Rather than lengthen my already long post above I thought I'd add this separately, from RAILPAC:
The Bay Area and Central Valley led the charge, with the Sacramento-Oakland-San Jose Capitol Corridor line increasing 9 percent over October 2005 to a record 120,074 riders. The San Joaquins, which runs from Oakland to Stockton to Bakersfield, increased 5.5 percent to a record 66,750 passengers, according to figures released by the state Department of Transportation (Caltrans). Both lines are operated by the national rail service, Amtrak, but receive large state subsidies.
"In the run-up of gas prices, people discovered that there was this alternative out there" and continued to ride the rails even when gasoline dropped sharply during October, said Bill Bronte, chief of Caltrans' Rail Division.
Southern California also saw an increase in intercity rail service, which Caltrans classifies separately from commuter lines like the Stockton-to-San Jose Altamont Commuter Express and Gilroy-San Jose-San Francisco Caltrain services.
The Pacific Surfliner trains, which run from Santa Barbara to San Diego via Los Angeles, increased 1.3 percent to 215,692 passengers for October.
Much of the Capitol Corridor's increase came after the line boosted its service, especially between Oakland and San Jose where it paid for track improvements that allowed smoother coexistence of fright and passenger
"We now have the same frequency of trains as Amtrak runs on the Northeast Corridor between Boston and New York," he said, noting that when the line was created in 1991 it had three roundtrips and carried 270,000 passengers a year. Today it has 16 roundtrips and carries nearly 1.3 million passengers.
That growth has pushed the Capitol Corridor to Amtrak's third-busiest line, after the Northeast Corridor and Pacific Surfliner, Bronte said. The San Joaquins line is in fifth place, but may soon move up, he added.
"Another big thing people don't realize is that 20 percent of all the riders on the entire Amtrak system are in California," Skoropowski said. "Twenty years ago, we weren't even on the radar screen."
The ridership increase, along with regular fare increases, have also brought increased revenue. The Capitol Corridor pulled in $1.37 million in October, up 15 percent over the previous October, while the San Joaquins saw revenues jump 12 percent to $1.9 million.
Those increases have helped both lines to come within a few percentage points of the state's goal of paying for half of the lines' operating costs through fares.
This information is being sent to you by the Rail Passenger Association of California (RailPAC). RailPAC is the largest rail advocacy group in California & Nevada working for the expansion and improvement of passenger rail service.
SFbrkmn wrote: One of the biggest cutbacks in history took place in 1979 when four long distance trains were abolished in early Oct that yr. I was in high school and remember it all quite well. This took place with a Democrat President working with a Democrat Congress. Carter proposed a 0% funding for fiscal 1980.
Strong Amtrak presidents have generally been Republican appointees for whatever reasons. Paul Reistrup, for instance, was appointed under Gerald Ford, and was a skilled railroader who in turn brought in the highly experienced Marty Garelick as COO. Sharp railroaders all around.
Under Carter, Amtrak enjoyed about the same degree of success as everything else under that President. When the Republicans came back in charge under Reagan, it was the strong leadership of the legendary F. Graham Claytor at Amtrak, John Riley at FRA, and Elizabeth Dole at DOT -- all Amtrak supporters -- that led the renaissance of Amtrak, restoring Congressional favor by being able by 1989 to generate 72% of its own budget, up from 41% in Carter's last year in office.
Under Clinton, Amtrak again became a political appointment. Instead of a strong, experienced leader like Claytor, Amtrak got saddled with Thomas Downs, whose primary achievement had been massive delays and huge cost over-runs on the Capitol Union Station project as the city adminstrator of Washington DC. It was Downs who began to promise to Congress self-sufficiency for Amtrak -- creating wholly unrealistic expectations that continue to contaminate the discussion to this day.
Yep, I remember Thomas Downs. We were hit with the "Downsizing" of Amtrak and here on the Florida west coast we lost the Silver Meteor and are now just left with one northbound and one southbound train a day (Silver Star).
George Warrington seemed like a likable guy, but from what I've read his emphasis seemed to be on the NEC and not on the LD trains.
It's interesting that some believe that the LD passenger train is obsolete, yet ridership continues to grow.
As I've stated so many times....long distance bus travel is far less comfortable than passenger train travel. Buses having to meal stop at "choke & pukes" (as truckers used to call them) or at fast food resteraunts sure doesn't compare to having a dining car or a lounge car with snacks in the consist. Paying the extra dollars for a relaxing meal on the rails seems worth it.
"I like my Pullman Standards & Budds in Stainless Steel flavors, thank you!"
Quentin
I agree with Michael Sol that Amtrak has faired better under Republican administrations. Unfortunately the pattern of more favorable support under Republicans didn't follow through to the latest administration. It was almost a perfect storm. A combination of White House budget people with options limited by powerful leaders in the military/defense sector and entitlement programs, a Secretary of Transportation (yes, a Democrat) that had no initiative on his own and a Republican Congress that generally went along with the administration's bidding almost got Amtrak tanked.
I think it is realistic to say that Dave Gunn, himself a Republican (or a Tory, when he wears his Canadian hat), held the place together rather well. Interesting that the unlikely bedfellows of Paul Weyrich, a conservative political activist and former Massachusetts Govenor and Democratic presidential candidate Mike Dukakis recruited and persuaded Dave Gunn to take the job. I don't really think that anybody in administration wanted to take the rap for losing Amtrak and so the line was to put the job on the states or in private hands, i.e., somebody else that could be blamed when rail passenger service did not survive. Gunn's key strength was convince enough people in congress that there was nothing close to a well thought out plan to support that type of change and to try to force a change by simply cutting off funds would result in nothing more that the end of the service.
In the year that Gunn has been gone from the job, little more has been done other than to implement programs that were under development or started by Gunn in the four years he was at Amtrak. Unaudited, but here are the latest results for the 11 months of FY2006 through August as reported on the Amtrak web site. Revenue, excluding $445.4 million Federal support for operations: $1.824 billion. Expenses, excluding interest, taxes, depreciation and other post employment benefits: $2.233 billion. Revenue is 82% of expense. Add interest: $99.6 million, depreciation: $497.1 million and OPEB's: $69.7 million and the total expense is $2.899 billion. Revenue is about 63% of that number.
I don't know how those numbers compare to the percentages reported in Michael's post, but given the rather intractable opposition by the Bush administration, I don't think they are too bad.
"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
By Paul M. Weyrichweb posted February 21, 2005
"Larry Kudlow of CNBC asked me if it were true that I did not advocate destroying Amtrak but wanted to reform it. I plead guilty. I am pro-rail.
"I believe we demonstrated after 9/11 that it is prudent to have a national passenger rail system. However, Amtrak is spiraling toward death. The Administration has recommended not a dime.
"In Ronald Reagan's budget Amtrak was also zeroed out. Back then the President knew full well that Congress would restore the money. It was one of those "wink-winks" which take place in Washington. Reagan satisfied a part of his conservative constituency by pretending to be against Amtrak funding while his Office of Management and Budget (OMB) people planned for the restoration of the money.
"I probed the Deputy Director of OMB as to how serious the Bush Administration is about not funding Amtrak. Specifically, I asked him if the Congress restored the Amtrak money, would he recommend a veto to the President, assuming a separate Transportation Appropriations Bill had been passed by the Congress. (Reagan always excused himself on the Amtrak issue by pointing out that Congress sent him what is known as a "CR," a Continuing Resolution, wherein several appropriations bills are rolled into one. He felt he could not veto the Continuing Resolution without endangering the nation's defense). OMB Deputy Director Joel David Kaplan said he was not in a position to recommend a veto. He finally showed the hand he was dealing the Congress when he said, "We have laid out reforms three years in a row. Congress has ignored these reforms. If they will consider and enact reforms we might look at restoring some money."
"That view was confirmed by Secretary of Transportation Norm Mineta, who in response to a question from our Free Congress Adjunct Scholar Tom Till, said, "Enact the reforms and then we'll talk money."
"As usual, the media has set up the choice of continuing the status quo vs. zeroing out all funding for Amtrak. That is not, in fact, the only choice. There is zeroing out funding vs. passing reforms and restoring money.
"Among the reforms which we at the Amtrak Reform Council advocated, and which were picked up by the Administration, is to create two separate corporations. One would own the infrastructure now owned by Amtrak in the Northeast Corridor from Washington D.C. to New York City and also New Haven, CT to Boston as well as a 70-mile stretch in Michigan. That corporation would be responsible for the maintenance and upkeep of the property owned by Amtrak. In addition, it would assist the freight railroads for that portion of the system now leased to Amtrak. Under such a system the Commuter Rail lines, which run many more trains over the Corridor then does Amtrak, would have to pay their fair share of upkeep. A second corporation would only run passenger trains.
"Presently, because Amtrak is involved in so many businesses, it is not possible to find out exactly what it costs to operate a given train."
------------------
Michael Sol:
I spoke a number of years ago with Marty Garelick about this. He and Paul Reistrup agreed back in the 1970s that Amtrak was attempting to straddle two entirely separate core competencies -- the NEC, and all the rest. As private sector guys, they saw both the financial and managerial obstacles inherent -- absolutely inherent -- in attempting to effectively manage under one Board and one management team such divergent operating and business models.
Congress takes with Amtrak very much the same attitude that it does with the Staggers Act -- it won't act until something falls completely apart.
MichaelSol wrote: By Paul M. Weyrichweb posted February 21, 2005 "Among the reforms which we at the Amtrak Reform Council advocated, and which were picked up by the Administration, is to create two separate corporations. One would own the infrastructure now owned by Amtrak in the Northeast Corridor from Washington D.C. to New York City and also New Haven, CT to Boston as well as a 70-mile stretch in Michigan. That corporation would be responsible for the maintenance and upkeep of the property owned by Amtrak. In addition, it would assist the freight railroads for that portion of the system now leased to Amtrak. Under such a system the Commuter Rail lines, which run many more trains over the Corridor then does Amtrak, would have to pay their fair share of upkeep. A second corporation would only run passenger trains. "Presently, because Amtrak is involved in so many businesses, it is not possible to find out exactly what it costs to operate a given train." ------------------ Michael Sol: I spoke a number of years ago with Marty Garelick about this. He and Paul Reistrup agreed back in the 1970s that Amtrak was attempting to straddle two entirely separate core competencies -- the NEC, and all the rest. As private sector guys, they saw both the financial and managerial obstacles inherent -- absolutely inherent -- in attempting to effectively manage under one Board and one management team such divergent operating and business models. Congress takes with Amtrak very much the same attitude that it does with the Staggers Act -- it won't act until something falls completely apart.
I am not going to attempt to get into what business model might or might not work. Some had the view that those kind of splits would do nothing more than shuffle deck chairs. Fact is that the NEC needed and still needs a big infusion of cash. As reported by Weyrich, OMB's Kaplan only said that if the reforms are enacted, "we might look at restoring some money." Now that is a commitment that is going to get congress to move!!
So it has been a year since Dave Gunn was fired, allegedly for his resistance to the NEC spin-off. You would think by now that Bush appointed Amtrak Board, with their guys in the president slot would have a ready to go plan on the table. Fact is, I think that they have backed off on the idea. Do you suppose that the train running part of Amtrak might find themselves facing the same kinds of conflicts as a tenant on the NEC as they do as a tenant on the freight railroads?
As to what it cost to run each train, I am not sure what Weyrich's problem is. I can look at the Amtrak monthly financial and look at numbers for each train under a variety of "what is included" for each train. Maybe he has a problem understanding the difference between "cost" and the reduction in expenses that result from the elimination of a train.
I worked for Paul Reistrup, and I think he is smart enough to run most any complex business. I think a good part of the problem was not so much as to how to manage, but more in how to explain the complexities to everybody involved in putting up the money. Dave Gunn put it up fairly well-both the NEC and the non-NEC businesses need government money. It is just a matter of what you call the expenditure. The NEC needs big bucks for capital investments, the rest of the place needs less bucks for for operating deficits. However, I would also submit that compared to this day and age, Reistrup and Garelick had to work at a time when communication and information/data collection technology was only one step past non-existent.
MFIllini5 wrote:The U.S. should condemn all railroad rights-of-way in the country with no compensation to the railroads. The rights-of-way would be public as they should be. The U.S. could then tax the railroads for their use of the now public right-of-way, just as we pay gas tax and other taxes to fund and use public highways. Once the government has the rights-of-way under its control and this logical source of funds, they could look at the system comprehensively and determine which rights-of-way are redundant and which need to be improved, expanded, realigned and which need to be created altogether for both freight and passenger services, high-speed or not. If no private companies choose to run passenger service in the system, the government could create a separate company to run passenger trains and just build it gradually over time on the routes that demand the most passenger service.
Marx would be proud..........
This professor is anything but ivory tower. He is one one of the more highly known consultants in regards to America and international railroading. But he is a professional so that means he put's his own personal preference for the railroads aside when it comes time to recommend action. As for the former head of the PA highspeed rail commission (now deceased), he spent most of his life working his way up through the ranks of railroading until he reached a high position and then retired to an even higher administrative position at a major university (although he also taught transportation classes par-time). He did his best to try every which way to come up with a way that state-wide high speed rail would work in PA but it just wasn't there. The Pittsburgh area just wasn't populated enough to make it work and the state politicians just couldn't keep their noses out of running it.
As for buses, my friend tells me that susidizing mid-distance and long-distance bus fares in most of the US gives far more bang for the buck than subsidizing the normal once a day or twice a day train. The roads are already there and much of them are interstate or interstate quality, the salaries are currently much less than Amtrak's with less work rules, there's more scheduling opportunities, and the service is normally faster. He doesn't claim bus service is more travel friendly--the train is still the best for comfort and less troubled by weather. But from a financial standpoint, its a better deal for the taxpayers. Remember, I'm not talking about the NE and CA corridors that everyone keeps mentioning or commuter operations--just most geograpical mid-distance and long-distance non-air and non-personal vehicle travel. What he is advocating on the national level as the best deal overall when it comes to government financing is to keep the corridors where the impacted states and communities are willing to help the feds subsidize frequent and quality passenger rail service, then turn to subsidized bus transporation where a subsidized passenger rail system just can't be justified. In other words, a national plan that utilizes both types of transportation for land transportation.
Alphas has a point. But there is a question of what kind of face does the USA wish to present to the World. Missing from the entire argument is the question of access to the entire USA for elderly and handicapped. Long distance bus travel, even if upgraded with overnight stays in good hotels and stopovers at decent restaurants, is simply not acceptable to such people. I remind you of the disabled |Korean War veteran living near Alburquerque NM who visits his children and grandchildren in Dallas once a year by using first class Amtrak via Chicago. How do you want foreign tourists to enjoy seeing the country? It isn't for nothing that Amtrak uses the Moffat Tunnel route rather than Sherman Hill and its saving of some five hours. Then there is the Empire Builder and its providing a life line for towns and areas that simply don't have any other transportation during winter's snows.
Again, there are laws in effect forcing theater owners to provide facilities for the handicapped and hard of hearing. This costs money and reduces occupancy. I think that the National transportation picture should do the same. And a robust Amtrak long distance service is the most economical way of doing it.
This is basic Judeo-Christian morality as far as I am concerned. Also preparation for the possible return of A-cards and gas rationing when and if the area around where I live continues the march posed by policies that reward terrorism. And continue to do so. And preparation for another Katrina.
Another example of Amtrak improvement...
Amtrak has best year in Michigan
(The Associated Press circulated the following article on November 18.)LANSING, Mich. -- Soaring gas prices pushed more travelers onto passenger trains, making the fiscal year that just ended the best ever for Amtrak in Michigan, state transportation officials said.Statewide ridership and revenue for passenger rail service reached an all-time high, Michigan Department of Transportation director Kirk Steudle said in a news release. He said higher gas prices and increased marketing efforts by local communities helped people "discover the convenience and comfort of Amtrak."Overall, 664,284 passengers rode Amtrak trains on three Michigan routes from Oct. 1, 2005, to Sept. 30, generating $20.3 million in revenue.The route from Port Huron and East Lansing to Chicago, known as the Blue Water, saw a 10.9 percent ridership increase and a 21.7 percent ticket revenue increase over the previous fiscal year, with revenues hitting $3.4 million.The Pere Marquette route from Grand Rapids to Chicago showed a 5.7 percent ridership increase and a 20 percent gain in ticket revenues, to $2.6 million. Ridership on the Wolverine route from Pontiac and Detroit to Chicago increased by 7.9 percent, while ticket sales increased 22 percent, to $14.3 million.The Pere Marquette and Blue Water routes are supported by the state.The state contract for the two routes was renewed for the fiscal year that began Oct. 1 at a cost of $6.2 million, a 12 percent decrease from the previous total of $7.1 million. Greater ridership and revenue allowed the state's share to shrink.
Monday, November 20, 2006
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.