Amtrak funding

[Anonymous]

If you did get rid of the long-distance trains, what would replace them for people who can't drive, fly or go by coach? Would you have lots of local trains, resulting in about 10 or 20 changes going from, say, Chicago to the West Coast?

But having passenger services only thrice weekly is stupid - it would be better not to have any service since it is not reliable enough. Whoever thought up that schedule needs their head read! Hence, a decision needs to be made as to whether funding is available (State funding; lottery) to add services to fill in the missing days.

Jason

[Anonymous]

That was essentially political. Amtrak had to maintain it's "glide path to efficiency" and so they wanted to get the Acela on line right away, perceiving it to be a cash cow, so they went ahead and installed the train w/o making improvements in track structure. What is really nasty is that some of those tunnels date from the Civil War!

The slow unelectrified locals and frieghts, I am told, run mostly at night, and don't gum up anything. But I'm a continent away so I might be wrong on that.

[Anonymous]

Wow, Don! On time? Within budget? Man, where were your guys when we needed them up here? Phases 1 and 2 of Portland Tri Met's Max Light Rail went waaaaayyyyy over budget and was waaaaayyyyyy late.

The last extension, to the airport, was the best of the three. It stayed on target and on time and costs us very little- the Port of Portland traded land it owned for Bechtel to construct it. Still, we screwed up and didn't build any long term lots along it, but, , we never get it right up here. And likely that we won't get another deal like that, as Bechtel's investment in that ex-port property was a dud.

Alexander

[Anonymous]

William:

There has been so much traffic and so many replies I can't figure out which of my posts your message was replying to.

However, you suggest that Amtrak should pay for a portion of it's cost that it impacts agianst the freight companies, whose track it runs over. Am I correct?

I would say, yes, probably that is a good concept- BUT- not necessarily so. Let me put it this way- the freight road incurrs costs to support Amtrak, so there is a negative or "debt" on the books of the freight road Amtrak owes.

But instead of paying the freight road for their maintenance costs, Amtrak, or more specifically, US-DOT & Congress, could pay for infrastructure improvements such as better signalization, double and triple tracking, etc...., thus paying the debt in this manner instead. If there was, say, a trust fund for rail, these roads could receive credits in that trust fund equivilant to their Amtrak related subsidies, which would be redeemable in actual improvement to track structure etc.....

At least, that is one way of handling that.

[Anonymous]

Up to a point I might agree. It takes a long time, the sooner we get started the better. Here is a little history of DART (Dallas Area Rapid Transit)

1983
DART is created when 58 percent of voters in 14 cities and Dallas County cast 175,000 ballots in favor of regional transportation.
1984
The DART Board selects light rail as the preferred mode for the 147-mile network. Parson, Brinkerhoff, Quade & Douglas is named DART's general engineering consultant.
1985
A major staff financial review reveals that revenue resources through 2010 will not be sufficient to build 147 miles of rail.
1986
The Board revises the DART Service Plan to provide 93 miles of light rail transit including seven miles of subways.
1988
The North Central Texas Council of Governments conducts a citizen survey on transit planning that demonstrates voter support for mass transit, but not for long-term borrowing. The DART Board shifts course to develop a system plan that would include immediate and future projects without long-term debt.
1989
The DART Board approves the new DART Transit System Plan, moving the agency from the planning modes to major construction. The Board also approves the local and technical assistance programs for member city regional transportation support.
1990
DART begins light rail transit construction with San Jacinto Street relocation.
1992
DART begins major construction with the Trinity River rail bridge and the North Central subway tunnels. DART begins construction on the West Oak Cliff rail line.
1993
DART begins utility relocation work for the 1.1-mile transitway mall in the Dallas Central Business District. DART receives $82.6 million in federal funding for the South Oak Cliff light rail project.
1994
DART's construction crews complete mining for final tunnel breakthrough on the second of two 3.5-mile light rail subway tunnels under North Central Expressway. The House Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee recommends a bill allocating $38.77 million for DART's rail projects. DART's Board of Directors approves a $33.6 million construction contract to build a 2.9-mile light rail line through South Oak Cliff. DART holds public hearings to hear community rail concerns and present a neighborhood job program.
1995
More than 300,000 State Fair visitors take the public's first official look at a DART light rail vehicle.
1996
The 20-mile light rail transit starter system opens ontime and within budget, with weekend festivities followed by a week of free rides. Revenue service begins June 24, coinciding with the opening of the CBD West Bus Transfer Center -- the first of two such facilities scheduled to begin operation in downtown Dallas. Initial light rail ridership exceeds all expectations, averaging more than 18,000 daily passengers as opposed to the projected 15,000. DART opens the first 10-mile segment of the new Trinity Railway Express commuter rail service linking Dallas and Irving with a stop at the Medical/Market Center. Service will be extended to Fort Worth.
1997
DART extends the light rail system six miles northward along North Central Expressway (US Highway 75) between downtown Dallas and Park Lane. The new line includes a 3.5-mile subway from downtown to the new Mockingbird Station, making it possible for commuters to make the trip between Park Lane and downtown in just 14 minutes. The opening of the new line nearly doubles ridership on the new light rail system to approximately 30,000 passengers per day. DART completes the 20-mile light rail starter system with the opening of the three-mile long extension of its Blue Line through the South Oak Cliff section of Dallas. This section of track runs south from the Illinois Station in the center of Lancaster Road to the new Ledbetter Station with an intermediate stop at the VA Medical Center Station. DART is named Transit Agency of the Year by the American Public Transit Association, the highest honor in the industry. The U.S. Department of Transportation awards DART $13.7 million for the light rail extension from Park Lane in north Dallas to Plano. The DART Board orders 34 additional light rail vehicles (LRVs) from Kinkisharyo, USA, manufacturers of DART's original 40 LRVs. The value of the contract is $93.43 million. The LRVs are scheduled to begin service in June 1999.
1998
DART light rail sets a ridership record, transporting more than 36,000 passengers each weekday. The DART Board votes to purchase 21 additional LRVs from Kinkisharyo, USA. The new purchase is in addition to the 34 LRVs ordered in October 1997. This order brings the fleet size to 95. The contract price for the 21 vehicles is $60.21 million. More than 1 million passenger trips were made on
1999
DART begins light rail construction in Garland. Construction is underway on DART's first aerial station located at Park Lane and Greenville. The station on the north side of Park Lane will replace the temporary station on the south side of the road. U.S. Transportation Secretary Rodney Slater signs a $333 million Full Funding Grant Agreement to help pay for construction of an extension of DART's North Central rail line.
2000
Residents in DART's 13 member cities voted overwhelmingly in favor of allowing the agency to use long-term financing to upgrade and accelerate future light rail lines. More than 77 percent of the 33,603 voters casting ballots in the August 12, 2000, election supported the proposition. Trinity Railway Express Commuter Rail expands service to three new Tarrant County stations - the Richland Hills station, the Hurst/Bell station and the CentrePort/DFW Airport station. Cityplace Station, the Southwest's first subway station, opens. Cityplace Station has Texas-style dimensions, including six pairs of escalators. The tri-level facility reaches depths of 120 feet underneath the expressway. Bright lights and soothing pastel and white tiles throughout the station give customers a sense of safety, day or night. Original tile art on station walls at all levels reflect the area's rich history and diversity.
2001
White Rock Station, three miles northeast of Mockingbird Station, opens at East Northwest Highway and West Lawther Drive, the initial stop on the northeast rail extension to downtown Garland in 2002. The park-and-ride station is the first light rail expansion since the debut of the 20-mile starter system in 1996. Trinity Railway Express commuter rail service reaches downtown Fort Worth. The train, which has been operating at three stations in Dallas County since December 1996, and three Tarrant County stations since September of 2000, currently carries nearly 6,000 riders per day. The North Central Texas Council of Governments projects more than 11,000 riders each day by 2010.
2002
DART pushes past LBJ Freeway with the opening of LBJ/Skillman Station. DART's 23rd light rail station extends the Blue Line 3.5 miles from White Rock Station to serve Northeast Dallas. The station has 646 free parking spaces, passenger shelters, seating and telephones. The LBJ/Skillman Station celebrates the natural landscape of the region and the importance of transportation to Texas and the United States. DART reaches North Dallas and Richardson with seven new rail stations. The opening is part of one of the largest light rail expansions underway in North America. The seven new stations extend DART's Red Line by more than nine miles. In Dallas, new rail stops include a new Park Lane Station, Walnut Hill Station, Forest Lane Station and LBJ/Central Station. In Richardson, DART trains stop at Spring Valley Station, Arapaho Center Station and Galatyn Park Station. Richardson is the first North Texas suburb to welcome DART light rail into its city limits. DART light rail opens in Plano.
Southeast and Northwest Corridors Draft Environmental Impact Statement released. Southeast and Northwest Corridors Preliminary Engineering/Environmental Impact Statement Bulletin released.

19 years after DART was borned, DART is becoming something to be proud of. Yet, DART is not safisfied, there are two more corridors underway....

[Anonymous]

Well that's why I keep hammering on point- cut back to what works now, or what will work if given a little more time to develop, and cut the big losers. Then grow, slowly, from there, as demand warrants.

Realize that it was basically the government that killed passenger service, with it's ridiculous ICC regs. Meddling is not a good thing. Let the passengers decided with their wallets. Allready, by using newer equipment like the Spanish built Talgo sets, we can accomplish significant operational improvements that will gain ridership at a very low (realtively) cost, a cost which even states could afford, (especially California, Washington, Texas, Florida, etc... who all have healthy and rich economies.)

Passenger trains were done in by the ICC and then run into the ground of pork and graft by Amtrak for 30 years. It'll take far more than a few bills in Congress to straighten it out- it may take another three decades to undo the damage and bring it back on par with other, private transportation systems.

Still, at least we're ahead of air, which has yet ot undergo it's meltdown. Man, that will be scary- let us hope American does end up owning United, becuase a United bankruptcy would be even worse for commerce.

Alexander the Deposed

[Anonymous]

Well I'd love to see additional operators! But I am not sure that either Amtrak or the Host RRs are in favor of that. I think you'd have to arrange it so Amtrak provides the crews and power for those trains, (or at least the crews,) on a contract basis.

As for the long distance trains, thye may have to go, even if they would be convenient, because they are a major drain on operational dollars. But perhaps these could be contracted out....

As for the freight roads taking back over, I wouldn't rule it out so fast. They wanted out from under passenger systems because of unfunded mandates- ICC regs requiring the continuation of passenger service despite hemorraging losses.

But if that mandate became funded.....

[Anonymous]

Is it also a fact that Amtrak has to pay $$$ to the freight lines for using their rails to transport passengers outside of the NE Corridor? I can't if they did not have to, because, after all, those railroad companies have to maintain the rails and whatever Amtrak uses, they would get charged for it, right? They would the costs on to the passengers, and maybe our tax dollars, too.

[Anonymous]

Look at Texas Jason. Amtrak operates a daily train, the Eagle, from San Antonio thru Dallas/Fort Worth all the way to Chicago. To get anywhere by train north and east this is the route. Amtrak also operates in Texas and east west route, the Sunset Limited, thrice a week. If anyone in Texas wants to make connections in San Antonio, one must waste a night there, because the Sunset Limited and Eagle don't make it there until the wee hours of the morning. At least they switch cars westbound, but eastbound they don't.

So if one wanted to get to Houston from Dallas one must wake up from their slumber in San Antonio and wait to board the eastbound train, at night, in the wee hours of the morning, without cover, and with the station closed, on the eastside of downtown, in the warehouse district.... It wouldn't be so bad if one could get inside the safe station....

If Amtrak is running on time, a big if, one catches the train in Dallas around 2 pm, and should arrive in Houston around 10 am. twenty hours later. One can drive 20 mph and get to Houston in 12 hours.

This might be one the reasons why Amtrak does not fare well in Texas. Putting in a local running directly from Dallas and Houston won't be fast on the slow UP track, but one would think if they left Houston or Dallas in the morning they might reach their destination before night fell.....

And to think Texas is now the second largest state in population, with the sixth and ninth largest metropolitan areas of the country. Texas might as well be a different country as far as Amtrak is concerned.

[Anonymous]

What slows the Acela trains is the length of track from New York City to New Haven. From what I have heard, there are three old bridges gumming up the works, not to mention the slow unelectrified locals and freights....

This is a classic example of putting the buggy before the horse. Why buy expensive new fast trainsets and not speed up the track?

[Anonymous]

Former Elvis,

Yea-up, looks like there's a new 'share-ruff' in town.

Actually, this thread (quilt?) has been more productive than I expected it to be. I think several people have reconsidered their position in light of two facts which have been hammered on by a few of us; namely that roadbed construction costs a staggering amount of money and the distances are vast, and Americans don't want to ride a train (or any other public transit) given the other options they have today.

I think some studies should be done to identify where new or improved track could serve a demand, but I don't think it should be constructed unless the demand is there to support it. - Elvis II

[Anonymous]

If people are not riding the trains, one has to ask why? I notice that some station on the Amtrak network only get trains 3 times a week! People can't rely on them. To encourage ridership, every town on the network needs at least one train a day in each direction. Obviously, for communters, you need a much higher frequency.

Aberystwyth is a small (14 000 pop.) town, but we get about 10 trains a day during the week.

If Amtrak is to be scrapped, then who would take over? The reason Amtrak was formed, as I understand it, was to remove the 'burden' of passengers from freight railroads. But they don't want it!

What about this: keep Amtrak as a bsic service, but allow other players to enter the field to run their own trains. This would require clarification of the track access position (and fees), as well as improvement to the lines.

I don't agree that the long-distance trains should be eliminated - after all, in the immediate aftermarth of Sept. 11, they were the onlty way for many airline passengers to get home (or near home).

Jason.

[Anonymous]

Rudy:

I disagree with your statement that HSR is meant only to compete against air transit. What about interstate travel? By far, it is the leading mode of choice for most Americans who travel- and most of these trips are in the below 1k miles

Example: Washington State chose to invest in the Cascades Corridor instead of adding capacity to I-5- it was much cheaper, and while it's impact is minor, it has produced a very successful and well used system.

Sharing tracks with one of the busiest PNW freight corridors, the joint line from Portland to Seattle, it operates at speeds below 79MPH and still manages to make it to town only about 30 minutes after the average car transit time. When investments in track structure and signalling are complete within the next decade, these trains will reach speeds of 90+, and be able to cut transit times to about 2.4 hours- faster than by auto and, couting terminal delays,competitive with Horizon shuttle flights out of PDX.

And anyway, the idea is for incrementalism, the 90mph limit being interim until better structure can be built. 90+ is certainly better than what Amtrak does now, so it would be an improvement over the status qou.

And of course, 90mph is much better than 0.

Best, Alexander

[RudyRockvilleMD]

The whole idea of high speed rail is to provide railroad travel times which are competitive with flying on a portal-to-portal basis in certain well populated corridors. So starting a"high speed rail system" with a top speed of only 90mph + just won't cut it.

You need to start with a system where the top speed is 150 mph, and build from that. Right now the Acela Express only averages 66 mph between Boston and New York, and the trains can only travel at 150 mph for 18 miles.

[Anonymous]

Yeah, well, Auburn WA didn't get their way either. Last I saw, BNSF is running trains over the hump and straight through town. But at issue here is that in building longer corridors, more of these cities will be effected, and in highly populated locations like Texas and California, they've got a lot of house seats.

It may be, however, much as you piont out, more an issue of engineering than of impossibility.

Alexander

[Anonymous]

Ah, well, as for planning in advance, you bet! Heck, take a peek at how long most of these highway projects took to build, from first concept through all the amazing red tape... etc....

It could take a decade on the planning stages alone- heck, we're undergoing a commuter rail project in Washington County, and it started back in 95 or so. Only now do we have FRA approval, and now funding is stalling it. It is estimated for construction to begin in 2003 or 4 with opening in 05, and even that isn't likely in my view. And that's for a piddly 15 mile commuter rail project!

So we need a master plan for what we're building towards, AND an interim plan to rachet up slowly towards that goal.

Later, Alexander

[Anonymous]

I will answer that question before you do. Why hasn't Amtrak put in a local between Dallas and Houston? Simply, my dear Dr. Watson, the track is slow! A Greyhound bus on the truck laden I-45 can beat any train on that slow track.........

[Anonymous]

I'm not an engineer. I am an ignorant consultant. However, one must have dreams to accomplish anything.

Yes, tunnels will cost more than $20 million a mile. How much more, I haven't a clue. Twice as much, three times as much. For how long a distance, 1 mile, 5 miles? I will admit, I don't know.

But I do know if we are to ever have a modern passsenger rail system the envy of the world, we must start as soon as possible. Keeping what we have now will be a toy in 30 years. Define the plan, engineer the plan, cross all of the t"s and dot all of the i"s, find a funding mechanism, and then do it!
You are rightly worried about tax increases. I hate tax increases too. Yet, the federal government recently passed an $80 billion farm subsidy package, most of it going to large agri-businesses and not to the poor farmers.

The feds spent $7 billion last year and will again this year funding city buses and light rail systems. Buses!

The DOT budget this year is $ 60 billion, yet, Amtrak receives from it a subsidy of $600 million. Chump change. Highways got $33 billion, airports $11 billion. Can't we take a couple of billion from each, and fund Amtrak $4 billion a year?

Are freeways and airports going to solve our transportation problems 20 years hence? Keep in mind the air space is full in a lot of major cities. Keep in mind California's legislation, soon to be copied by other liberal states, allowing us the use of a golf cart as an automobile in ten years time....

Yes, there is the proper density in the northeast corridor today to support high speed rail. Yet, there will be much more density along the east coast, all the way to Florida, in the midwest , and the eastern half of Texas. California is expected to grow too, where, I haven't a clue with its lack of water and electricity.

I do know that Texas has increased its population from 12 million in 1970 to 20 million in 2000. Texas is expecting to grow another 10-15 million in the next 30 years. The Dallas metropolitan area and the Houston metropolitan area are expecting to grow at least a million each in the next census, from 5 million to 6 million. Probably both are looking at 8-9 million each in 30 years. The Bay Area metropolitan area today is 8 million.

Now is the time to start planning. I might have a vision, but I will never say I have all of the answers to all of the details......But I will dare to ask this, why hasn't Amtrak put in a local between Dallas and Houston?

[Anonymous]

The so called NIMBY effect. It is a strong force. However, airports are being expanded, freeways are being built, and power plants and their power lines are being built, nevertheless....In Dallas, the cities of Irving and Grapevine attempted to kill a runway; they lost, and get this, another runway is in the works. In Dallas, many attempted to kill the one cent sales tax in many of the suburbs, but DART and light rail won. Funny, it turns out that the light rail commuter trains are quieter than city buses...

[Anonymous]

I agree, it will take 20 years or more to build a high speed rail network. Nevertheless we should be planning, engineering, and finding a source of funding it now....not 20 years in the future....

As for today, we could eliminate all of the long distance runs Amtrak operates, keeping only those planned earmarked for high speed rail. And as you suggest, upgrade the track that the then new Amtrak would be operating on say to 80-100 mph. The P-42s can run that fast, they pull the Lakeshore Limited on the Empire Corridor 100+ mph today.

But I wouldn't bother doing the latter until we have done the former.

[Anonymous]

Negative Ed:

I cede the thrown. Congrats, you are a bigger troublemaker than me!

"The Big E" (Alexander )
Neither Guru nor Goof... but perhaps somewhere in between.

[Anonymous]

Well, one step at a time. They could use freight tracks in the interim, at medium speeds- say for the first two or three years, so operations can start well before construction is finished on the new lines into town.

Might be a bigger problem in how to interface with cutting through medium and small towns; look at how much fuss Auburn WA put on when BNSF reopened Stampede!

Alexander

[Anonymous]

While I am not familiar with the whole country, in the Dallas/Fort Worth area a lot of lines have been abandoned. Our local light rail company, DART, built a double electrified line on new track next to Union Station on real estate the railroads unloaded along UP's double main line. Of course, we won't be so lucky everywhere.

High speed trains don't get to their top speed until they get to the suburbs and beyond. Therefore, electrifying an existing line with new track to the stations could reach a crusing speed of 50-70 mph, similar to a light rail commuter train. I would rather prefer keeping the passenger trains off freight track. A new line could be built next to freight track along its right of way designated for passsenger trains only.

[Anonymous]

Don:

I think there's a big problem brewing here. Regardless of the outcome you desire for Amtrak- fully government, partial private, fully private, whatever- the system that needs to be built to make a functional system is something that cannot be done in one sweeping move. It'll take years- decades- to build. It may have to be preceeded by years or even a decade of ridership building programs as well, to prepare the ground.

But what are we being forced to do? We are being held up to produce a solution in less than, what? 90 days? How long before th cash runs out again, and we relive June, but twice as bad?

Someone is going to have to figure out what to do short term- what to do immediately, to keep the system flowing and improve the service without breaking the budget.

Alexander

[Anonymous]

This is much the same approach that we will soon be forced to face in road construction- capacity only goes so far. Why can't it be beaten in their brains that flow is more important than capacity? After all, smoother flow allows faster speeds.

But with an increase in speed, terminals will also have to be redesigned, including freight terminals. It's no good to have a speedway with more trains than exits.

Alexander

[Anonymous]

Have you ridden Amtak lately? The Texas Eagle is down to two coaches and one sleeper on the days it does not switch with the Sunset Limited in San Antonio. If you do not plan a month in advance, either the coach or the sleeper is sold out. On the days the Texas Eagle switches with the Sunset Limited, add one coach and one sleeper(they are the ones switched). While one of the coaches might not be full, both sleepers are!

As Senator Phil Gramm says, the government subsidises a coach ticket to Los Angeles on the Sunset Limited to the tune of the price Amtrak charges. In other words we could fly people to LA at the same price Amtrak price plus the subsidy.

But if the trains ran fast, Amtrak could double its fares to match the airline fares, and not have to be subsidized so much......I am of the opinion Amtrak would operate in the black, but will still need a subsidy for maintenance and capital expenses.

I would love to see Amtrak generate more revenue than expenses. But that won't happen with slow trains running on slow freight track at the mercy of railroad dispatchers. If Amtrak were put up for sale today, no one would purchase it. Like a house, it is hard to sell an old house that is falling apart, one must spruce up the house first. Amtrak is running old equipment on old track compared to the Europeans.....

[Anonymous]

Keith:

If you mean HSR, as in, TRUE HSR, then, yeah, that is a major problem! Dear me I don't know, and it'll be a no win situation for whoever decides.

Hopefully the routes could make use of existing row which are below capacity, and could be rebuilt as dedicated HSR track. Another option is to run them in freeway corridors, which might work, but since the track would have to be elevated, it could get spendy real fast.

For the intial "Higher" speed rail- (MSR=Medium Speed Rail???) the exisitin track and terminals could be used. After all, many locations handled way more trains than they do today.

But there is another example of civic shortsightedness for you. In Portland, the Union Station yard got pared down to 5 tracks, and the remaining area, rather than being kept open for future service expansions, was built over for a low cost housing project. Stupid, stupid, stupid!!!!!

Best,
Alexander

[Anonymous]

Jason,

I don't think the problem with Amtrak is inadequate capacity right now. It appears to be inadequate demand. If the Amtrak problem is going to be solved, it will have to be solved by first increasing demand but spending less than the new demand generates in revenue.

If Amtrak can start generating more revenue than expenses, the problem will no longer exist. Then they can invest in any improvements they think best. I'd like to see a passenger rail system in the US but I don't want public funds to be provided unless they are going to be paid back. Right now, Amtrak can not make any such promise.

Ed

[Anonymous]

Don,

I am not trying to be negative. I am trying to be realistic. My questions regarding the operation limits of the train and the crossing of the Blue Ridge are intended to help determine if your construction cost estimate is reasonably accurate. As you mentioned, crossing the Blue Ridge may require a few tunnels. This would cost much and reduce the opportunity for providing stations for passengers. This would reduce the appeal for the system.

I'll concede the fact that crossing the Blue Ridge is easier than crossing the Rockies. But while it is probably possible to find an alignment through the Blue Ridge, I think it would be very expensive. How that stacks up against Italy, I have no idea.

To demonstrate how positive I am about railroads including passenger rail, I would support diverting money from airports toward rail construction if the budget would be held constant. But I am steadfastly against raising taxes to fund passenger rail construction because there is no evidence that it could ever pay for itself.

I would ask more questions concerning the specifics of your proposal but I don't want to appear even more negative than I have been already. - Ed

[Anonymous]

That is why you have to start now and improve the network gradually. Develop a 'wish list' if you like. This should include long-term strategic proposals - high-speed lines of +150 mph. These will take several years to come to fruiion. In the meantime, find a few 'quick wins' by removing grade crossing, capacity enhancements by remodelling stations, adding extra passing loops. These, built at points around the network can help smooth out the traffic flow.

Jason.