Hmmm?
motor
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
oltmannd wrote:Probably, not much. Maybe just a somewhat smoother ride getting subsistence funding. Clinton actually had a plank in his platform the first time around proposing all kinds of high speed rail and corridor developement. What did we get? Glide slopes to decrepancy. So, even if the exec and legislative branches are 100% Dem in 2008, I still wouldn't get my hopes up. Amtrak needs a visionary leader who can push an agenda. I don't see one on the horizon.
Agree 100%
Given the past history of both parties and their record of supporting Amtrak, I don't think you will see any good, lasting changes.
There will probably be changes, but there are so many things that go into play on the subject that one could probably go twenty pages of maybe's and what if's.
While there was and may continue be strong congressional by-partisan support for Amtrak, the views and actions of the makers and breakers in the White House and the DOT may have more to do with any outcome than Congress. I think a look at the more recent history of Federal transportation law would show that DOT provides the primary design and Congress just shoves it around some before enacting the final thing.
Best thing for now? Just stay tuned.
"We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics
...Neither party has done too much with substance. Congress does write the checks though...and if W wouldn't veto the money for it we might see a bit more willingness to provide a reasonable funding.
Our President is still in place and he is really the one that wants it to go away for the most part....
If our two governing bodies would just set down and have a decent and reasonable discussion of what the purpose, direction, funding, etc...might be, that might be of great help.
I'd be satisfied to see a frank civil discussion on the subject and see where it goes....{That is by people with open minds}.
Quentin
PBenham wrote:Amtrak is in mighty deep trouble, gang. As long as it is only useful in the northeast, Illiniois and California's urban corridors, the rest of the country is going to look at Amtrak differently. But with so much equipment parked outside Bear DE and Beech Grove IN's shops, never to be fixed, and trains on CSX and UP being treated like switch jobs, well...
It's really scandalous that so much equipment paid for with our tax dollars is bad ordered. It's hard to believe there isn't a positive ROI for putting it back in service - somewhere. What a waste!
With the new leaning towards 'green' perhaps Amtrak will get a new hearing in the next congress. The Bush agenda has been clearly one of trying to eliminate it altogether. Contrary to this it has been shown that inter-city rail travel is a growing and vibrant market ala the NE corridor and Calif. initiatives. The real problem is not cross country or long distance trains, but inter-city trains that provide real transportation alternatives to shuttle flights and highway congestion.
The longer term solution will have to be dedicated passenger rail right of way so that the trains can again run on time. In Great Brittain, the day time hours are mostly dedicated to passenger rail service while 'goods trains' run mostly at night. This allows shared trackage and less congestion for passenger services.
The West Coast Starlight is woefully under funded and under utilized with only two active trainsets. Yet it provides a route that is both scenic and practical. With a little imagination, it could become a jewel in Amtrak's crown and attract way more ridership.
Perhaps Amtrak could also get involved in some intermodal traffic (this would threaten the freight haulers) and generate real revenues. But we could get a lot more of the trucks off the highways if there were inter-city intermodal facilities beyond the supersites currently operated by the major RR companies. Australia has pioneered several small container approaches that can serve localities very efficiently, working for both the shipper and recipient.
The Dems have the opportunity to show some political will with a win-win outcome for both green issues and passenger service.
....I agree...the D's now have an opportunity with their increased strength in Congress to address the subject. Will they...The unanswered question.
Seems like we have two major problems in the Amtrak operation.
Of course the aged old problem of funding. Don't know if we have anyone who will tackle that problem or not...
Second....Finding open slots for Amtrak to run on the freight railroads ROW's...Somehow the many RR's found a way to run freight...{lots of it}, and passenger trains...{lots of them}, during WWII but even with modern technology of signaling, etc....it seems can't be accomplished now...Or simply won't..!
And I suppose we have a third problem too as mentioned in an above post...Damaged and or broken equipment sitting at several repair / rebuild facilities waiting {endlessly}, for attention that seems never comes....Equipment that certainly could be put to good use under the right circumstances.
I don't know if we here in the government, railroad, and planning communities can accomplish anything with the above or not...It sure would be a project for some seasoned and newcomers to work on....
I think jeaton has it right. The Sec DOT has to drive the change, perhaps in league with Amtrak's pres. We've never had an advocate in both positions at the same time. Makes me wonder how things might have gone had Thompson got DOT instead of H&HS.
I don't think a "green" push will do much for Amtrak. The case for Amtrak being "green" is really pretty squishy. Passenger train specific energy consumption has been pretty flat for the past several decades while autos and airlines have gotten better. Besides, most of the focus of "green" is where the energy comes from not where it goes.......at least in the US.
I know at least as far as NS goes, extra slots to run more passenger trains have to be paid for. There is a good description of NS's position here http://www.garail.com/Pages/pdf/sehsrfinalreport.pdf (p 83, Appendix B)
For shared trackage, 90 mph is max and you have to provide NS with some loco cab signal equipment (assuming no approved alternative to cab signal for >79 mph). For 110 mph, you can share ROW, but you have to build your own track. The last paragraph is some interesting advise to planners - to the effect of steering passenger investment toward NS and not away from it.
Amtrak will be a crises to crises operation no matter who rules.
Try running a business with no long term goals, plans, nor capital strategy. Leaving equipment to rot rather than repair is a symptom of this greater illness. This has gone on for decades.
Hauling people never has and never will pay all the bills. For those too young to remember, look at the photos of nearly endless head end cars on all but a few passenger trains. Amtrak's foray into the freight business set up a howl of protest from others in the business, including the freight railroads.
If this country wants people hauled by rail, a long term plan of operational and captial support needs to be drawn up and followed through. Hand to mouth costs more in the long run.
Fix it right, or ditch it. So far, no political party is willing to do the right thing.
Before the riot starts, let me say I know there are many excellent people who are, and who have worked for Amtrak, or in the Government, trying to "fix" Amtrak. Neither party has done a thing to push Amtrak much past 1971. As far as I´m concerned it ended before it started. Just a look at the pre Amtrak passenger rail map of April 1971 and the Amtrak map of May 1 says it all. I think we have all lived in an airline era where non-stop is the only two words that mean anything to anyone. That is a great concept for air but it really stinks for rail. Sure a few corridor non-stops might be in order but the bigger picture is that Amtrak is susposed to be a National system. Not a Washington, NY, Boston railroad. What I am driving at is no matter how good the Empire Builder is, what about the people in Butte?, Livingston? Miles City? etc. Now multiply that times the many routes we are all familiar with: Chicago-St. Louis is a good example. How many routes or rail lines connect these cities? How many towns are in the middle? Anyone in Chicago or St.Louis can go to the airport and fly away, but can the people of all those little towns? No! Only the ones on the single Amtrak route serving this "corridor". Danville, Decatur and Clinton? forget it. The abandonment of the old Seaboard Air Line System in Virginia and Central Florida, and the trains that served it are part of the same saga. Sure one can get from Washington to Miami, but what about Ocala, Dade City or Gainesville? THESE are the towns that really need and depend on Amtrak. In fact Ocala spent millions on its old Union Station to make it into a showplace transportation center and what do they get for their effort? A single train each way at 2 am which has now been re-routed. Go to any major airport and look at the arrivals and departures. Not only are they fast but they move very often, many times a day, just pick your departure or arrival time. Not so on the railroad. We have marshalled everything onto a single route then for the most part cut that to one train each way daily. Has anyone in Washington thought to study a single Amtrak route such as BNSF´s Chicago-LA mainline? The BNSF serves MANY mini corridors with one train. Chicago-Kansas City, Kansas City-Newton, Las Vegas-Albuquerque, Northern Arizona and of course Barstow-San Bernandino-LA. What would happen if all that AM-JUNK, sitting in long lines at Amtraks shops, were restored and another schedule added to the Southwest Chief route? Imagine the Grand Canyon, or El Capitan.. 3 trains using the route. The more trains on the line the less the cost per train for stations and support. But what about those who live in Santa Rosa NM? or Liberal KS? not even 3 trains on the BNSF route would help them so we must figure either through trains, sections or connecting services on the Golden State Route, The Overland Route, and the Texas Pacific Eagle route. It´s not that the ridership from LA to Chicago would suddenly jump but that the cost per train would fall while local and smaller town ridership would soar.
As a onetime City Councilman the only idea I have ever heard to fix this is to give the trains back to the railroads, train by train, route by route and coach by coach as they requested them. Then make it so sweet that they would knock down the door to get them back. Set up a long term Tax relief program equal to (a magic number worked out by the railroads and government on a sliding scale...perhaps as high as 100 or 110% ) the total cost of operating said train over said route. So if the Starlight cost 20 million a year to operate then UP could get say 80% of the total cost of this train, it´s services, staff, promotion, stations, locos and cars applied aginst the total federal (states could join in to sweeten the pot) tax bill of the company. If the train passed certain inspections by an "Amtrak over-seeing and reservations agency" for on-time performance, promotion etc... then it goes to 90%. For new services it goes to 100% or 110%. In other words if a railroad wanted to increase performance with rehabilitation, new track, signals and such, the passenger train would be a ticket by writing off the cost in taxes. This would even work if we stay with the current system and a state or states wanted to add a service in addition to Amtrak. Lets say Chicago-Des Moines-Omaha on the Iowa Interstate. Nebraska, Illnois and Iowa could form a "Tax Train" pact and not only get the train but the railroad could get it´s line up to 60 mph perhaps with signaling. What ever could be charged to the train could be refunded with tax breaks.
But alias, one group wants to kill it outright and the other wants to micro-manage a top heavy monster . Worse they cross party lines, with some of each in both parties. So I won´t hold my breath. In the meantime, by putting what few trains there are onto single routes we defeat the purpose of transportation for all. It´s like a bunch of us building a Wal-Mart store with a single long aisle and only one product.
Ocklawaha
PBenham wrote:The way Amtrak gets treated by administration after administration is a shame! We are at a point (as I have said before) where it will be necessary, to once again, rationalize Amtrak and get more money from those states it benefits. BUT unfunded mandates are smashing many states' finances (Medicaid) and considering the condition of the fleet they can operate, and the cars age, and the need to replace them, well as I have said before, it is time to say UNCLE! Enough already! The big 6 need to put some cash up, along with states that have some "wiggle room" left within their budgets to enable Amtrak to operate in their states. Right now, for me Amtrak is not a viable option. New York does not want Amtrak, except in the Northeast Corridor! The rest of the state is not viable as far as Metro New York's political bosses see things and that's the bottom line! Bye, bye Amtrak, Hello Metro North in Albany-Rensselaer- GCT/Penn service. Beyond A-R? Fuhgetabout it!
Sounds like socialism to me. The railroads owe no obligation to further fund Amtrak and they won't do it. That burden was taken on by the Government in 1971. What we need is a voice of reality and compromise, which we may get now that Congress and the Presidency are held by different parties. Jim Oberstar (D-MI) is incoming House T&I Committee Chairman and has publicly said that Amtrak and High Speed Rail are among his priorities.
LC
Having government put down tax-payer money into public transportation IS NOT socialism. Of course the rxr companies don't want to pay for it. They don't care about the public good or energy indepence or the benefits of having people travel by rail as opposed to highway - they care about making MONEY. Not that there's anything necessarily wrong with caring solely about that (though some may rightfully argue with this point).
I think we'd all agree that both the public and the government have a lot to gain by funding/subsidizing, giving tax breaks to rail transport.
The automobile industry would, of course, disagree, whine and lobby the hell out of washington, though.
I DO think that eventually the democrats will come around and realize that there's a direct connection between funding amtrak AND being on the path towards this "energy independence" that they're so commonly talking about. AT least I hope like hell they will.
Amtrak certainly has a MUCH BETTER chance with the democrats than with the republicans.
Anthony Scalleri wrote: Having government put down tax-payer money into public transportation IS NOT socialism. Of course the rxr companies don't want to pay for it. They don't care about the public good or energy indepence or the benefits of having people travel by rail as opposed to highway - they care about making MONEY. Not that there's anything necessarily wrong with caring solely about that (though some may rightfully argue with this point). I think we'd all agree that both the public and the government have a lot to gain by funding/subsidizing, giving tax breaks to rail transport. The automobile industry would, of course, disagree, whine and lobby the hell out of washington, though. I DO think that eventually the democrats will come around and realize that there's a direct connection between funding amtrak AND being on the path towards this "energy independence" that they're so commonly talking about. AT least I hope like hell they will. Amtrak certainly has a MUCH BETTER chance with the democrats than with the republicans.
No argument with that last.
My comment about Socialism was directed to the portion of the post dealing with trying to confiscate funding from railroad companies. We still have this little thing called a Constitution last I checked and that and numerous statutes make confiscation of private property without just compensation illegal.
The big question for the railroads or any other business that exists to make a profit: Who in their right mind would want a business for which there is just about a 100% probability that there will never be a profit?
And by the way, just because the frieght railroads are in the business of running freight trains down tracks, it does not follow that they have current employees that could just put on a different hat and start to manage and operate a passenger service.
I can personally guarentee every one of you that D's or R's will not make a difference at Amtrak. Both parties have much bigger fish to fry. Amtrak is not a political 'winner' for either party.
PBenham wrote:In 1971, Penn Central was bankrupt in large measure thanks to passenger losses. Other bankrupt carriers needed some help as well. The other major elements of Conrail had minor passenger losses, like CNJ, EL, L&HR, LV and Reading which were already out of the passenger business, or had been bailed out by New Jersey. BUT The Rock Island opted out of Amtrak, (The "initiation fee" was too much for them.) as did D&RGW and Southern. Now the 1971 situation no longer exists, as the "big 6" are quite healthy and no longer in need of a government bailout. The "Socialism" is not needed, what with the likes of BNSF, CN, CP, NS and UP going like gangbusters, and the darlings of Wall Street in the transportation sector. CSX is in a class by itself, and that is a problem that Amtrak cannot solve for them. CSX needs to find a way out of the mess they got themselves into, before there are more mergers, and the service disruptions they cause.
Only NS and CN are "revenue adequate", meaning they're making enough money to stay in business for the long haul without having to "eat their foot" to stay alive. It would be unreasonable to place any additional financial burden on them on top of what they already bear for Amtrak.
daveklepper wrote:And remember, Mineta was a Clinton appointee!
Mineta was a Bush appointee and the lone, token Democrat. Rodney Slater was Clinton's guy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodney_E._Slater
But don't forget the other game that congressmen/women have also been playing, which has been mentioned before.
While a number of them seem to be "anti-Amtrak" no one wants to earn the reputation (other than McCain) that he or she helped to kill Amtrak (especially if Amtrak happens to run in his or her state).
"I like my Pullman Standards & Budds in Stainless Steel flavors, thank you!"
AntonioFP45 wrote: But don't forget the other game that congressmen/women have also been playing, which has been mentioned before. While a number of them seem to be "anti-Amtrak" no one wants to earn the reputation (other than McCain) that he or she helped to kill Amtrak (especially if Amtrak happens to run in his or her state).
...which is EXACTLY why they won't change a thing!
BTW I think even McCain has softened. In recent years, he's been rather pro-corridors but anti-long distance.
The reality is Amtrack is simply outdated. It works OK in the NE corridor because of the large population area, road congestion, the cities are close enough that there's not a great time savings if one flies, and it owns the track. There are a few other corridors it somewhat works. There are even other corridors it would work IF it owned the track. That's it.
I have a good friend who is a full professor of transportation who loves the rails as much of me. He's served on all types of commissions and committees that have studied passenger rail. His conclusion is the time of the long-distance passenger train in the US has definitely passed unless its operated something like a cruise ship where the passengers are not in any hurry to get anywhere and willing to pay top dollar to be pampered while on the train. Mid-distance doesn't fare any better. The studies he has participated in show its far, far, far cheaper (and faster and more convenient for the passengers) for the government in almost all areas of the country to heavily subsidize Greyhound or other bus companies to perform the passenger services for those who can't or won't fly. And there's no way that the freight railroads could be paid enough money to bring back their physical plants to what it would take to operate higher speed (not high speed but higher speed then what's available now outside the NE) passenger service in the US. The studies also indicate that frequency of service and speed of service are secondary to price but all are important. So having one or even several trains a day in each direction averaging 50-55 mph (if everything works right) serving a market just doesn't cut it.
I also worked for another gentleman who chaired the high-speed rail study commission for Pennsylvania and who had a long personal history in railroad operations. They studied it for years but couldn't find a way for it to work. Or as he told me, "If Chicago was located where Pittsburgh was and the (state) politicians didn't insist that the trains stop in each of their districts, it might have a chance someday as the technology is developed overseas." In other words, it would take the very largest metropolitan areas at each end and no more that 400-500 miles apart to make it work. And no stopping in between for anything other than a large metropolitan area.
Summary: No matter who runs congress and the Whitehouse, there isn't much hope for anything other than something like the current status quo in Amtrack's future. Amtrack is trapped--if it gets rid of all the lightly used lines and concentrates on the corridors, it won't get the political support it needs. If it does what it has to do to get the political support, it is stretched way too thin to really do anything well. With the coming problems with medicare/medicaid and social security looming up in the not too distant future (and I suspect a significant increase in the size of the military with what's happening in the world, not only in the middle-east but also in China, Russia rebuilding, and other world hot spots) I just don't see a great increase in federal financial resources flowing to Amtrack like so many of the posters want.
Out-dated in what sense? Certainly RAIL PASSENGER SERVICE is not outdated, especially in an age where fuel for cars is so prodigiously expensive and the supply becoming a real pain in the @$$ to secure (hydrogen fuel cells will not save us).
I've always thought it a shame that amtrak is forced to suffer, while Greyhound Lines (the crappy bus service known for lousy schedules, always being late, dirty facilities and vehicles, and over-priced (compared to the quality of service) tickets is somehow able to turn a profit and secure a base of ridership. I guess an important point here would be that Greyhound's thoroughfares (the IHS) are subsidized and maintained with tax-payer dollars. The airlines, too, are notorious for being bailed out and having money thrown at them by government.
But try and get anybody in government to give a penny to amtrak and it's labeled "welfare for a failling system"...I think this is a huge lie and more so, a cop-out. If politicians simply admitted that they had no interest in "bailing out" or subsidizing amtrak because amtrak wasn't a billion dollar industry with high lobbying-potential and there was no money in it for themselves, the politicians, it would sting less. Politicians don't want to refrain from giving amtrak money not because it accounts to "giving welfare to a failiny system" but namely because they don't care about amtrak and have no reason to.
Nothing is more offensive and condescending than having smoke blown up one's keister.
You can get as much trained, educated management with well-thought-out plans as you want, but the fact remains simple - AMTRAK NEEDS GOVERNMENT MONEY. Without the initial boost for a year or a number of years, there will be no hope and amtrak will remain to be a passenger rail service that the bolivians would be embarassed by. Couple government subsidies with smart, efficient management and it might stand a chance.
alphas wrote: The reality is Amtrack is simply outdated. It works OK in the NE corridor because of the large population area, road congestion, the cities are close enough that there's not a great time savings if one flies, and it owns the track. There are a few other corridors it somewhat works. There are even other corridors it would work IF it owned the track. That's it. I have a good friend who is a full professor of transportation who loves the rails as much of me. He's served on all types of commissions and committees that have studied passenger rail. His conclusion is the time of the long-distance passenger train in the US has definitely passed unless its operated something like a cruise ship where the passengers are not in any hurry to get anywhere and willing to pay top dollar to be pampered while on the train. Mid-distance doesn't fare any better. The studies he has participated in show its far, far, far cheaper (and faster and more convenient for the passengers) for the government in almost all areas of the country to heavily subsidize Greyhound or other bus companies to perform the passenger services for those who can't or won't fly. And there's no way that the freight railroads could be paid enough money to bring back their physical plants to what it would take to operate higher speed (not high speed but higher speed then what's available now outside the NE) passenger service in the US. The studies also indicate that frequency of service and speed of service are secondary to price but all are important. So having one or even several trains a day in each direction averaging 50-55 mph (if everything works right) serving a market just doesn't cut it. I also worked for another gentleman who chaired the high-speed rail study commission for Pennsylvania and who had a long personal history in railroad operations. They studied it for years but couldn't find a way for it to work. Or as he told me, "If Chicago was located where Pittsburgh was and the (state) politicians didn't insist that the trains stop in each of their districts, it might have a chance someday as the technology is developed overseas." In other words, it would take the very largest metropolitan areas at each end and no more that 400-500 miles apart to make it work. And no stopping in between for anything other than a large metropolitan area. Summary: No matter who runs congress and the Whitehouse, there isn't much hope for anything other than something like the current status quo in Amtrack's future. Amtrack is trapped--if it gets rid of all the lightly used lines and concentrates on the corridors, it won't get the political support it needs. If it does what it has to do to get the political support, it is stretched way too thin to really do anything well. With the coming problems with medicare/medicaid and social security looming up in the not too distant future (and I suspect a significant increase in the size of the military with what's happening in the world, not only in the middle-east but also in China, Russia rebuilding, and other world hot spots) I just don't see a great increase in federal financial resources flowing to Amtrack like so many of the posters want.
Having grown up with two Ivy Leauge professors for parents I can tell you that the ivory tower folks are WAY too "above" the realities to understand how railroads truly work. Your professor seems entirely taken with the highway logic of a couple decades past. See how well that fares when gas hits $4. Look at how many routes Greyhound has already abandoned all over our country. Leaving a solution to any single mode is extremely risky. Even with bus service once its gone it rarely comes back.
Second, I know a number of so called "transportation experts" who have worked for states on high speed rail and most of them think of it on the european model with dedicated ROW and trains. Many are retired highway department (note I didn't dignify them by saying DOT) folks and have no idea how railroad math works so they inevitably come up with meaningless numbers when it comes to cost estimates.
In the end, the only rail service that will work is an incremental "higher speed" network that can provide frequency of service in clean equipment at a reasonable cost to the consumer AND the government while properly compensating the track owner ( Amtrak or otherwise) for the operating and maintenance related costs. Take for example the Capitol Corridor trains in California. Amtrak doesn't own that track and yet ridership has been increasing in double digits and frequencies have grown from 3 trains at start up to 16 trains today. The trains pay 50% of their costs from the farebox. Darn good when you consider the costs Amtrak has.
Finally, Amtrak's budget is barely a rounding error in our overall Federal budget. Even zeroing it out entirely won't make any difference in the HUGE issues with entitlements. The ridiculous posturing over Amtrak is nothing more than Beltway politics as usual. Lets hope that the 110th Congress has gotten the message the voters sent.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.