you get there instead of havng to rent a car or be picked up....
We need support for our freight handlers. Express to the American public the joy of the train for freight handling, it would relieve our major interstates of the overwhelming truck traffic. The ATA [truck lobby] sells the convenience of the trucker and his freight, when in actuality, for the long haul you cannot compare it to the amount of freight the train can handle. How many trucks would it take to move a large amount of freight from Miami to the Northwest? Talk in terms of fuel costs and consumption. There are many ways we can win this battle to get a better AMTRAK. One thing that comes to mind, is to return to privatize it, or allow competition against it to raise the bar/quality of the service. Someone made a point earlier that was a great point, if we need to move mass, and for some reason a 9-11 type event occurs and theplanes are grounded,then what. we're screwed!

[BNSFGP38]

You guys crack me up. Here your are talking about goverment subsidies and Amtrak fiscal funding on Valentines day. Go romance your wives instead of the keyboard!


And yes I realize the irony of me posting this today, gotta do something when she is in the shower.[:D]

[Anonymous]

Let AMTRAK die! The American people voted out passenger service in this country in the 1920's. When the car became affordable to the average family, they started leaving the trains. The American people also rejected trains for planes when fares became "cheap" and time of travel time became "important". Passenger trains survived only by carrying the U.S. Mail. When mail went to planes and trucks, the trains died.

If AMTRAK was free, the majority would still not ride it. AMTRAK's first class service is too expensive for most people and coach class service is poor at best. AMTRAK is a welfare program for railroads and railroaders whom can not do anything else. If passenger trains could make money, there would be a rush of companies to get into the business.

Now, all of that said, I believe we should treat ALL forms of transportation equally. Lets take taxpayers money out of airlines (they get it in terminals, FAA services, etc.), highways (everyone knows this one) and water transportation (locks, dams, dredging, etc.). Why water transportation? Move bulk freight back to railroads and let those profits be used to offset passenger losses, if railroads ever chose to run passenger trains again. None of these things will ever happen, as long as politicians play trainmen. Ask any of them when the last rode a train that was not for a photo op?

Lets scrap AMTRAk and let the local taxpayer fund local light rail (until they figure out its real cost). The days of long-haul passenger trains are dead, may they rest in peace or in the pages of Trains.

[conrailman]

To: Osogrande.
Amtrak Carried 25 Million People last Year, Amtrak is not Dead at all. If Congress gave Amtrak money like the Highway and Airlines 35 Billion for Highways and 15 Billion for Airlines this Year 2005. Amtrak would be in Great Shape. [:)][:D]

[Anonymous]

If Amtrak carried 250 million passengers a year, it would still loose MONEY. The railroads that Amtrak has rights over, the Transportation Unions and the Bureaucrats would see to it. Well run companies don't loose money and when they do, they cut off loosing operations. How many times have you ridden Amtrak and how far? Don't let your "love" for trains cloud the facts! Amtrak (and light rail and commuter systems) is a looser and will always be one!

Union trainmen get $22,000 plus in benefits and start at roughly $45,000 an year. Simply mutiply number of employees times labor cost, add equipement, fuel and "rights" cost, etc.; then subtract fares paid and you get losses.

Fares will never cover the costs!

[DSchmitt]

QUOTE: Originally posted by conrailman

To: Osogrande.
Amtrak Carried 25 Million People last Year, Amtrak is not Dead at all. If Congress gave Amtrak money like the Highway and Airlines 35 Billion for Highways and 15 Billion for Airlines this Year 2005. Amtrak would be in Great Shape. [:)][:D]

Congress does not "give" 35 billion to highways. The Federal government takes money from highway users and redistributes it. The federal highway budget is 100% user fee financed. Most of the highway user fees are spent on highways but some goes to other modes including rail.

However, a subsidy for one mode does not justify a subsidy for another mode. If it did perhaps we should subsidize roller skates.[:o)]

[Junctionfan]

QUOTE: Originally posted by osogrande

If Amtrak carried 250 million passengers a year, it would still loose MONEY. The railroads that Amtrak has rights over, the Transportation Unions and the Bureaucrats would see to it. Well run companies don't loose money and when they do, they cut off loosing operations. How many times have you ridden Amtrak and how far? Don't let your "love" for trains cloud the facts! Amtrak (and light rail and commuter systems) is a looser and will always be one!

Union trainmen get $22,000 plus in benefits and start at roughly $45,000 an year. Simply mutiply number of employees times labor cost, add equipement, fuel and "rights" cost, etc.; then subtract fares paid and you get losses.

Fares will never cover the costs!

Operation costs are normal. There are alot of businesses with high paying jobs and yet they still manage to turn up a giant profit. Amtrak in theory should have been able to start to reduce the need of its own government funding if the government wasn't their sole investor. I like government own enterprises; I don't like butt-backwards irresponsible government own ones. CN and Ontario Hydro are examples of governments not doing their job right and screwing it up for its employees and the public (or customers) it serves.

[RudyRockvilleMD]

QUOTE: Originally posted by conrailman

To: Osogrande.
Amtrak Carried 25 Million People last Year, Amtrak is not Dead at all. If Congress gave Amtrak money like the Highway and Airlines 35 Billion for Highways and 15 Billion for Airlines this Year 2005. Amtrak would be in Great Shape. [:)][:D]

Perhaps Amtrak would be in great shape if it carried as many passengers (or passenger miles) as the airlines, busses, or cars on highways.

[Anonymous]

Well, we've seen our gov't. asking for another $68 Billion for Iraq and Afgahanistan (<--- spell check please). Anyways, that would have been about 68 years of funding for Amtrak. Never a hesitation to find funds to go elsewhere, but, inside of our home country, we see: program cuts, social security questions, health care, and so on and so on.

[Modelcar]

....Don't forget cuts in education.

[Anonymous]

It's the same stupid decision taken by menem in Argentina during the 1990's: the consequences were the massive closing of nearby all the industries related with the railways and the shops of passenger equipment, lost of the job for thousands of specialized workers, de-population of small towns who relyed heavily in railways for communication with the rest of the country.
Province-owned passenger trains were underfinancied, so their services were slow, scarce and unpleasant, not competence for the bus.
Today, the Argentine Goverment wants to run again interprovince trains, but hasn't the money and the once proud railway industry not longer exists, so as today the few intercity trains that runs are very, very few, and for the near future the Goverment is searching for second-hand passenger materiel around the world!
I hope this didn't happen to you.
From Buenos Aires, The Greekest

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by DSchmitt

QUOTE: Originally posted by conrailman

US Congress should take 5 cent out of the Federal Gas Tax to help amtrak out, I think the federal tax is 24 or 25 cent Now or give amtrak 10 or 20 cent of the gas taxes?[8D]

Over 15% (FIFTEEN) of the Federal Gas Tax (user fee) is allocated to the Mass Transit portion of the Highway Trust Fund. Because there are other user fee that go into the Trust Fund, overall the Mass Transit account gets about 5% of the money paid by motorists (5.1% in 1995 for instance) While the Mass Transit Account is not limied to rail, a substantial portion of it is allocated to rail.

In my opinion, this is good policy. Building mass transit is often more cost effective than building additional urban interstate lanes. It still is a mystery to me why urban interstates get an 80% Federal match while transit only gets 50% match.

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by DSchmitt

QUOTE: Originally posted by conrailman

To: Osogrande.
Amtrak Carried 25 Million People last Year, Amtrak is not Dead at all. If Congress gave Amtrak money like the Highway and Airlines 35 Billion for Highways and 15 Billion for Airlines this Year 2005. Amtrak would be in Great Shape. [:)][:D]

Congress does not "give" 35 billion to highways. The Federal government takes money from highway users and redistributes it. The federal highway budget is 100% user fee financed. Most of the highway user fees are spent on highways but some goes to other modes including rail.

However, a subsidy for one mode does not justify a subsidy for another mode. If it did perhaps we should subsidize roller skates.[:o)]

No, but you might be able to make a case for bike and cart paths......

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by DSchmitt

QUOTE: Originally posted by conrailman

To: Osogrande.
Amtrak Carried 25 Million People last Year, Amtrak is not Dead at all. If Congress gave Amtrak money like the Highway and Airlines 35 Billion for Highways and 15 Billion for Airlines this Year 2005. Amtrak would be in Great Shape. [:)][:D]

Congress does not "give" 35 billion to highways. The Federal government takes money from highway users and redistributes it. The federal highway budget is 100% user fee financed. Most of the highway user fees are spent on highways but some goes to other modes including rail.

However, a subsidy for one mode does not justify a subsidy for another mode. If it did perhaps we should subsidize roller skates.[:o)]

If something is user fee supported, shouldn't it be able to make it as a free enterprise?

What of all the fed gas tax collected on gas that is not burned on fed highways? Is that truly a "user fee"?

Isn't the gas tax just a tax like my property tax?

Should there be a relationship of some sort between where tax is collected and where it's spent?

WWI was paid for with an income tax - what's the relationship?

Where I live, a sales tax is used to build new schools. A property tax is used to pay teachers. A lottery is used to pay for colleges. I don't see any relationship between source and sink in any of these.

I just want to get the most for what I pay in taxes. Which hand Uncle Sam uses to collect it and which pocket he stores it in matter not a bit to me.