Gunn on Amtrak: Here come the Train Offs

[Modelcar]

....SERIOUS argument....The Executive branch doesn't have the line item veto power.

[oltmannd]

What' s dissapointing about the Gunn firing, is that I think the admin. may be squandering whatever political capital they had to actually reform Amtrak.

The Amtrak board proposal and Lott/Lautenberg proposals were realistic attempts at reform - a good starting point to get Amtrak to be more efficient and useful.

Now, with the Gunn firing, Congress is likely to dig it's heals in and the status quo will rule.

[Big_Boy_4005]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Modelcar

....SERIOUS argument....The Executive branch doesn't have the line item veto power.

Correct, so if he can't starve it out of funding, and still wants to kill it, he can have it managed into oblivion. Firing Gunn was the first step. Why else would you fire a qualified, competent manager?

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Big_Boy_4005

QUOTE: Originally posted by Modelcar

....SERIOUS argument....The Executive branch doesn't have the line item veto power.

Correct, so if he can't starve it out of funding, and still wants to kill it, he can have it managed into oblivion. Firing Gunn was the first step. Why else would you fire a qualified, competent manager?

insubordination?

I agree with you, though. Particularly when you know that he was a willing participant in reforming Amtrak. He, with the board's blessing, put forth a reform plan.

[Big_Boy_4005]

QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd

QUOTE: Originally posted by Big_Boy_4005

QUOTE: Originally posted by Modelcar

....SERIOUS argument....The Executive branch doesn't have the line item veto power.

Correct, so if he can't starve it out of funding, and still wants to kill it, he can have it managed into oblivion. Firing Gunn was the first step. Why else would you fire a qualified, competent manager?

insubordination?

I agree with you, though. Particularly when you know that he was a willing participant in reforming Amtrak. He, with the board's blessing, put forth a reform plan.

I guess it's not much fun when you pick a guy and then can't control him.[swg]

[Anonymous]

Just like every other program this administration has put forth it is a farce .I wonder if this is why MR BUSH has such high rating numbers .

[Anonymous]

DOES ANYONE OUT THERE HAVE AN ANSWER TO THE QUESTION WHY IT IS OK TOGIVE MONEY TO AIRLINES ,HIGHWAYS AND SHIP COMPANIES AND NOT TO AMTRAK.

[daveklepper]

Mineta did not show the leadership necessary in the two Gulf Coast Hurricanes and should be fired for that reason alone.

[Anonymous]

Posted by TRAINMANTOM:

Just like every other program this administration has put forth it is a farce .I wonder if this is why MR BUSH has such high rating numbers .

Ah, but he doesn't have high rating numbers. Thirty-six percent is incredibly low for a wartime President, even if he did start the war.

[Modelcar]

...At least in Mr. Gunn...which many of us think quite highly of doing the job under very tough situations, he did not happen to be a yes man to the Adminstration and especially to Sec. Mineta...Seems to me we were backing a pretty good man. Also one {a railroader}, who knew what he was doing.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by bbrant

QUOTE: Originally posted by SteamerFan

The Future of Amtrak never looked brighter. Now it can finally be moved forward into the 21st century and not backwards into the 19th.

I agree with that. Get Amtrak off the corporate welfare program and let them make it on their own which I believe is a real possibility.

Brian

Fine! But, let's also eliminate the implicit subsidies for airlines and make each commercial airplane that utilizes air traffic control, landing, and terminal facilities pay its fair share of the costs. Also, let's increase the fuel tax that 18-wheelers pay so that they bear their full share of the costs of road construction, maintenance, and repair. The point is, practically every form of transportation receives some form of direct or indirect subsidies, so why should passenger rail be different? "Making Amtrack pay its own way" sounds good from an ideological point of view, but economically, it is nonsense. What we need is a comprehensive transportation policy that looks at how all modes of transportation, rail, air, truck, bus, private auto, etc. me***o provide transportation both locally, short intercity (<300-500 mi.) and long distance (e.g., NYC to LA).

I notice that most of the folks who gripe about Amtrack subsidies don't use the service, but, if they had to pay the full costs of *their* air transportation, would howl and scream bloody murder.

[vsmith]

[#ditto]

WetumkaFats said...

"Making Amtrack pay its own way" sounds good from an ideological point of view, but economically, it is nonsense.

It does make perfect sense.....if your trying to kill it.

[garr]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TRAINMANTOM

DOES ANYONE OUT THERE HAVE AN ANSWER TO THE QUESTION WHY IT IS OK TOGIVE MONEY TO AIRLINES ,HIGHWAYS AND SHIP COMPANIES AND NOT TO AMTRAK.

Highways are not as heavily subsidized as one may think. I do not remember the thread on this forum from a year ago, but documented stats showed that the gas tax, i.e. users' fee, payed a large, IIRC, 90%+ of highway funding. Even if the users' fee were much less, it would be necessary for government to fund the majority of highways. Otherwise, imagine the tolls that one would pay every time a trip was made, not to mention the increase in trip time stopping for all those toll booths

Amtrak probably gets shortchanged in the federal subsidy fight because of the law of diminishing returns. Its' passenger count is less than 1% of all combined intercity travel. If one agrees with corporate welfare, maybe the government has finally gotten it right and decided the Amtrak subsidy may be better spent elsewhere or, a fiscal conservative's dream, not spent at all. In the few corridors where Amtrak is vital, regional commuter agencies should provide the funding and oversight.

Personally, I like to ride Amtrak trains. However, every time I have taken a trip on an Amtrak train, there has been cheaper and faster options. Amtrak was choosen simply for the train riding experience. An expensive experience in which the fare I paid only covered a small fraction of the true price. I should not be digging into my neighbors pockets, thru taxes, for my train riding trips.

Jay

[Anonymous]

If anyone should be fired It is George W. Hitler(Bush) and his crime family of an Administration. Ever since G.W. took office, he and his aids have been committing acts that border on acts of treason, such as the outing of the CIA agent, and most certainly could be construed as acts of official misconduct. It is Bush and his cronies who ought to be fired, not David Gunn at Amtrak. After all it was Bush,Cheney, and that***Secretary of State Condi Rice, who lied their way into a war that was totally unnecessary and has cost nearl y2100 American lives and thousands of Iraqis,as well. This bunch in the White House make the Genovese Crime Family look like Choir Boys by comparison.

[jeaton]

QUOTE: Originally posted by kenneo

He withholds the funding by not authorizing the actual release of the monies. The congress can appropriate, but the executive disburses. The executive can withhold appripriated funds if it wants to.

I am not sure that is exactly correct. I seem to recall that that was a tactic attempted by President Nixon, and his efforts were overturned by the courts. I think the only way a president can withhold appropriated funds is if congress has specified terms for the disbursement. In other words if the activity that is to receive the grant does not meet standards established by law, funds might not be disbursed.

Congress does not necessarily take too nicely to the president failing to comply with laws passed, signed and therefore in force. That can be the case even if the president,s party hold the majority in both houses. It is a case of "don't follow our will in this matter, and some of your favored programs may not see the light of day".

Jay

[jeaton]

Garr

That 90% is way off the mark. A while back I checked FHA reports that show that user fees, i.e., gas taxes and other excise taxes, and tolls only pay about 60% of the cost to build, maintain and operate public highways. Other types of taxes, such as property, income and sales taxes cover the balance. The bottome line is that the per capita share of such taxes is far greater than the tax grants to Amtrak.

Jay

[UPTRAIN]

I like the “Anything they’ll tell you is bulls_t,” Gunn told Railway Age in his characteristically frank, shoot-from-the hip manner. " part the best, he really is that blunt, lol.

[garr]

jeaton,

I checked the figures on transportation subsidies that I was refering to. They came from a report in the 2/10/05 Wall Street Journal using the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, www.transtats.bts.gov as the source. Per 1,000 passenger miles traveled, the federal subsidy breakdown per mode is:

Amtrak...................$186.35

Urban Transit ......$118.26

Airlines ......................$6.00

Highways .................-$1.91

It has been a while since I read this report, but IIRC it seemed on the up and up.

Jay

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by garr

jeaton,

I checked the figures on transportation subsidies that I was refering to. They came from a report in the 2/10/05 Wall Street Journal using the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, www.transtats.bts.gov as the source. Per 1,000 passenger miles traveled, the federal subsidy breakdown per mode is:

Amtrak...................$186.35

Urban Transit ......$118.26

Airlines ......................$6.00

Highways .................-$1.91

It has been a while since I read this report, but IIRC it seemed on the up and up.

Jay

Those numbers have to be the net after tax income.

They also have to be the direct Federal portion only.

They do not include indirect subsidty such as avoided real estate taxes.

"Costs" are only meaningful when balanced against "benefits" - both to the individual and to society as a whole. e.g. avoided highway expansion and air quality often greatly outweigh the cost to build and operate transit.

[Anonymous]

Those numbers are fine if we expect continued passenger service to be status quo. What would the numbers be if the passenger service were given a proper shot in the arm. Ya know, several trains on one route instead of one. Popular scheduling rather than late Chicago departures with late afternoon arrivals. The numbers may look like that because rail passenger service has remained a very basic operation with no competitive edge provided.

Mitch

[garr]

Mitch,

That is a very good point. Where a competitive edge has been given, i.e. the Northeast Corridor, Amtrak has done realatively well. However, the NE Corridor is a perfect niche for train travel--densely populated and just the right size geographically for trains to outperform planes and automibles. Plus, Amtrak owns the track, thus it controls the amount of traffic and when it can run.

There are other corridors, such as Seattle/Portland/Vancouver; Chicago/Milwaukee, etc. but, in nearly all the cases, the big problem is that Amtrak doesn't own the tracks.

If what you suggest were to happen, my guess is that the subsidy would go even higher. If the track time was available from the host railroad, the increased ticket revenue from an extra train on a route would quickly be depleted by the cost of the additional train sets and employees needed along with equipment maintenance. If new track had to be built from scratch for Amtrak, today's subsidy would seem but a pittance.

In the case of long distance trains, I don't think that the volume of passengers is there to justify additional train sets. In certain seasons, some LD trains do sell out, but, as a whole, the speed of the trains combined with price/time comparisons of air vs rail vs car limits Amtrak's passenger growth.

Jay

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by garr

Mitch,

That is a very good point. Where a competitive edge has been given, i.e. the Northeast Corridor, Amtrak has done realatively well. However, the NE Corridor is a perfect niche for train travel--densely populated and just the right size geographically for trains to outperform planes and automibles. Plus, Amtrak owns the track, thus it controls the amount of traffic and when it can run.

There are other corridors, such as Seattle/Portland/Vancouver; Chicago/Milwaukee, etc. but, in nearly all the cases, the big problem is that Amtrak doesn't own the tracks.

If what you suggest were to happen, my guess is that the subsidy would go even higher. If the track time was available from the host railroad, the increased ticket revenue from an extra train on a route would quickly be depleted by the cost of the additional train sets and employees needed along with equipment maintenance. If new track had to be built from scratch for Amtrak, today's subsidy would seem but a pittance.

In the case of long distance trains, I don't think that the volume of passengers is there to justify additional train sets. In certain seasons, some LD trains do sell out, but, as a whole, the speed of the trains combined with price/time comparisons of air vs rail vs car limits Amtrak's passenger growth.

Jay

This is what I've learned in my 36 years of railroading. One round trip gets you about one train worth of passengers. Two round trips on a route get you 2.25 trains worth of passengers and so on. The more product provided the better the demand. As for crew persons. When we had a train only 3 times a week the crew was not used to its optimum. Deadheading and crew availability negated any advantage of a small operation. On the Milwaukee corridor crews make 2 round trips a day where once we only made one. You can't ask for better utilization as the hours of service come into play.

The type of overwhelming demand for service doesn't exist now because of the basic level of service. But as you stated even these trains get booked far in advance. What would happen if the thing were run right?

Mitch