Amtrak ridership up, Illinois to fund more trains

[Poppa_Zit]

State funding would boost Amtrak

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/mchenry/chi-0605100243may10,1,1771721.story

It's about time they added more trains to state-supported Amtrak routes in Illinois.

For instance, the daily Illinois Zephyr between Chicago and Quincy -- with stops in Galesburg and Macomb, among others -- right now runs from Quincy into Union Station in the morning, and from Union Station back to Quincy in the evening. It was great for those living Downstate who needed to come to Chicago for the day -- but required an overnight stay for anyone starting their trip going out of Chicago in the evening (like me).

Now, I'll be able to grab a outbound train in the morning, go to Galesburg with my camera for most of the day, and return in the evening. Or just take a long, one-day train ride just for S&G.

Life will be good.

[Anonymous]

With the additional trains, I think towns between Chicago and Galesburg on the old cb&q will have as many passenger trains as they did in the 1950's. Isn't that something!

[Anonymous]

It is good to see Amtrak and the states adding passenger trains. The days of cheap gasoline are over, now it is time to bring back passenger trains to pick up the slack.

As the price of gas goes up, I believe more and more people will turn to Amtrak for their transporation needs.

[greyhounds]

As an Illinois reseident, all I can say is I guess we have the state government we deserve. There's no money to pay for those new trains, and they are not needed. There's certainly no justification for them.

This is from USA Today:

"...The Illinois Teachers Retirement System, which pays Haven's benefits, is typical of a troubled system. The pension fund had $32 billion in stocks, bonds and other assets at the end of its 2004 fiscal year, but it needed $51 billion to cover its long-term obligations to 158,000 educators still working and 77,000 retirees.

Illinois taxpayers are responsible for the $19 billion in unfunded teacher pensions, plus $15 billion more to cover pension obligations to university employees and other state employees.

These amounts are what Illinois needs to set aside immediately — tucked in a pension fund and earning investment returns of 8% a year — to make the system solvent. Instead, Illinois legislators plan to forgo $1 billion in annual pension payments in fiscal 2006 and 2007, so they can spend money on more immediate needs."

I have news for the legislature - meeting your legal obligation to fund a pension plan trumps expanding anything discretionary. This is a bad joke - they're not funding the teachers' pension plan - what do they think will happen when Miss Swartz finishes her 30 years in the classroom and expects her pension check. The money they have wasted on these new and unecessary trains will be gone.

The full story is at:

http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/retirement/2006-01-16-pension-funds_x.htm

[Poppa_Zit]

QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds

As an Illinois reseident, all I can say is I guess we have the state government we deserve. There's no money to pay for those new trains, and they are not needed. There's certainly no justification for them.

This is from USA Today:

"...The Illinois Teachers Retirement System, which pays Haven's benefits, is typical of a troubled system. The pension fund had $32 billion in stocks, bonds and other assets at the end of its 2004 fiscal year, but it needed $51 billion to cover its long-term obligations to 158,000 educators still working and 77,000 retirees.

Illinois taxpayers are responsible for the $19 billion in unfunded teacher pensions, plus $15 billion more to cover pension obligations to university employees and other state employees.

These amounts are what Illinois needs to set aside immediately — tucked in a pension fund and earning investment returns of 8% a year — to make the system solvent. Instead, Illinois legislators plan to forgo $1 billion in annual pension payments in fiscal 2006 and 2007, so they can spend money on more immediate needs."

I have news for the legislature - meeting your legal obligation to fund a pension plan trumps expanding anything discretionary. This is a bad joke - they're not funding the teachers' pension plan - what do they think will happen when Miss Swartz finishes her 30 years in the classroom and expects her pension check. The money they have wasted on these new and unecessary trains will be gone.

The full story is at:

http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/retirement/2006-01-16-pension-funds_x.htm

It remains to be seen with the current price for gasoline to see whether these additional trains are needed, and as an Illinois resident I'm willing to give it a chance. You say there is no justification for them. On what do you base that, fact or opinion? Because the Tribune story says ridership is up and still rising, which to me is a great sign.

I also don't see your connecting teacher pension funding with the expansion of public transportation. Since you could have chosen this example out of many possible examples of outlandish government spending, I must assume then you're a teacher. BTW, my wife's retirement funds are in that pension plan, too.

The reason the Illinois teachers pension fund is so unbalanced is because of the unethical "golden parachute" raises given to most school district admininstrators and some teachers just before their retirement. This ridiculous scenario is still somehow legal in Illinois. Here's how it works: school administrators already make a pretty decent base salary -- well into six figures in the Chicago area. In lieu of even higher pay while working for a school district -- salaries which the taxpayers of that particular school district are responsible -- a promise is made for the "golden parachute" last-minute raise, creating a huge final salary -- which not-so-coincidentally increases substantially (in some cases, double and triple) an administrator's state pension payout, which is paid for by all the people of the state, and not the school district. So it is these objectionable loophole-exploiting raises that are the reason Miss Swartz might not get her pension -- because too many pension dollars are going to make wealthy former school administrators even more wealthy.

Instead of cutting programs (Amtrak trains) that potentially could benefit all taxpayers, why not eliminate the ridiculous "golden parachute" payoffs?

[Anonymous]

It is good to see IL adding more trains but Amtrak needs to find the Equipment 1st.

[jeaton]

Illinois is adding $12 million to bring the total for the Amtrak regionals to $24 million. That includes covering the full payment of their share of the Chicago-Milwaukee service, which Wisconsin would otherwise have to cover. I shouldn't call Illinois taxpayers a bunch of cheapskates. After all, I was one for over 2o years.

Anyway, let's suppose they dump the whole $24 million into the $19 billion pension shortfall. Gee!! That would get the pension fixed in 791 years. On the other hand Illinois might actually want to consider deriving a little more revenue from taxes.

[greyhounds]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton

Illinois is adding $12 million to bring the total for the Amtrak regionals to $24 million. That includes covering the full payment of their share of the Chicago-Milwaukee service, which Wisconsin would otherwise have to cover. I shouldn't call Illinois taxpayers a bunch of cheapskates. After all, I was one for over 2o years.

Anyway, let's suppose they dump the whole $24 million into the $19 billion pension shortfall. Gee!! That would get the pension fixed in 791 years. On the other hand Illinois might actually want to consider deriving a little more revenue from taxes.

Oh Christ Jay! I just got a $6,400 property tax bill. On top of my state income tax, the sales tax, the phone tax, the electricity tax, the freaking highway tolls...

They take enough. They just don't spend it wisely. But hey, they built the White Sox a new ballpark and the Bears a new stadium. Funding these stupid trains is like going out to dinner when you can't pay your mortgage. It might only be a small part of the money, but it's a large part of the irresponsibility.

Most Illinois residents won't even know those extra trains exist; or ever be in a position to use them. The people who use trains like this should pay for the trains. To paraphrase a late Illinois senator: "A million here, a million there, pretty soon you're talking real money."

And Poppa_Zit (?), I ain't no teacher. The only connection I have (since I gradgyated) with the Illinois public education system is that I help pay for it. For everybody's FYI, the "average" pay for a high school teacher in Downers Grove, IL was $74,000 (with about 2 1/2 months off in the summer time, full benifits, good retirement, etc. How'd you like that nice job.) That was the last year I lived in DG. You know what, they went on strike for more money.

Now just where was that "more money" gonna' come from? Please see my aforementioned property tax bill.

[jeaton]

Ken.

Compared with my combined Wisconsin income tax and property tax, if I lived in Illinois, I could pay $6200 property tax and still be a grand ahead of the game. It isn't so much what the added Illinois service will do for train riders as what it will do for those that have to drive.

Some of my income tax money goes to the Chicago Milwaukee service which I will probably never use. I get back the few bucks that amounts to my share if I can drive through Chicago on the way east with just one less traffic delay.

Jay

[Poppa_Zit]

QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds

Oh Christ Jay! I just got a $6,400 property tax bill. On top of my state income tax, the sales tax, the phone tax, the electricity tax, the freaking highway tolls...

They take enough. They just don't spend it wisely. But hey, they built the White Sox a new ballpark and the Bears a new stadium. Funding these stupid trains is like going out to dinner when you can't pay your mortgage. It might only be a small part of the money, but it's a large part of the irresponsibility.

Most Illinois residents won't even know those extra trains exist; or ever be in a position to use them. The people who use trains like this should pay for the trains. To paraphrase a late Illinois senator: "A million here, a million there, pretty soon you're talking real money."

And Poppa_Zit (?), I ain't no teacher. The only connection I have (since I gradgyated) with the Illinois public education system is that I help pay for it. For everybody's FYI, the "average" pay for a high school teacher in Downers Grove, IL was $74,000 (with about 2 1/2 months off in the summer time, full benifits, good retirement, etc. How'd you like that nice job.) That was the last year I lived in DG. You know what, they went on strike for more money.

Now just where was that "more money" gonna' come from? Please see my aforementioned property tax bill.

greyhounds, I feel your pain. My last tax bill was $11,600 -- with over $8,800 going to the schools. Shoot, we don't even have any kids! And I've always thought most -- I said MOST, not all -- teachers are overpaid, as you mention.

To use your logic on the "needless" trains and not wanting to pay for something you won't need, then I shouldn't have to pay that $8,800 because we don't have kids. Great idea -- you should be governor!

I also pay taxes to subsidize Metra and CTA trains, and Pace and CTA busses and do not use any of them. My taxes went to pay for two stadiums I will never visit because I'd rather watch the games on my TV on the cheap -- and not pay $4.50 for a beer.

At least with the additional $12 million to subsidize Illinois Amtrak routes -- which in the overall scheme of things is relatively miniscule -- it would be spent on something I'd actually use!

BTW, the value of your real estate and home in Antioch has to be on the rise now that Metra has made it a "bedroom community." The area is booming, and land values are already skyrocketing. Not a bad place to be, methinks.

[Anonymous]

I happened to drive I-55 to St. Louis and back earlier this week. No trains passed on the paralleling UP (Amtrak) while I drove the segment between Bloomington and Springfield. The only freight cars I saw were a half dozen UP coilcars at a siding. All the money spent on the new signaling system, and yet the old position signals are still in use while the new hooded signals face to the side. I grew up in Ill., and I think ABE must be spinning in his tomb from what chronically happens there. A real shame.

[wallyworld]

Put Da Mayor in charge. Im surprised you didnt see a hand car pumped by two trained chimps on the dole towing a trailer outfitted with lawnchairs with our past governors chained to their seats.

[Train 284]

Thats great to here! Glad ridership is up. I bet California could do that with all the commuter traffic they get down south!

[Paul Milenkovic]

I guess at some point we will all get our heels locked down for talking politics, but here is my take on subsidies, trains, expensive gas, and all.

All modes of transportation are subsidized -- highways, airports, rivers, everything. A lot of money goes from taxes to public purposes. But just because public moneys are spent doesn't mean they shouldn't be spent wisely. If we had a pure privatized transport system markets would impose a certain spending discipline. In the absence of such a system, whether money is spent wisely is a public, political consideration.

And that the rail subsidy is small compared to other public expenditures, wise or extravagant doesn't mean rail spending shouldn't be subject to scrutiny.

A common theme is that with gas $3, $4, $5 dollars a gallon, we will all need the trains. Amtrak's "gas mileage" had been reported as around 50 passenger miles per gallon but more recent numbers show it going down to around 30 passenger miles per gallon as of late. On that basis alone, two people sharing a fuel-efficient car can do better than Amtrak. Taking the consists, schedules, and load factors into account, does anyone know what the Illinois trains use in fuel? Amtrak certainly doesn't know this on a train or route-segment basis. Do any of you have some inside info, based say on computer simulations of the schedules, the fuel rates of the locomotive, and the consists? It may be a favorable number since these trains are on flat ground and don't keep Acela schedules, but does anyone know the numbers?

At times I have brought up the issue I have been told "well, fuel cost is such a small part of Amtrak's costs that it isn't a factor." Its all of the other costs which are so high. Then why do people think they are saving with Amtrak compared to the cost of gas. Could it be that Amtrak is heavily subsidized and passengers don't feel the full cost? OK, the subsidy is to a good public purpose -- we are saving on gas (maybe) that would cost money on foreign military adventures that make the real cost of gas something like $200/barrel (just picking a number out of the air). OK, what is the per barrel cost of Amtrak subsidy? Is Amtrak a good use of public dollars for oil substitution or are we better off subsidizing more ethanol or putting more money into breeder reactors?

[Poppa_Zit]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Paul Milenkovic

A common theme is that with gas $3, $4, $5 dollars a gallon, we will all need the trains. Amtrak's "gas mileage" had been reported as around 50 passenger miles per gallon but more recent numbers show it going down to around 30 passenger miles per gallon as of late. On that basis alone, two people sharing a fuel-efficient car can do better than Amtrak.

Great in theory, but not everyone owns or has access to an auto. Nor is always conveniently available a traveling companion heading for the same destination. It also does not take into account the up-front payouts of vehicle rental/cost, vehicle maintenance, insurance, etc.

Among others, the Amtrak routes in Illinois serve a lot of college kids, shuttling between Chicago & suburbs and universities in Macomb, Champaign, Carbondale, Mattoon, etc.. They don't have or cannot have cars on campus. Same with those who spent years in *college* in places like Pontiac, Galesburg and Joliet and were recently released or paroled.

Finally, your theorem does not mention the abject pleasures of not having to drive, or sit in crappy, stop-and-go traffic. Or the peace of arriving at one's destination without the frayed nerve endings caused by being surrounded by people driving like idiots at 80 mph for many hours.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Poppa_Zit
Among others, these Amtrak routes in Illinois serve a lot of college kids,

Yep yep yep. I used to be one of those college kids. Lots of us patronized the Illinois Zephyr.

[Paul Milenkovic]

QUOTE:
Finally, your theorem does not mention the abject pleasures of not having to drive, or sit in crappy, stop-and-go traffic. Or the peace of arriving at one's destination without the frayed nerve endings caused by being surrounded by people driving like idiots at 80 mph for many hours.

No, I did not say one thing about providing an alternative where one didn't have to drive -- I concentrated on the fuel economy issue, a big concern with rising fuel costs. The rank ordering of fuel economy is buses, way out in front, followed by the train and car, roughly comparable, followed somewhat by air.

If the social goal of the subsidy is to provide an accomodation for people unable or unwilling to drive, fine. If the social goal is to encourage people to substitute the train for driving to save on energy, the energy savings need to be demonstrated and quantified.

[Anonymous]

With the rising cost of gas this is probably going to be Amcrap's last opportunity to get out of debt for a long while.

[Poppa_Zit]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Paul Milenkovic

If the social goal of the subsidy is to provide an accomodation for people unable or unwilling to drive, fine. If the social goal is to encourage people to substitute the train for driving to save on energy, the energy savings need to be demonstrated and quantified.

Paul, while I see your point, I think you're giving too much credit for addressing social causes to a bunch of politicians who are mainly concerned about getting reelected in the fall, and not much more. Politicians really aren't that deep, at least the ones I know.

I think the goal is a simple one -- provide the opportunity for equal train service in both directions at affordable prices for those who choose to use it.

And in the meantime, if somebody's brother-in-law or nephew gets a job because of it... [(-D] [(-D] [(-D] [(-D] [(-D]

[Anonymous]

AS An illinoian, I follow stories like this regularly. this is in fact part of an overall rail trainsit program that has been in the works for over 20 years now, it has in no way any relation to current gas prices.

The Illinois Government, City and Counties and even the our federal represenitives have all been working to better link the state together for a long time now. In fact, soon the Metra will be expanded westward to Rockford and may even one day continue west to Moline. There is even a feasibility study on mtra suggesting it may be economically feasible to Link to Springfield.

The grand idea is to make Metra Illinois Public rail system, with Amtrak supplimenting certain sections that it already services. The State is just offsetting the costs to get Amtrak to run more often.

As for the stupid teacher, they should get back to focusing on the students and not their wallet. $74k is outradious for a teacher, the average pay in Rockford (the last i heard) was around $30k a year. I can go on about the public Education system, but this is a train forum, so I won't.

[Modelcar]

...Wish more states were in financial shape to build and support rail transportation systems. Believe so many are just on the brink of being able to supply basic needs to it's citizens.

[senshi]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Modelcar

...Wish more states were in financial shape to build and support rail transportation systems. Believe so many are just on the brink of being able to supply basic needs to it's citizens.

Not sure if you can say that about Illinois, we are borrowing money from all over the place to pay for everything.

What Illinois needs to develop is more rail transport in the Northwest part of the state. The Rockford to Janesville area could use passenger rail connections to Chicago. Also a resurrection of the at least a portion of the Kate Shelly route could help improves ties among the communities along the route (plus give rail access to the only state university without passenger rail, NIU).

But that would take money, I mean people, off the tollways wouldn't it.

[Poppa_Zit]

QUOTE: Originally posted by senshi

What Illinois needs to develop is more rail transport in the Northwest part of the state. The Rockford to Janesville area could use passenger rail connections to Chicago. Also a resurrection of the at least a portion of the Kate Shelly route could help improves ties among the communities along the route (plus give rail access to the only state university without passenger rail, NIU).

But that would take money, I mean people, off the tollways wouldn't it.

Would there really be enough demand to develop rail passenger service, say Madison to Janesville to Rockford to Chicago? Maybe one train a day, but I doubt it...

Maybe Metra someday will extend its UP route to DeKalb once or twice a day. That would be more likely, but won't happen for at least another 10-15 years.

Most students attending Downstate state colleges come from the Chicago area and the Amtrak Illinois service works because of the extreme driving distances and cost of fuel. But under former governor Dan Walker, tolI road I-88 was built west out of chicago for quicker access to DeKalb (NIU) because most students are from the Chicago area and have cars, or are commuter students. IIRC, it was said he okayed to project because he had several childen attending NIU.

[daveklepper]

Paul Melinkovik needs to be reminded that by far the greatest perecentage of auto use is SINGLE OCCUPANCY, and thus Amtrak does generally come out ahead as more fuel efficient. But the big issue is LAND USE. In Illinois, this does not refer to long-distance touring trains. Not doing something about better public transportation into and out of Chicago from the entire state and nearby Indiana and Wisconsin means grid lock on the highways or lots of additional land usurped by highway widening and new highway construction, which Illinois at this point cannot afford anymore.

[Paul Milenkovic]

QUOTE:
Paul Melinkovik needs to be reminded that by far the greatest perecentage of auto use is SINGLE OCCUPANCY, and thus Amtrak does generally come out ahead as more fuel efficient

This matter of single-occupancy of an automobile representing a profligate use of resources needs to be put to rest. An automobile rarely operates with all seats occupied, and it often operates with only one seat occupied -- a 25% load factor if you assume a 4-seat car. A common carrier mode of transportation can operate with more of the seats occupied because that is the whole point -- that people pool rides into one large vehicle rather than have personal vehicles. But a common carrier mode must operate at less than 100% load factor and often operates with much less than 100% load factor.

Consider the Chicago-Milwaukee Hiawatha train -- it carries 450,000 passengers a year, but with 7 trains a day in each direction 365 days a year on a four-car fixed consist, it is providing 1.5 million seats a year -- the load factor is shy of 30 percent. But, you say, everytime I have been on it it has been packed, and they are talking about adding a car to the consist. Of course it has been packed when you have been on it because the times no one is on it you haven't been on it either to note that fact.

Is a 30 percent load factor a failure on the part of Amtrak? This is marginally better than that wasteful 25 percent load factor of the single-occupant auto (the load factor of the auto is higher because on intercity trips, occupancy averages somewhere between 1 and 2 occupants per trip in the car). The low load factor is not a failure when what you are trying to do is provide a frequent service to make it convenient to more people. What does single-occupant auto driving do -- it also makes the car more convenient, that you don't have to wait for a passenger before making a trip.

Land use? Metra, with its multiple train lines and 11-car (densely packed) trains carries up to 75,000 passengers an hour -- nearly 40 freeway lanes (needed in each direction unless you do that Kennedy Expressway directional lane thing). California's Surfliner, sending 400 seats per hour, replaces a fifth of a freeway lane in each direction under peak conditions.

Back to the load factor issue. One of the arguments for the conventional locomotive-drawn passenger train is that you don't require a fixed consists -- you can couple on more cars, something you can't do with Talgo (fixed consist) or a bus or an airplane (fixed number of seats). Amtrak runs the Hiawatha train with a fixed consist, but people tell me there is a rush hour on the Hiawatha where people can't get seats. Why aren't they coupling on a couple of suburban bilevels for that rush hour to accomodate the overflow crowd, although in a more cramped seating arrangement?

Have labor costs gone so high that it is cheaper to turn away passengers than switch a couple of cars in and out of a consist?

If they can't get a lease on a bilevel (Wisconsin Central has some used ones they bought, parked in Janesville), why can't they go to a higher seating density in the four-car Horizon consist? Why can't they go to some demand fare structure (higher fare for the popular times, lower far for off-peak times)?

[daveklepper]

Those are all good ideas and it is mostly incompetent political interference that prevents their implementation. Amtrak was on its way to a "Yield" fare policy, with of-peak fares by time of day and by day of week, etc, but told this was "unfair" by politicians. Similarly, their are people who pay double the fare to ride a first class car with decent sit down meal on the trip but then Amtrak would be accused of subsidizing meal costs with the fare price.

If we could get Gunn back as running the show and give the freedom to do things right I think you would see these ideas implemented.

On East Coast Amtrak has always borrowed commuter authoriity complete trainsets for holiday and other heavy periods, times that don't usually interfere with the weekday commuter rush hours. Why not do the same for Milwaukee service? Put two Horizen consists together for double capacity and replace one with a METRA set.

[n012944]

[SchemerBob]

Where are they going to get the equipment to make these trains possible?? Amtrak only has a little over 200 mainline locomotives. Illinois may have to chip in and buy some equipment, like California and Oregon has, if they want these trains to roll!

Other than the equipment problem, though, the idea sounds great.

[bryanbell]

QUOTE: Originally posted by n012944


This argument really is way off base. People complain about what they pay for schools, and then complain if they are not up to snuff.

Throwing money at problems rarely works either. Just because a lot of tax money is given to schools, doesn't make them good schools.
There are always people that complain that the tax money is misspent or we are spending it on the wrong thing.
While the state of IL has a lot of money issues, the Amtrak program is a drop in the bucket. I know a million here and a million there and you're talking about real money but throwing it down the black hole that is the teacher retirement fund as someone suggested, isn't going to solve one problem.

Bryan

[Poppa_Zit]

QUOTE: Originally posted by n012944

This argument really is way off base. People complain about what they pay for schools, and then complain if they are not up to snuff. And as for the common comeback, "I don't have any kids in school" one of the MAIN keys to the value of your house is the quality of the school system. Anyone who needs an example of this should only look at Naperville, on of the best school systems in the state, and some of the highest property values.

While the value of a house in Naperville is high, so are the prices -- as well as the property taxes. I am not a financial wiz, but it seems to me much of the "gain" in a home's value over five years in Naperville is wiped out by the higher annual real estate taxes (plus interest had those additional taxes been invested).

The "Even though you don't have any kids in school, the school system makes your house worth more money" theory works only in an economy where the value of houses continues to spiral upwards and the interest rates on mortgages stays fairly low. Also, to assume that higher school district taxation somehow equates to a better school system is a fallacy.

And doesn't having sound, functioning, affordable public transportation available also add to the true value of a house? Just check out the rent differences beween apartments within walking distance of BNSF Metra stations and those in the same city, but on the other side of town and not near convenient public transportation.