Since there is so much discussion of the Cresent being full from Charlottesville - Washington maybe it is time to add Carolinian equipment Charlotte - Washington - Charlotte. Carolinian crews are in Charlotte to operate its locomotive to position the passenger car(s) for this move. No more cars should be needed most times as car(s) that go Charlotte -Atlanta - New Orleans are usually not needed. Amtrak used to remove coaches in Atlanta southbound and add them northbound anyway when they were removing mail and coaches southbound and adding mail and coaches Atlanta- Washington (north). Coache(s) could be added Washington - Charlotte (Dropped in Charlotte) to be used on the northbound Carolinian. That crew that could pick them up. The layover times in Charlotte provides enough time for cleaning and restocking.
Of course this procedure would only need to be done when the Cresent sold out north of Charlotte before train timel
Samantha wrote: Recently, Kummant appeared on TV, saying that the system could expand between 50% and 100%. But let's be realistic: this is only possible with adequate capital funds. As tends to be the case with sound bites, Kummant's comments did not completely reflect his views. He repeatedly has told the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure that the future for rail passenger services in the U.S. is in high density corridors. Thus, most of the growth that he was alluding to will be in the corridors.Passenger trains are a solution to a transportation problem. They fit best in relatively short, high density corridors, since amongst other things trains are designed to move large numbers of people. Kummant is a savvy business executive. Like most successful business executives, he is also politically astute. I suspect that he is going along with the long distance passenger advocates because of political pressures. Given a choice, I'll bet he would love to be out of the long distance passenger train business. Well, given the tons of money long distance trains lose, calling it a business is a stretch.
Recently, Kummant appeared on TV, saying that the system could expand between 50% and 100%. But let's be realistic: this is only possible with adequate capital funds.
As tends to be the case with sound bites, Kummant's comments did not completely reflect his views. He repeatedly has told the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure that the future for rail passenger services in the U.S. is in high density corridors. Thus, most of the growth that he was alluding to will be in the corridors.
Passenger trains are a solution to a transportation problem. They fit best in relatively short, high density corridors, since amongst other things trains are designed to move large numbers of people.
Kummant is a savvy business executive. Like most successful business executives, he is also politically astute. I suspect that he is going along with the long distance passenger advocates because of political pressures. Given a choice, I'll bet he would love to be out of the long distance passenger train business. Well, given the tons of money long distance trains lose, calling it a business is a stretch.
You are right. The LD trains cannot be viewed a business. They are a service - and a political necessity.
They could be a more cost effective service, should Amtrak ever arrange itself so that pressure and ideas came from the inside instead of just reacting to external pressure (e.g. GAO reports, Amtrak Reform Council, Amtrak IG office, Amtrak Board, etc.) and the employees stood to gain if performance and efficiency improved. They are running a 1950's business with 1980s' equipment. Name another industry that does that sucessfully?
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
blue streak 1 wrote:Guess what guys: Cresent sold out both ways on Thursday-Monday except Sunday southbound.. Yes Amtrak has enough equipment??? (Not my quote)
They HAVE it, they just can't afford to USE it a couple days a year and have it sit around the rest of the time. So, it sits around, unservicable.
BTW, the northbound still has seats available south of Charlottesville Fri, Sat and Sun. Guess the college students woke up and got their reservations in for the Thurs (Fri AM) train. South Atlanta - there are seats everyday.
If you compare the train's size from the post 1971 Southern operation thru to today, you'll see the train's capacity hasn't budged, yet the population along the route, particularly Atlanta to DC, has skyrocketed.
You are putting words in my mouth. No, I'm not suggesting the LD trains go away.
Good. At least, we agree on that. But how do you envision running the LD trains other than by Amtrak with subsidies? Unfortunately, there are no better models available just now. Indeed, government has kind of missed the boat in establishing a dedicated funding source. Of course, it's never too late. With gas prices soaring, it seems that America will sooner or later have to make some adjustments of its policies and lean towards the rail side. But it would be certainly easier to achieve in the 50's (or even before) as all these highway and aviation programs were just starting to emerge.
No, I'm not suggesting coach passengers be barred from the diner if it were a contract operation.
It might be more complicated than we think. I'm not expert in that, but it seems that Amtrak knows what it's doing regarding the way of providing the diner service and sleeper accomodations. If some better options were available, it would probably follow them up. As for Amtrak being interesting in limping along rather than doing a real business, between 1998 and 2002 it did try to be more aggressive in its attempt to demonstrate to officials that it is on its way to operational self-sufficiency by 2003, as was mandated in 1997. Unfortunately, it was not more than a beautiful facade. The system almost ran out of cash in mid-2002, and Administration had to provide a loan guarantee to avoid a shutdown. I'm sure Amtrak is interested in more than just limping alone. Recently, Kummant appeared on TV, saying that the system could expand between 50% and 100%. But let's be realistic: this is only possible with adequate capital funds.
The Crescent will have 4 coaches on Friday. You can bet on it.
That's normal. Of course, it's not as good as five, but definitely better than three. :)
Possibly there might be some economies of scale and economies of tourist promotion (including internationally) if the entire sleeping car and dining onboard operations were handled by a hotel chain that has a reputation for good service. Isn't that basically what Pullman was all about and what Fred Harvey was all about? Under the right circumstances it might work again.
And maybe the overnight trip between Richmond-Washington-Baltimore and Providence-Boston is the market to test?
You are putting words in my mouth. No, I'm not suggesting the LD trains go away. No, I'm not suggesting coach passengers be barred from the diner if it were a contract operation. I'm only suggesting that injecting some immediate profit motive might help the LD trains stop bleeding red ink like a stuck pig. I'd like them to stick around. I'd like Amtrak to really improve it's efficiency and grow. Amtrak doesn't really act like it's interested in anything more than limping along.
If your demand grows and you own a surplus of coaches, then shouldn't the train length grow? An incremental car's revenue ought to be able to fund it's own capital refurbishment - or we're in worse trouble than I think. I'm guesing the demand isn't growing very fast - perhaps slower than population growth. The Crescent isn't growing.
Capstone Amfleet II isn't any better than when the cars were new, IMHO. But what's the point here?
If you's like an interesting read, check out Amtrak's internal inspector general's report on their web site. Looks like they're the only ones who give a hoot about efficiency and customer service.
I'd like to see Amtrak bid out the whole sleeping car/diner business, period.
This would make a train less attractive, thus reducing the demand even more. Especially diners (since they are open to coach passengers as well). It seems that you would like to see Amtrak shrink to the Bush Administration's vision - a few disconnected regional corridors. Otherwise, what's the point in this whole argument? If you agree that long-distance trains should be around, then you have to realize that, given the way the things are right now in the U.S., the only way to keep them is through Amtrak in its current structure and funding system, however inefficient it is (or seems to be).
I'm OK with the equipment arguement for the sleepers, but not the coaches.
Seasonality may be a reason the consist varies over the year, but year over year with growing demand, shouldn't the train get longer?
Of couse, they should. Tell this to Bush Administration and to legislators who are responsible for funding. Besides, train equipment is a capital (rather than operating) expense, so there is nothing to complain about - this would not be "pork" by any standard.
From now to the end of the month, the only day the the train is sold out between ATL and NYP is Easter Sunday. It isn't even sold out for Good Friday, or the Thurday before, yet.
I'm too busy to go out and check how many cars Crescent will have on Friday and weekend. Actually, I will be traveling to Philadelphia on commuter trains that day. If, by some chance, I'll be on my way when Crescent passes by, I'll see it for myself. But I'm not going to plan my time specifically for that.
The April issue of Trains, on page 20, says there are 54 out of service coaches stored in Delaware.
Much of this Delaware stash has been made available only to states that agree to pay for the cars' refurbishment. In a study released on Jan. 7, Illinois was quoted a price of $700,000 per car to overhaul the equipment required to launch two daily round trips on a proposed Chicago - Quad Cities service. For its national trains, management plans to fix just 5 stored Amfleet 1s this fiscal year.
My guess is that the equipment shortage in Superliners is the main reason the Sunset Limited has not been extended back to Florida.
This site might have more information-http://www.gobytrain.us/amtrak/notes/
daveklepper wrote: Possibly an overnight sleeper on this run might be an opportunity for a public-private partnership arrangement? A private owner with an appropriate sleeping car runs a regular deluxe never-on-Wednesday three times a week overnight Boston - Richmond service and shares in the additonal revenue?
Possibly an overnight sleeper on this run might be an opportunity for a public-private partnership arrangement?
A private owner with an appropriate sleeping car runs a regular deluxe never-on-Wednesday three times a week overnight Boston - Richmond service and shares in the additonal revenue?
Grandluxe partnered with Amtrak for premium service on the Silver Meteor, SW Chief and Cal. Zephyr. The Cal Zephyr is doing OK, but the others have done poorly.
I'd like to see Amtrak bid out the whole sleeping car/diner business, period. Amtrak would ask "How much do we have to pay you to provide this service - and you keep all the revenue, too." Qualified bidders would have to be existing, national hotel/hospitality providers and they'd be allowed to market, bundle and price the service any way they like.
abenm613 wrote: And, while the country has grown over 50% in population since the inception of Amtrak, most of the LD trains are running equal or less capacity and ridership has not kept pace. Example:The Crescent is down to 3 coaches mid-week these days. Less than 10 years ago, it used to run 5 coaches north of Altanta every day. And, only two sleepers - despite near perfect timing for an overnight train between Atlanta and DC and the Northeast - in both directions! And, the Crescent keeps decent time - and pretty much always has. And, Atlanta has added nearly a million residents in that time. Explanation?Sometimes there are only three coaches on Crescent, other times there are normal four (or maybe even five, although you might be right - I haven't seen five lately). That depends on seasonal demand and availability of the equipment. The same is especially true for sleepers (see my previous message).As for ridership, the statistics shows that it's currently growing. Of course, it can only grow as much as Amtrak is able to handle. But less capacity does not mean less demand. 20 years ago, Amtrak got more money than it does now. Ten years ago it actually got less money, but at that time it was eager to demonstrate its "ability" to comply to the failed self-sufficiency mandate. So, it was getting deeper and deeper into debt, which almost caused a shutdown and bunkruptcy in summer of 2002. Since then, Amtrak is getting more money - but just enough to keep running without getting into further debt. Not surprisingly, sometimes this lack of funds manifests itself in some trains running with lower capacity. But, for the most part, demand is still growing.
And, while the country has grown over 50% in population since the inception of Amtrak, most of the LD trains are running equal or less capacity and ridership has not kept pace. Example:The Crescent is down to 3 coaches mid-week these days. Less than 10 years ago, it used to run 5 coaches north of Altanta every day. And, only two sleepers - despite near perfect timing for an overnight train between Atlanta and DC and the Northeast - in both directions! And, the Crescent keeps decent time - and pretty much always has. And, Atlanta has added nearly a million residents in that time. Explanation?
Example:
The Crescent is down to 3 coaches mid-week these days. Less than 10 years ago, it used to run 5 coaches north of Altanta every day.
And, only two sleepers - despite near perfect timing for an overnight train between Atlanta and DC and the Northeast - in both directions!
And, the Crescent keeps decent time - and pretty much always has.
And, Atlanta has added nearly a million residents in that time.
Explanation?
Sometimes there are only three coaches on Crescent, other times there are normal four (or maybe even five, although you might be right - I haven't seen five lately). That depends on seasonal demand and availability of the equipment. The same is especially true for sleepers (see my previous message).As for ridership, the statistics shows that it's currently growing. Of course, it can only grow as much as Amtrak is able to handle. But less capacity does not mean less demand. 20 years ago, Amtrak got more money than it does now. Ten years ago it actually got less money, but at that time it was eager to demonstrate its "ability" to comply to the failed self-sufficiency mandate. So, it was getting deeper and deeper into debt, which almost caused a shutdown and bunkruptcy in summer of 2002. Since then, Amtrak is getting more money - but just enough to keep running without getting into further debt. Not surprisingly, sometimes this lack of funds manifests itself in some trains running with lower capacity. But, for the most part, demand is still growing.
I'm OK with the equipment arguement for the sleepers, but not the coaches. There cannot be a shortage of Amfleet II coaches. There is one less FL train running these days than there was several years ago, plus the Mobile section of the Crescent was also dropped. And, there are the two cars they used to add/drop in Atlanta (10 years ago it ran 3 cars south of Atlanta and 5 north - every day)
From now to the end of the month, the only day the the train is sold out between ATL and NYP is Easter Sunday. It isn't even sold out for Good Friday, or the Thurday before, yet. (that means that the college kids going home from UVA haven't even filled up the train at Charlotteville)
daveklepper wrote:IS there a sleeper on the overnight Richmond - Boston train? If not, why not?
There used to be one. Then they took it away, then put it back, then took it away again. To the best of my knowledge, it currently runs without a sleeper. You see, shortage of sleepers in general, and single-level Viewliners in particcular, is something beyond Amtrak's control. That's one of the capital expenses Amtrak really needs funds for. Currently, they distribute the existing sleepers in accordance with demand. Typically, there are two sleepers per long-distance train. But sometimes one train has only one sleeper, while another has three.
At the same time, if you look at success of overnight flights or buses, it looks like Amtrak could succeed in similar service on some routes even without sleepers (obviously, if sleepers are available and in demand, they should definitely use them). Some people on this forum disagree with me, but I don't see any reason to believe otherwise.
For the fiscal years ended September 30, 2007, as per the 2007 Amtrak Annual Report, the railroad received a total of $1,391,620,000 in federal paid in capital and proceeds from federal and state capital payments.
The subsidy required to cover the attributable operating expenses, including interest and depreciation, as per the Financial Performance of Routes - Strategic Business Line (SBL) Report for September YTD, Page C-1 of the Monthly Performance Report for September 2007, was $1,051,500,000.
The direct loss from operations before interest and depreciation was $501,000,000. Interest was $95,900,000 and depreciation was $456,600,000. The $2,000,000 difference is attributable to Federal and State Capital Payments.
Under Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, interest and depreciation attributable to an activity are ultimately shown in the statement of income, which reflects the total operations of an entity, including net income or net loss. It is the underlying activity, i.e. operation of rail passenger trains that drives the expense.
Appropriations and expenditures, as well as amortization of interest and depreciation, are two different accounting phenomena.
Many people who argue for a point of view slant the data to support their position. They cherry pick the points that support their argument and ignore the ones that don't support it. People of high integrity recognize both sides of the argument and state them. If they have a strong argument, showing both sides can be an effective tool for getting buy-in. If they have a weak argument, they understandably don't want to show the negatives.
The information regarding the subsidy for the Sunset Limited can be found in the aforementioned report.
Rail passenger advocacy groups, including NARP, probably don't carry much clout in the scheme of things. Amtrak management makes the major decisions, with the concurrence of the Board of Directors. Of course, given the nature of the organization, Amtrak management and the board are influenced by the politicians, as well as the freight railroad managements that they must interact with.
Irrespective of how much the rail advocates push on Amtrak, the Coast Starlight will not be resumed north of Sacramento until the UP is ready to have it happen.
As an aside, in 2007 the Crescent was on time at its end points 42.9 per cent of the time. The end point on-time performance record for the long distance trains was 41.6 per cent. So it appears that it turned in a pretty average performance.
OK, the Amtrak operating subsidy is only 500 million instead of a cool billion. You still have to count 280 million debt service towards the cost of operating trains some how, unless you don't think that the interest on loan payments is a cost of driving a car.
So 500 million is budget towards capital. Does that mean that Amtrak is paying down the principal on the loans for those Amfleet and Superliner cars at that rate? If so, that reflects the rate of depreciation, the rate at which those cars are used up, and that too is an operating expense. We are up to 1.3 billion and Samantha is starting to look smarter with each passing dollar.
If that 500 million is really a capital appropriation, where are the 100-200 Superliner cars in the Fiscal 2006 budget?
No one is suggesting people won't ride the trains. The issue is that if it costs 1 billion in rough round numbers out of Congress to move 5 billion Amtrak passenger miles, will it cost an even trillion to replace the 5 trillion passenger miles carried by cars? Yes, yes, cars get a whole lot more money than trains, at least 30 times as much in the Federal highway budget. But 30 times increase in the Amtrak appropriation would give us European trains, increasing the rail share from .1 percent of total passenger miles to 3 percent of passenger miles, not that far off the European ridership on trains. Would the passenger train advocacy community be happy with the energy savings and social benefits of 3 percent of passenger miles carried by train at the cost of the whole highway budget? Would we be able to sell this to voters who are not passenger-train advocates?
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
abenm613 wrote: For the fiscal year ended September 30, 2007, Amtrak's passengers received an average subsidy of $40.68 or 18.6 cents a passenger mile based on a federal subsidy of $1.051 billion to cover its operating loss. False! For FY2006 (that ended September 30, 2007) Amtrak received the total of $1.315 million. Here is NARP's report from Nov.18,2005 (as the appropriation for FY2006 was finally enacted):The bill shows the following breakdown: $495 million operations, of which $5 million is to be used for development of a "managerial cost accounting system" (from Senate bill) $780 million for capital and debt service payments, with no more than $280 million for debt service and thus no less than $500 million for capital. $ 40 million "for a new Efficiency Incentive Grant program." These funds are to be used at the discretion of the Secretary and may be used at any time during the fiscal year to make additional operating assistance available to Amtrak if the Secretary determines such assistance is necessary to maintain the operation of existing Amtrak routes...[or] for Amtrak to stay out of bankruptcy and the Secretary and Inspector General have certified that an emergency situation exists." Any funds not spent by September 1, 2006, the Secretary should use "for capital grants to Amtrak for investments that will have a direct and measurable short-term impact on operating efficiencies."This disproves Samantha's statement about 1.05 billion operating subsidy. My point is this; passenger train advocates tend to present only the information that helps make their case, i.e. increase in number of riders and revenues without mentioning the costs or the loss per passenger mile; comparing gross numbers, i.e. federal spend on highways vs. federal spend on Amtrak without breaking it down to passenger seat miles or vehicle miles traveled, which is the honest way to compare the spends.Okay, anybody who wants to prove himself right would quote data that is "fitting" the most. So, NARP is not an exception. Who can deny the increase in ridership? Nobody. Who can deny that overall spendings on highway and aviation are substantially higher than spending on railroads? Nobody. As far as breakdown, that's another issue. The fact is that railroad transportation does not receive even close to the amount of capital received by other modes. So, before any claim against operating subsidies could be made, the real issue is to establish adequate capital funding source. I don't think NARP would disagree with that.What they did not mention is that a Sunset passenger traveling from Los Angles to New Orleans gets a federal subsidy of nearly $1,000 or that a passenger traveling from Los Angles to anywhere on the Sunset route gets a subsidy of 48.5 cents a passenger mile before interest and depreciation. This data is verifiable. Where is the link to the source?It was not able to prevent the discontinuance of the Three Rivers. It has not been able to force Amtrak to restore the Sunset Limited between New Orleans and Orlando. And it has not been able to get Amtrak to restore the Coast Starlight between Sacramento and Portland as quickly as it wants.Closing the Three Rivers was the decision of Amtrak (not Congress or Administration). True, NARP discouraged Amtrak from this action and, unfortunately, Amtrak did it anyway. What can I say about this? Some things are easier to promote than others. And, I suspect, it's easier for NARP to influence the elected officials than to influence Amtrak itself. As for resuming the Sunset Limited east of New Orleans, the discontinuance is not official, at least now. Apparently, Amtrak is not in a rush to restore it, for one reason or another. But the official discontinuance notices has never been issued! Which means, the discontinuance is still deemed "temporary". Time will show what will come out of it. Meanwhile, both NARP and local officials are fighting for restoring the service. But the bottomline is, again, at this point this is under Amtrak's (not the government's) control. As for Coast Starlight, there are technical issues that neither NARP, nor Amtrak, nor government, is in control of. This is not a good example because Coast Starlight is much more likely to be shortly restored than both Three Rivers and the eastern portion of Sunset Limited. But long distance trains do not make any sense, as suggested by the amount of the subsidy per passenger mile that they require and the tiny percentage of the public that uses them.So, why do they make sense in Russia or China or India? True, overthere much more people are riding them. But why? Because those countrues don't hesitate to provide generous funds (both operating and capital) for these trains. Nobody questions their necessity and viability. If U.S. government decided to inject huge funds to LD trains, more and more people would ride them, possibly even to the extent of reducing the necessity of operating grants. Of course, this pattern would be much easier to establish 50 years ago than it is now. It is always easier to protect something that is intact than to rebuild something that is damaged or partially destroyed. So, now that the LD trains are running, the first step in providing the ground for future expanding passenger rail network is to preserve them as an essential national asset. Riding a train overnight from New York to Cleveland does not make sense, especially for time constrained business persons. There is very little market for it. The railroads learned this lesson decades ago. It's a fallacy. Nobody learned any "lesson". Getting from New York to Cleveland on the existing Lake Shore Limited does not seem marketable primarily because of the schedule. The train serves Cleveland in a non-passenger-friendly hour. In fact, most of the Lake Shore Limited passengers travel either to Chicago itself, or to transfer to other LD trains serving the points west (and it runs full, proving that people do ride long-distance trains). If there was another overnight train - between New York and Cleveland only - departing at 7pm and arriving at 7am, it would be marketable. Simiarly to overnight flights, or to European overnight trains. I don't believe the U.S. is in any way different from Europe, Russia, or China, as far as intercity transportation demand is concerned. The reason why most Americans rely on airlines rather than trains is that the policy makers did a "good" job. You may ask, why Amtrak is not realizing the marketability of 12-hour overnight travel (and not running this type of service). I don't know why. This is one of Amtrak's weaknesses. In fact, I never heard this idea from NARP. I'll try to bring up this idea and see what they think of it.
For the fiscal year ended September 30, 2007, Amtrak's passengers received an average subsidy of $40.68 or 18.6 cents a passenger mile based on a federal subsidy of $1.051 billion to cover its operating loss.
False! For FY2006 (that ended September 30, 2007) Amtrak received the total of $1.315 million. Here is NARP's report from Nov.18,2005 (as the appropriation for FY2006 was finally enacted):
The bill shows the following breakdown: $495 million operations, of which $5 million is to be used for development of a "managerial cost accounting system" (from Senate bill) $780 million for capital and debt service payments, with no more than $280 million for debt service and thus no less than $500 million for capital. $ 40 million "for a new Efficiency Incentive Grant program." These funds are to be used at the discretion of the Secretary and may be used at any time during the fiscal year to make additional operating assistance available to Amtrak if the Secretary determines such assistance is necessary to maintain the operation of existing Amtrak routes...[or] for Amtrak to stay out of bankruptcy and the Secretary and Inspector General have certified that an emergency situation exists." Any funds not spent by September 1, 2006, the Secretary should use "for capital grants to Amtrak for investments that will have a direct and measurable short-term impact on operating efficiencies."
$495 million operations, of which $5 million is to be used for development of a "managerial cost accounting system" (from Senate bill) $780 million for capital and debt service payments, with no more than $280 million for debt service and thus no less than $500 million for capital. $ 40 million "for a new Efficiency Incentive Grant program." These funds are to be used at the discretion of the Secretary and may be used at any time during the fiscal year to make additional operating assistance available to Amtrak if the Secretary determines such assistance is necessary to maintain the operation of existing Amtrak routes...[or] for Amtrak to stay out of bankruptcy and the Secretary and Inspector General have certified that an emergency situation exists." Any funds not spent by September 1, 2006, the Secretary should use "for capital grants to Amtrak for investments that will have a direct and measurable short-term impact on operating efficiencies."
This disproves Samantha's statement about 1.05 billion operating subsidy.
My point is this; passenger train advocates tend to present only the information that helps make their case, i.e. increase in number of riders and revenues without mentioning the costs or the loss per passenger mile; comparing gross numbers, i.e. federal spend on highways vs. federal spend on Amtrak without breaking it down to passenger seat miles or vehicle miles traveled, which is the honest way to compare the spends.
Okay, anybody who wants to prove himself right would quote data that is "fitting" the most. So, NARP is not an exception. Who can deny the increase in ridership? Nobody. Who can deny that overall spendings on highway and aviation are substantially higher than spending on railroads? Nobody. As far as breakdown, that's another issue. The fact is that railroad transportation does not receive even close to the amount of capital received by other modes. So, before any claim against operating subsidies could be made, the real issue is to establish adequate capital funding source. I don't think NARP would disagree with that.
What they did not mention is that a Sunset passenger traveling from Los Angles to New Orleans gets a federal subsidy of nearly $1,000 or that a passenger traveling from Los Angles to anywhere on the Sunset route gets a subsidy of 48.5 cents a passenger mile before interest and depreciation. This data is verifiable.
Where is the link to the source?
It was not able to prevent the discontinuance of the Three Rivers. It has not been able to force Amtrak to restore the Sunset Limited between New Orleans and Orlando. And it has not been able to get Amtrak to restore the Coast Starlight between Sacramento and Portland as quickly as it wants.
Closing the Three Rivers was the decision of Amtrak (not Congress or Administration). True, NARP discouraged Amtrak from this action and, unfortunately, Amtrak did it anyway. What can I say about this? Some things are easier to promote than others. And, I suspect, it's easier for NARP to influence the elected officials than to influence Amtrak itself. As for resuming the Sunset Limited east of New Orleans, the discontinuance is not official, at least now. Apparently, Amtrak is not in a rush to restore it, for one reason or another. But the official discontinuance notices has never been issued! Which means, the discontinuance is still deemed "temporary". Time will show what will come out of it. Meanwhile, both NARP and local officials are fighting for restoring the service. But the bottomline is, again, at this point this is under Amtrak's (not the government's) control. As for Coast Starlight, there are technical issues that neither NARP, nor Amtrak, nor government, is in control of. This is not a good example because Coast Starlight is much more likely to be shortly restored than both Three Rivers and the eastern portion of Sunset Limited.
But long distance trains do not make any sense, as suggested by the amount of the subsidy per passenger mile that they require and the tiny percentage of the public that uses them.
So, why do they make sense in Russia or China or India? True, overthere much more people are riding them. But why? Because those countrues don't hesitate to provide generous funds (both operating and capital) for these trains. Nobody questions their necessity and viability. If U.S. government decided to inject huge funds to LD trains, more and more people would ride them, possibly even to the extent of reducing the necessity of operating grants. Of course, this pattern would be much easier to establish 50 years ago than it is now. It is always easier to protect something that is intact than to rebuild something that is damaged or partially destroyed. So, now that the LD trains are running, the first step in providing the ground for future expanding passenger rail network is to preserve them as an essential national asset.
Riding a train overnight from New York to Cleveland does not make sense, especially for time constrained business persons. There is very little market for it. The railroads learned this lesson decades ago.
It's a fallacy. Nobody learned any "lesson". Getting from New York to Cleveland on the existing Lake Shore Limited does not seem marketable primarily because of the schedule. The train serves Cleveland in a non-passenger-friendly hour. In fact, most of the Lake Shore Limited passengers travel either to Chicago itself, or to transfer to other LD trains serving the points west (and it runs full, proving that people do ride long-distance trains). If there was another overnight train - between New York and Cleveland only - departing at 7pm and arriving at 7am, it would be marketable. Simiarly to overnight flights, or to European overnight trains. I don't believe the U.S. is in any way different from Europe, Russia, or China, as far as intercity transportation demand is concerned. The reason why most Americans rely on airlines rather than trains is that the policy makers did a "good" job. You may ask, why Amtrak is not realizing the marketability of 12-hour overnight travel (and not running this type of service). I don't know why. This is one of Amtrak's weaknesses. In fact, I never heard this idea from NARP. I'll try to bring up this idea and see what they think of it.
Samantha is right. The overnight rail travel market dried up over 50 years ago. The RRs invested mightily in streamliners just after WWII, betting on a return to "normal" rail travel. It worked for a few years until the airlines took the business traveller and the highways took the leisure traveller away. RRs recognized this and took what capital was available and tried to get into the short haul market - even tried some inovation. Aerotrain, Train X, Xplorer, Roger Williams, Keystone, Merchant's Express, for example.
You might be able to argue that the gov't missed the boat in the mid 50s to invest in the short haul mkt. But, the overnight market was gone and dead.
What LD trains remained were operated primarily out of corporate pride (Broadway, 20th Century, Super Chief, Empire Builder, Cal. Zephyr.) or because there was enough $$ in the mail and head end business.
And, while the country has grown over 50% in population since the inception of Amtrak, most of the LD trains are running equal or less capacity and ridership has not kept pace.
It's a fallacy. Nobody learned any "lesson". Getting from New York to Cleveland on the existing Lake Shore Limited does not seem marketable primarily because of the schedule. The train serves Cleveland in a non-passenger-friendly hour. In fact, most of the Lake Shore Limited passengers travel either to Chicago itself, or to transfer to other LD trains serving the points west (and it runs full, proving that people do ride long-distance trains). If there was another overnight train - between New York and Cleveland only - departing at 7pm and arriving at 7am, it would be marketable. Simiarly to overnight flights, or to European overnight trains, or to some bus companies that offer overnight service (e.g. New York to Toronto). I don't believe the U.S. is in any way different from Europe, Russia, or China, as far as intercity transportation demand is concerned. The reason why most Americans rely on airlines rather than trains is that highway and aviation lobbyists did a "good" job convincing Americans in superiority of highway and air transportation.
You may ask, why Amtrak is not realizing the marketability of 12-hour overnight travel (and not running this type of service). I don't know why. This is one of Amtrak's weaknesses. In fact, I never heard this idea from NARP. I'll try to bring up this idea and see what they think of it.
Small blurb in the paper yesterday - McCain rode Amtrak from DC to Philly on Friday.
That's nice of him. At least it shows that he is trying to make Amtrak riders believe he's on their side (even if he's not). If so, it means that he, at least, realizes that Amtrak makes a difference for some people. But the gesture would be more significant if McCain rode from DC not to Philly but all the way to his home state.
The data comes from official documents, i.e. the budget and performance reports of the Department of Transportation, FAA, Homeland Security, etc. There is nothing in these reports that suggests anyone even cares about Amtrak let alone have a motive to kill it. The data also comes from Amtrak's financial statements and performance reports. All data is audited by internal and external auditors.
For the fiscal year ended September 30, 2007, Amtrak's passengers received an average subsidy of $40.68 or 18.6 cents a passenger mile based on a federal subsidy of $1.051 billion to cover its operating loss. The subsidy was higher if the total federal and state government payments of $1.4 billion are considered. The average subsidy for long distance passengers was nearly $130, while the subsidy for NEC and other corridor passengers was $3.02 and $16.00.
The money provided to Amtrak by the federal government, when viewed on an average per passenger and per passenger mile basis, is the largest subsidy received by any form of transport in the United States, with the exception of some local transit subsidies. Domestic airline passengers, by comparison, received an average federal subsidy of $1.03 or .12 cents per passenger mile in 2007.
NARP says that, "FAA Operations get general funds as well as funding from the aviation trust fund", i.e. $1.453 billion in fiscal year 2007. They don't point out that the monies received from the aviation trust fund are generated by air carrier ticket and fuel taxes. Nor do they point out that the intra-governmental transfer represents approximately 15 per cent of the FAA's budget. They don't break out the categories of general aviation, i.e. commercial airlines, air taxis, general aviation, military operations in civilian airspace, etc., thereby creating the impression that most if not all of the federal transfer (subsidy) goes to the airlines or aviation operations that compete with trains. They don't mention that only 30 per cent of FAA operations involve controlling commercial airline flights, and people who fly around the country in their own plane or the company jet are not candidates for taking a train.
NARP pointed out recently that the number of riders on the Sunset Limited, for example, increased significantly in 2007. And they pointed to a corresponding increase in revenue. What they did not mention is that a Sunset passenger traveling from Los Angles to New Orleans gets a federal subsidy of nearly $1,000 or that a passenger traveling from Los Angles to anywhere on the Sunset route gets a subsidy of 48.5 cents a passenger mile before interest and depreciation. This data is verifiable.
NARP may be an influential pro-rail group; it may even be the most influential. But its clout has not been over whelming. It was not able to prevent the discontinuance of the Three Rivers. It has not been able to force Amtrak to restore the Sunset Limited between New Orleans and Orlando. And it has not been able to get Amtrak to restore the Coast Starlight between Sacramento and Portland as quickly as it wants. The reason, I suspect, is because the real decision makers don't spend a lot of time worrying about passenger train enthusiasts of any stripe.
Trains make sense in relatively short, high density corridors. They can help relieve air and highway congestion in these corridors under select circumstances. Hoping on a train from New York to Wilmington or Washington is a viable option for people close to the corridor. But long distance trains do not make any sense, as suggested by the amount of the subsidy per passenger mile that they require and the tiny percentage of the public that uses them. Riding a train overnight from New York to Cleveland does not make sense, especially for time constrained business persons. There is very little market for it. The railroads learned this lesson decades ago.
abenm613 wrote: They ignore any data that does not support their argument, which is what I would do if I was being paid to advocate for a point of view. The data provided by those "experts" who would like to kill Amtrak is easily disproved by NARP (and other enthusasts). For example, the previous DOT Secretary Norman Mineta compared the passenger-mile costs of the Sunset Limited with those of a typical Orlando-LA flight. Obviously, a flight would seem much more economical, especially considering the difference between 5 hours and 3 days. But Mineta simply ignored the fact that most passengers on the Sunset Limited do not travel the entire length of the route. An Orlando-to-LA flight does not stop at New Orleans, Houston, Phoenix, and numerous points in between. NARP website in fact discloses many myths created by those who don't want passenger trains to be around. By the way, I don't know if NARP or any other group has ever mentioned it, but my opinion is that increasing Amtrak service on medium distances (up to 500-600 miles), especially with overnight trains that would attract significant numbers of passengers, would relieve airports from handling short flights and provide more room for long-haul flights (transcontinental and international). My parents live a few miles away from JFK, and I see it for myself that airplanes are passing over our home about every two minutes. And large aircraft (B747, B767, A330, etc.) is NOT a majority. Yes, JetBlue does run small A320's even for coast-to-coast flights, but it's probably an exception. I suspect that most of smaller aircraft flying to/from JFK are some relatively short flights. If most passengers from these flights were transfered to trains, imagine how many more international or transcontinental flights could be there instead!The information presented on NARP's website is frequently wrong, incomplete, or misleading. For example, they claim that general aviation received a federal subsidy of $1,453 billion for 2007. They are wrong. During 2007 FAA expenditures were $14.8 billion, of which $2.3 billion was transferred from the general fund. Most of the $14.8 billion was covered by ticket and fuel taxes. You are not proving anything. You aren't saying that this $14.8 billion was NOT spent on aviation, are you? That's all NARP is saying, not getting into details what fund it came from. The very fact that there is no dedicated rail trust fund in the U.S. is already a shame! And $2.3 billion from the general fund is more than Amtrak has received annually ever during the past decade. NARP is not claiming that the entire aviation subsidy goes to airlines. It fully realizes that much of it also goes to other things, including airports. And they do advocate for adequate capital funding for rail infrastructure. The problem, however, is that Amtrak in its current structure so far seems to be the most realistic way of preserving passenger rail in the U.S., which is hard to change. If any politician proposes some other model that can realisticly earn Congressional support, without cutting the existing service, I'm sure NARP would embrace it. For right now, however, Amtrak seems to be the only way to save intercity passenger rail as a mode, therefore NARP supports it. So, don't blame this organization. After all, they are the most influential pro-rail group in the U.S. for already 41 years. In fact they often claim that they do support investment to highways and airports, only wanting the rail to be treated equally. What "hard-nosed" data are you talking about? Generally speaking, people contribute taxes into the system until they retire, and take benefits out of the system after they retire. With the end of WWII almost 65 years away, this will affect Government programs such as Amtrak in the future. I don't think Amtrak depends on this so much. The real issue is, as always, adequate funding by the government. Reagan appointed Graham Claytor President of Amtrak, arguably the best CEO Amtrak has ever had ... Hmmm... I was too young to know that, so I'm not disputing it. In fact, it's quite possible. As I said, Bush Administration did give Amtrak a loan guarantee necessary to survive the fiscal crisis of 2002. McCain proposed some security bill for Amtrak shortly after 9/11. That's encouraging news, meaning that common sense prevails even in most biased politicians. If every taxpayer was an occasional Amtrak LD train rider or even if it could be shown that Amtrak's LD trains provide a net societal benefit relative to their subsidy, then the "per taxpayer" arguement would be a good one. The "per-taxpayer" argument works for Amtrak not less than it does for funding the Iraq war, or financial aid to foreign countries. The funds used for rebuilding Iraq (including its railroads!) could just as well be used for expanding rail transportation in our country. Apparently, most taxpayers don't care, as long as the per-taxpayer amount is trivial enough.
They ignore any data that does not support their argument, which is what I would do if I was being paid to advocate for a point of view.
The data provided by those "experts" who would like to kill Amtrak is easily disproved by NARP (and other enthusasts). For example, the previous DOT Secretary Norman Mineta compared the passenger-mile costs of the Sunset Limited with those of a typical Orlando-LA flight. Obviously, a flight would seem much more economical, especially considering the difference between 5 hours and 3 days. But Mineta simply ignored the fact that most passengers on the Sunset Limited do not travel the entire length of the route. An Orlando-to-LA flight does not stop at New Orleans, Houston, Phoenix, and numerous points in between. NARP website in fact discloses many myths created by those who don't want passenger trains to be around. By the way, I don't know if NARP or any other group has ever mentioned it, but my opinion is that increasing Amtrak service on medium distances (up to 500-600 miles), especially with overnight trains that would attract significant numbers of passengers, would relieve airports from handling short flights and provide more room for long-haul flights (transcontinental and international). My parents live a few miles away from JFK, and I see it for myself that airplanes are passing over our home about every two minutes. And large aircraft (B747, B767, A330, etc.) is NOT a majority. Yes, JetBlue does run small A320's even for coast-to-coast flights, but it's probably an exception. I suspect that most of smaller aircraft flying to/from JFK are some relatively short flights. If most passengers from these flights were transfered to trains, imagine how many more international or transcontinental flights could be there instead!
The information presented on NARP's website is frequently wrong, incomplete, or misleading. For example, they claim that general aviation received a federal subsidy of $1,453 billion for 2007. They are wrong. During 2007 FAA expenditures were $14.8 billion, of which $2.3 billion was transferred from the general fund. Most of the $14.8 billion was covered by ticket and fuel taxes.
You are not proving anything. You aren't saying that this $14.8 billion was NOT spent on aviation, are you? That's all NARP is saying, not getting into details what fund it came from. The very fact that there is no dedicated rail trust fund in the U.S. is already a shame! And $2.3 billion from the general fund is more than Amtrak has received annually ever during the past decade. NARP is not claiming that the entire aviation subsidy goes to airlines. It fully realizes that much of it also goes to other things, including airports. And they do advocate for adequate capital funding for rail infrastructure. The problem, however, is that Amtrak in its current structure so far seems to be the most realistic way of preserving passenger rail in the U.S., which is hard to change. If any politician proposes some other model that can realisticly earn Congressional support, without cutting the existing service, I'm sure NARP would embrace it. For right now, however, Amtrak seems to be the only way to save intercity passenger rail as a mode, therefore NARP supports it. So, don't blame this organization. After all, they are the most influential pro-rail group in the U.S. for already 41 years. In fact they often claim that they do support investment to highways and airports, only wanting the rail to be treated equally. What "hard-nosed" data are you talking about?
Generally speaking, people contribute taxes into the system until they retire, and take benefits out of the system after they retire. With the end of WWII almost 65 years away, this will affect Government programs such as Amtrak in the future.
I don't think Amtrak depends on this so much. The real issue is, as always, adequate funding by the government.
Reagan appointed Graham Claytor President of Amtrak, arguably the best CEO Amtrak has ever had ...
Hmmm... I was too young to know that, so I'm not disputing it. In fact, it's quite possible. As I said, Bush Administration did give Amtrak a loan guarantee necessary to survive the fiscal crisis of 2002. McCain proposed some security bill for Amtrak shortly after 9/11. That's encouraging news, meaning that common sense prevails even in most biased politicians.
If every taxpayer was an occasional Amtrak LD train rider or even if it could be shown that Amtrak's LD trains provide a net societal benefit relative to their subsidy, then the "per taxpayer" arguement would be a good one.
The "per-taxpayer" argument works for Amtrak not less than it does for funding the Iraq war, or financial aid to foreign countries. The funds used for rebuilding Iraq (including its railroads!) could just as well be used for expanding rail transportation in our country. Apparently, most taxpayers don't care, as long as the per-taxpayer amount is trivial enough.
Poking holes in the other guy's arguments is not the same as proving yours - they are not mutually exclusive. They could both be wrong.
Counting the airline ticket taxes collected as a subsidy is a stretch.
Defense spending and foreign aid are much easier to see as a "common good" than Amtrak. Providing for 0.1% of intercity trips and calling that "common" really bends the definition of the word "common".
The proof for support of Amtrak would be a solid (or even squishy) cost/benefit analysis. None exist. Why? The answer comes out "wrong"!
abenm613 wrote: nanaimo73 wrote:With the depleted manufacturing base, and a large wave of retirements starting in two years, Amtrak's future does not look too bright with McCain in the White House.Amtrak has survived even Reagan who tried really hard to shut it down.
nanaimo73 wrote:With the depleted manufacturing base, and a large wave of retirements starting in two years, Amtrak's future does not look too bright with McCain in the White House.
Amtrak has survived even Reagan who tried really hard to shut it down.
abenm613 wrote: What does it have to do with retirements? Some people retire, others step into their positions.
Amtrak has stumbled along since 1971 for three primary reasons. A dedicated group of enthusiasts have successfully lobbied Congress to provide enough money to keep it running. They know how to press the right political (emotional) hot buttons to garner the needed support. Amtrak provides a viable, arguably important service in the NEC, which has fielded a powerful congressional delegation that supports it. Perhaps most importantly, in the scheme of things, Amtrak's federal funding is a miniscule per cent of the federal budget. It does not even hit most radar screens. I suspect that many of those in Congress who vote to support it have little idea of whether Amtrak provides an important service, how it is funded, and where passenger trains could be viable.
NARP, like most rail advocates, when pressed for hard nosed data to support the continuation of rail services that lose heaps of money while providing a marginal social benefit, i.e. long distance passenger trains, cannot produce any numbers that a reasonable person could accept. They ignore any data that does not support their argument, which is what I would do if I was being paid to advocate for a point of view.
NARP's website leaves the reader with the impression that the entire federal aviation subsidy ($1.453 billion) went to the airlines. Again they are wrong. Airline flights account for approximately 30 per cent of the FAA workload. Most of workload involves controlling general aviation (includes business aviation), air taxis, and military flights in civilian airspace. Thus, approximately 70 per cent of the subsidy went to general and military aviation. Most people, who fly their own plane, ride around the country in the company jet, or jockey a military plane, are not candidates for taking the train.
oltmannd wrote: If every taxpayer was an occasional Amtrak LD train rider or even if it could be shown that Amtrak's LD trains provide a net societal benefit relative to their subsidy, then the "per taxpayer" arguement would be a good one. But, I've never seen any sort of cost/benefit analysis. Why? Because, I suspect, the case can't be made! I've never seen it - and I've been looking and reading for decades. I've been all over the NARP web site. Lots of interesting thoughts, but not much meat.I'd sure like to see NARP hold Amtrak as accountable for productivity as they do for service levels.
I've been all over the NARP web site. Lots of interesting thoughts, but not much meat.
I'd sure like to see NARP hold Amtrak as accountable for productivity as they do for service levels.
If so, how did Amtrak manage to stay on since 1971, in spite of Reagan's and others' attempts to destroy it?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.