Amtrak funding

[Anonymous]

This year has not been a good year for the federal, state, and local levels at generating tax revenues, both sales and gas. All of the governments are having shortfalls, and are talking increasing taxes and fees. The state of Texas DOT has said it will not be building any more new freeways, it has its hands full maintaining the freeways that already exists. Therefore, any new freeway will be a tollroad. Previously, if a turnpike paid itself off, it became a freeway. The state of Texas DOT has said it will no longer free a turnpike again, it misses the revenues. And this if from the second largest state in the union, and one of the fastest growing states to boot. Makes you wonder about states that are not growing as fast.....

As for DART, most of its rail construction was paid for with federal funds, as were most of its buses. The reason DART is in such good shape financially is the one cent sales tax. Maybe Amtrak would operate better if there was a one cent sales tax at the national level on every freight and passenger railroad invoice.

I do not see any one or any company that has the resources needed to fund a national high speed rail network. In fact, I do not see any one or any company that has the resources needed to fund a local rail and bus network either. Most of them are funded with federal funds too. This is where you and I differ, I think.

You see private enterprise funding airlines and Greyhound. Yes, they are private enterprises but they operate on government funded airports and highways. Without the airport and highways, neither enterprise would be successful.

You see airport terminals as being funded with local funds, but this is far from the truth. Dallas does not charge a landing fee at DFW, the federal government does. And it is the federal government which funded the airport in the first place.

The railroad companies could not turn a profit on slow passenger trains. Private enterprise might have the resources to operate high speed trains. though I could agree with this. But the problem lies here: only the national government has the resources to build the high speed rail network. Think of it as being similiar to highways and airports.

[Anonymous]

Don:

These concepts I outlined were under study up here even before the revenue shortfalls. It was more a matter of their eyes being bigger than their wallets. Now it has only gotten worse.

As for the property value trick, we passed a measure up here that limits valuation increases not related to new construction to 3%.

Now, to roads in Mexcio- I am not familiar with these. Can you enlighten me, non-Amtrak tho it is? (We'll say it affects public transportation policy.)

AC

[Anonymous]

If you removed the majority of the long-distance trains, there would be even greater areas of the country without train services than now. You would als have the problem of removing from future transport and land-use planning the use of rail systems. Imagine that a town were to loose it's train service. Pressure would be on to convert the station and associated tracks into housing, business etc. What happens in 20 years time when some bright spark decides to run trains again? Suddenly they have to find a new route! At great expense.

I don't know about anyone else, but, if I were going coast-to-coast, I'd want a sleeper, not a coach.

I don't agree that tri-weekly schedules are useful. It means that you have to add and extra day into your trip at least just to account for non-running of trains.

Also, I don't agree that all non-profitable routes should be axed. For many years, the route from Shrewsbury to Aberystwyth was not making money, but it was important, particularly for students at weekends. Now, we are one of the best routes in the Wales and Borders franchise (they call it 'Alphaline'). We lost one route, and only just held onto the other, but most agree that it is worth it.

Remember, highways systems generally don't run at profit. If you use tolls, people are going to get fed up paying for every time they use the road. This would have several effects: i.) people will find non-toll roads to travel on, hence causing congestion; ii.) there may be long court battles over whether tolls are 'right'; iii.) over time, people may shift their job and home to be nearer one another. Hence, you might find a light-rail system would be needed.

Jason.

Jason.

[Anonymous]

Jason:

If the long distance trains get cut, they won't need a new route some day, if reinstated, as these routes are always active freight lines.

As for developing the depot, etc... the US is a big country. We don't have many of the development pressures you have, except in a few select places. Where I live we are fairly "progressive" and have an urban growth boundary, but even then, these sorts of structures remain empty and undeveloped. And for places that are out in the country, almost certainly so.

Cutting the unprofitable routes..... wel let us say, the hemorraging at the rail carrier has to stop. So either cut them, reduce their costs somehow, or tell the states who ebenfit from them to pony up the difference between the ticket revenues and the costs, so they don't drag the system into bankruptcy.

But they cannot continue to operate in the manner they do now. They will kill Amtrak one day.

Lastly, I agree. Coach is not as attractive as sleeper, and also, if I remember correctly, you can't pencil out coach very easily. 1st class is the only place you could conceivable make significant returns over costs.

Best, Alexander

[Anonymous]

Alexander,

With regard to the long-distance trains, I was thinking along the lines (no pun!) of if a train is removed from the schedule, the freight railroads may, in the futre, say, 'Ah, well, you haven't run trains along this line for x years, and so, we have used your paths, so I'm afraid we have not got space or you'. Is this likely?

Jason.

[mnwestern]

Ed,
Your same arguments apply to highways and airlines. Why do we have interstates across North Dakota and South Dakota? Why do we subsidize airline connectors into towns of 30,000? Why do we built airports for millions of dollars, like the one in my hometown of 13,000, which are 90 percent state and federally funded, for a handful of airplane enthusiasts (not more than about three dozen in our town)?
A national rail system makes a whole lot more sense than those.
As for this being the longest string ever, it should be. Alexander has kept it going by being nearly half the entries himself and he still doesn't make any sense. Geez, cut to the chase — you don't support further federal funding for Amtrak, but perhaps state support for regional and commuter operations. There! You need say no further.

[Anonymous]

Well, they could gripe about it, yes. But as long as the company holds the Amtrak charter, they have a Federally protected right over the freight roads. I do not know how extensive this trackage right is, but I do know that Amtrak has scrubbed routes and then re-instated them years later.

This is the one -- and probably only -- asset that Amtrak owns which is invaluable, and which makes it an attractive purchase. That, and the NEC and other minor corridors which have operating profits or meet their ops cost in the very least. But the huge debt the road has incurred makes it a stinker as a privatization or semi-privatization project. Or heck, even as a fully Federal project. That debt need to be cleaned up, immediately, or even if Congress bails out the road, lenders will not finance new equipment, etc... etc...

Why do they need lender's cash anyway? Getting cash out of Congress takes too long, and is too political. So if they want, say, a second Acela train set, they could petition Congress, wait 18 months, and then have it either lost in a joint committee or in political bickering or a veto, or they can go to the bank and have a loan within 60-90 days, and spend it as they see fit.

So getting that debt load down will be very important for the long term viability of Amtrak, or any successor which wants the Amtrak charter.

Alexander

[Anonymous]

Terry,

I don't agree with your comparrison between highways and passenger rail. I do agree with your comparrison between passenger rail and airline infrastructure. I would rather see them take money away from airlines and spend it on Amtrak, if they would hold the total spending on the two constant. But that's not the way things appear to work in Congress. But the better solution to both those problems is to get the federal government out of that particular business.

I'm surprised you care how long the thread is. I agree, Alexander has been a real trooper here. But the idea is not to state my opinion and walk away. My participation here is intended to illustrate that the federal government is not the solution to the problem. Amtrak serves a different segment of the public from the airlines and bus companies. BTW, I firmly believe the reason people are willing to drive so far is so they have a car when they get to the other end. I haven't rented a car, but I have heard it is quite expensive. If people want a car on the other end, no improvement in rail service except substantial autotrain use is going to change that.

Do you realy want to debate highway funding with me further or shall we give that one a rest? - Ed

[Anonymous]

Alexander,And all who have posted here.A quote from David Gunn,found in June/July issue of Amtrack ink,an employee newsletter, semi-magazine.
"First,I cannot imagine our nation without a national passenger railroad system.Second,the basic Amtrak model can and should work.Thrid,no passenger system in the world operates without some form of goverment subsidy. That means that Amtrak will never be profitable,and will always need,just like every other mode of transportation,some form of public investment,or subsidy".
Mr.Gunn also went on to say; "No amount of counsils or commissions will find a painless answer to what to do about Amtrak.Recent proposals to privatize or restructure are exercises in problem avoidance.The federal goverment must decide what role rail should play,just as it does highways and air,even waterways".
Also; "I have found in life that anything wothwhile comes about through realistic goals,dedecation,initiative and loyalty,not by wishing it so.In pursuing self-sufficiency,the company tried too many initiatives simultaneously,and pursued an array of financing arrangements to make up for budget shortfalls.The debt the company now carries is just under $4 billion and is unsustainable.Obviously,we cannot rewrite history.What we can do is learn from our mistakes,get back to basics,and move forward.I will return Amtrak to the basics of running a railraod".
Some blunt,honest,and in my opinion true statements from a man who inherited leadership of a railraod in dire straights.

[Anonymous]

Amtrak runs two trains today that are not welcomed on Union Pacific tracks, the Texas Eagle and the Sunset Limited. It seems like there isn't enough room for either train along UP's lines. It is interesting to note that the Eagle between Dallas and Fort Worth has had to detour at times using the former Rock Island line north of the former Texas and Pacific line. DART and the T, run the Trinity River Express on the former Rock Island line, which is single railed, while the UP mainline is double railed. But having double rail doesn't mean much when UP hog laweds it.

[Anonymous]

Ed, the federal cabinet office is the Department of Transportation, not the Department of Highways. Why? It says in the Consitution that the government is reponsible for post offices and post roads. Without this clause, there would be no federal spending or case to build highways, airports, canals, and railroads....But since the clause is there, the case is made.....

As long as the federal government owns the track of the northeast corridor, there will be some sort of Amtrak. It will never be sold to private enterprise.....

As long as we have an Amtrak, it might as well be the envy of the world......

[Anonymous]

Whether you take the new controlled access turnpike, or take the old highway from Laredo to Monterrey, for example, you will pay a toll....It is the same south of Juarez, and south of Nogales. You cannot go far in Mexico without paying a toll....

[Anonymous]

Why don't you look north of our border. VIA rail, the Canadian national passenger railroad, is upgrading its tracks and buying new engines and cars for their passenger trains to be finished by 2004.

Of course, they have killed their transcontinental train. BC is still running trains in BC, but VIA operates now mostly east of Toronto. Notice that it is Amtrak that runs trains to Boston, Detroit, and to New York City from Montreal and Toronto.

Is Canada attempting to run a train to everyone? Not any longer. Nevertheless, Canada is still offering passenger trains to more than 75 percent of its people.

Amtrak should think in the same light.

[Anonymous]

Except for Denver, Coloardo Springs, Salt Lake City, Phoenix, and Tucson, and Alburqueque there isn't much population in the Mountain Time Zone. It seems a waste of Amtrak's funds to provide them with 4 transcontinentals. I still think we are better off just servicing Denver from Chicago. From Denver people can take the ski train, and/or a tourist bus to see the Rockies. That is, if they don't want to drive....

Amtrak should prune these lines, and use their equipment to provide twice daily services instead of the single daily service east of Texas, Denver, Kansas City, and Minneapolis.....And I still believe, we need to move to high speed rail as swiftly as possible.

That doesn't necessarily mean 186 mph TGV Thalys. It could mean Talgos and Genesis engines on much improved tracks. If we could get the tracks up to at least 120 mph, much like the northeast corridor, it would be a huge improvement.

Maybe I am dreaming about 186 mph, but 120 mph probably could be built along current right of ways, with an investment of building new bridges, for half the price of dedicated TGV lines.

Instead of averaging 150 mph, we would probably end up averaging 100 mph, considering the stops. Thus, a 6 hour train ride to Atlanta and Chicago will become a 9 hour train ride.

But I still dream about having trains that are the envy of the world, and that is TGV Thalys.

[Anonymous]

Bleh. I hate toll roads. They keep trying to sell them up here, with very little success.

I'll bet I know why they are doing that. Since the country is largely poor, it's hard to run the roads on property taxes or on income taxes. So they are putting tolls in, trying to gain cash off US tourists and off NAFTA traffic from US owned businesses to the US border. Bet they are doing pretty good, too. No wonder they prefer shipping by rail to the US -- no tolls!

[Anonymous]

We could do something similar -- cut the CZ back to Denver-Oakland, and make the SW Chief, if justified, also a Denver based train. Then serve Denver with a Talgo type system, perhaps, to Chicago, or to KC.

Talgos are reliable, a key element of them. And in the short run, a great cost effective way to go. Oh, and another reason they work -- as you outlined, FREQUENCY! We run 3 daily runs PDX-SEATAC. Three!

Freed up Superliners could be used on other routes, to increase frequency until they, too, can go Talgo or better.

Stage three would be TGV as you would prefer. Did you note Gunn's comments today? "No more Acelas!" He wants "European" equipment next time, because they are more reliable. Want to bet who'll get the contract?

As traffic warrants, corridors could be increased to TGV standards, probably by new construction rather than upgrading the freight routes further. The displaced Talgos could then be put on other routes to expand the system, slowly, until the little nets start to bump into each other. By that time, I'd bet the success of this system would pull in quite a lot of riders.

And that is the trick -- incremental growth, "rooting" corridors in high population city pairs first, gradual expansion; multi-layered financing; and last, but most importantly -- buy only what works!

There may be short term debt, but the system can grow out of that debt, just as the Transcons eventually did.

[Anonymous]

And yet, privatization HAS worked in other fields. Why dismiss it, without even trying? Can't we try both routes, and see which works? After all, Gunn is wrong -- perhaps he thinks the Amtrak model can work, but it never has!

Before you write me about the inefficiencies of Congress, let me say this -- I agree! They never got off their butts and made a decision about this!

But here is the secret -- Congress has always been that way, since day nought. So that had to be accomodated in any evaluation of the Amtrak model. So long as Amtrak requires Congressional approval for funding, and so long as it is subject to Congressional whims for such things as, "I want a train for my district" style pork, Amtrak will not work.

I do not agree that because "Every other nation" etc... etc... I DO agree that Amtrak, as it lays now, and as Gunn would have it, would always require operating subsidies. But that no passenger system can exist without subisidies, because no other nation does, is like going back in time and suggestiong that we needed a monarch, because no other nation in 1776 ruled without some despot at the reigns. "Everyone else does it" is NOT a reason to do anything, ever.

Likewise I do not agree that privatization or the ARC reforms are an avoidance. They are an honest attempt at a solution that is appropriate for the 21st century USA, not FDR's America.

Lastly, I DO agree with Mister Gunn's last qoute. Realism, dedication, intiative, loyalty, and not just wishing it so, is the key to success.

I find more and more that Mister Gunn and I disagree on many things, but agree on others. What I do find refreshing is that, despite these disagreements, Gunn is a straightforward guy. He beleives what he says and he is very, very honest. Just read his comments in the Washington Post today re Acela. And so, despite our disagreements, I respect Gunn, in a way that I never respected Warrington.

And so, I am merely being honest with you.

Best, Alexander

[Anonymous]

Mr.Alexander, I respect your opinions but I disagree with the fact that a true national rail passenger system can be run without subsidies.Maybe small bits and pieces can be run at a profit but not a true national system.Amtrak was so caught up with trying to become a cost effective system they forgot how to run a railraod.Now that we have a man at the helm with a proven track,ouch,record and has shown he knows how to turn troubled systems around, it will be interesting to see how he does.I argee that G.Warrington was not the man for the job as his record proves.Its up to Mr.Gunn to clean up the mess Warrington left behind.
Another quote from Mr.Gunn; "Its sort of like a old fire horse,when they ring the alarm,you come running.I have a certain loyalty to this industry.They did need somebody and they needed them fast".
What he did for the NYC subway system speaks for itself.After all he really didn't need to take this job as he was enjoying his retirement but he saw the need and responded.So far I like what I see.
The hard decisions that have to be made will anger alot of people but hard decisions and a no-nonsense approach are whats needed.
I'm sure I won't agree with all he does and will criticize some of his policys but at least we have a man that speaks his mind and isn't affraid to step on some toes to get the job done.
And no Alexander I don't care to go back to a monarchy as the small dose I've gotten from King George....Bush, is enough to turn anyone away form it.
The gist of the matter is if we want a true national system or not.And yes its going to be hard to please everyone esspecialy the ones who make the decisions,Mr.And Mrs.Pork Spender. Keith

[Anonymous]

Alexander,

Forget about it. These guys don't want to consider that a passenger rail system can exist without government money keeping it up. I am going to put my effort toward something that may do some good. Good Luck - Ed

[Anonymous]

Ed,These guys are just being realistic about things.Name one truly national transportation system that is run without goverment money.Air,land ,sea.

[Anonymous]

Keith:

Well, we have more to disagree on then, and more to agree on too! But I will leave aside the first and give you the second.

I do agree with you -- and apparently mister Gunn -- that a "National" system, if we wi***o keep it, would require subsidies, as the long distance trains cannot attract enough riders, nor operate with the right equipment, to cover their costs. I do *not* believe that all long distance routes require subsidy, only that we cannot at this time, in the way we operate, and what we operate with, do it without subsidy.

I am about as clear as mud tonight, aren't I?

I still think that even so, there would be no harm to try a few semi-private or fully privatized trains in addition to what Amtrak would run. Heck, the goal is to get trains running, not to keep Amtrak going, the two are not necessarily the same thing.

But I digress. If you want a national system, today, subsidies are required. 'll close there, on a point of agreement between us.

Best -- Alexander

[Anonymous]

Ed:

Well it was fun agree and occasionally disagreeing with you. See you around, maybe.

Love to discuss with you further but I am not sure how to get an email address to you without posting it for the whole web to see.

Later,

Alexander

[Anonymous]

Operational, or Capital money?

On Operational, all surface vehicular traffic, except city bus lines. On rail, all freight roads. On sea, almost all sea carriers.

On Capital: all freight railroads. All other modes, air, sea, land, utilize capital financing from tax dollars.

This is always an important decision. I have absolutely no problem with government money going to, say, concrete ties, welded rail, signals, new r-o-w, yards, terminals, etc..... if those facilities host public tranportation of some kind.

I DO have a problem with paying for the trains that operrate over it. If that is desireable is one thing, but that is a decision that ought to be made by the communities involved, not in some Senate subcommittee. They will, naturally, choose routes for the wrong reasons.

[Anonymous]

To bad the railraods have to pay for and maintain their own rights of way.Pay taxes on that land also.Are you saying its alright for the gov. to pay for and build new passenger lines?If so it will cost trillions.(It cost 2.4 billion dollars alone for a 20 mile streach linkimg the ports of L.A. and Long Beach.)Then have some private company operate over those lines?Also do you really think the frieght roads are going to let some fly by night private outfit come onto their lines and operate passenger trains?
Well good luck with your idea of running passenger trains at a profit any way you want to do.

[Anonymous]

Alexander, About as clear as it takes to get through the mud between my ears.Sorry just got called.
We will agree to dis-agree.The costs involved are insurmountable for any private company to run a cost effective passenger rail network.Just my humble opinion.
If you do come up with a plan and it works let me know as I'd like to come work for you as a humble engineer.25yrs experience, 11 on Amtk.
My best to you also,Keith

[Anonymous]

Keith:

I will remember your offer when I am Chairman of BNSF+CN+NS....

;-)

Alexander

[Anonymous]

Keith:

Yeah, I know, AAR isn't so thrilled with private contractors either. I think that they might be able to work it out so that the crews are provided by the host road tho -- Amtrak was that way at first.

Think of it this way. Maersk, for example, owns it's own container cars, loads them iteslf, etc... and then has BNSF and NS or CSX or whoever haul them. So why not a private company, owning a passenger consist, and paying these same roads to haul it?

Now whether that pencils out is another story, but logistically it could work.

As for the first part, yes, I am "OK" with the gov. buying row, building track, etc... and then letting private companies buy trains and run over them. As long as those private companies pay something back, somehow, for the privilidge -- an electric system can't have a gas tax, so maybe a slot fee instead? A mileage fee? Something like that -- It could, again, work from a logistics standpoint.

In the meanwhile, it could host Amtrak, and other government related carriers. And I would allow states to operate their own trains over it, if they so wish, and anyone else, as long as they meet safety requirements and can pay for the slot.

Think of it like the Alameda Corridor, writ large. Yep, I know that'll cost a fortune, but look at the AC -- it will pay for itself! I was shocked! What a great model!

But I have no problem at all with spending capital dollars -- the fed build highways and airports, why not rail lines? Just as long as the trains are either operationally unsubsidized, or the ops subsidy is based on actual ridership and the decision to do so is made at a level as far from DC as possible.

Oh, and I don't necessarily need a profit. Just to cover costs, just not to run at such a loss as to hemorage -- and if a profit can be exacted, all the better, then we can attract some private investment, and get more trains, competition, maybe better service. Or at least, more frequent service.

[Anonymous]

Consider the situation here in the UK: freight and passenger often use the same lines. With the increased schedules of Virgin trains, the freight operators (mainly EWS) are worried that they will have too few paths. Cases are trying to be made for re-opening lines to act as freight-only routes.

Also, Virgin Trains has just received £106 million from the Strategic Rail Authority (a government-created body) for the failure of Railtrack (a private company) to up-grade the West Coast MainLine in time.

Who would be responsible for maintainence? Here, Railtrack contracted out everything, with resulting higher costs and poorer workmanship.

Jason.

[Anonymous]

Yeash, what's wrong over there? Here, when we contract things out, we get higher quality and lower costs, not the opposite. Now, there are a few keys to that -- for one, the ability to fire the contractor post haste if they don't perform, and two, no one contractor for all things -- that's a monopoly, and that only encourages waste and corruption.

Likewise, Railtrack's main problem wasn't it's concept, but that it was a private firm. It should have been publicly owned. After all, would you want a private firm owning the surface streets? Heck no!

As for the freight mixed versus freight only, mixed can work, but only if there are sufficient sidings for meets and passes, and only if they can operate at certain speeds. Our High Speed routes stateside dating from the 40s and 50s were triple and even quadruple track to accomodate the varying speeds.

Alexander

[Anonymous]

The Alemeda corridor is not quite the typical grade level track, is it? A major highway throughfare was rebuilt, instead of having a divided highway, it is now undivided and with fewer lanes. The tracks were built in an open tunnel, a lot of digging was done.

A better example considering costs might be the double tracking of the San Bernadino corridor, similar to what DART has done in Dallas....more in the neighborhood of $20 million a mile.....