Paul MilenkovicThe subsidy issue is very simple. Whereas all transportation modes receive subsidy in some form, direct or indirect, and at some level of funding, and yes, there are different ways of ascribing the level of subsidy, by whatever accounting you use, the Amtrak subsidy per passenger mile is multiple of everything else.
The problem I have with the subsidy argument is that it is not at all clear that Amtrak gets more of a subsidy per passenger mile than anything else. There is information available of many kinds of subsidy for out road system. However, these subsidies are not a line item on a the Federal budget so they tend to get overlooked.
Right now Virgina's Governor Bob McDonnell proposes to levy a special sales tax of 0.8 per cent to be dedicated to highway expenses. Can you even imagine a Federal value added tax to be dedicated to Amtrak?
John WR oltmanndShow me it's worth $50 a head subsidy to keep it going versus letting it go. And, just for the record, I will not like seeing it go. I rode it a lot, way back when... Don, I thought I made it clear that I consider Amtrak a national passenger railroad system and I think the system should not be dismantled part by part. I agree that each part does not have statistics that are identical to every other part. Where subsidy is concerned, when Alex Kummant was President he pointed out all US transportation is subsidized. The subsidy issue is extremely complex. However, to single out one mode of transportation to object to the subsidy while ignoring the subsidy to all others is not, to my mind, a correct approach. John
oltmanndShow me it's worth $50 a head subsidy to keep it going versus letting it go. And, just for the record, I will not like seeing it go. I rode it a lot, way back when...
Don,
I thought I made it clear that I consider Amtrak a national passenger railroad system and I think the system should not be dismantled part by part. I agree that each part does not have statistics that are identical to every other part.
Where subsidy is concerned, when Alex Kummant was President he pointed out all US transportation is subsidized. The subsidy issue is extremely complex. However, to single out one mode of transportation to object to the subsidy while ignoring the subsidy to all others is not, to my mind, a correct approach.
John
The subsidy issue is very simple. Whereas all transportation modes receive subsidy in some form, direct or indirect, and at some level of funding, and yes, there are different ways of ascribing the level of subsidy, by whatever accounting you use, the Amtrak subsidy per passenger mile is multiple of everything else.
That the Amtrak subsidy per passenger mile is the rate that it is, this condition puts a target on its back whenever and to whoever in Congress or in the White House goes on a cost-cutting path. That the Amtrak subsidy is at the level it is per unit work product is a political impediment to growing Amtrak beyond the skeleton National Network that it is.
No one is singling Amtrak out for receiving a subsidy. It is singled out for receiving a high rate of subsidy. The various "Amtrak reform" plans involving drastic reductions in the Amtrak subsidy are actually proposing to reduce the Amtrak subsidy to comparable rates as other subsidy recipients.
When that message gets across, the response is to throw up one's hands, plead ignorance, and say things like "the subsidy issue is extremely complex." Other people get exasperated by "the bickering about the Amtrak subsidy" and say "let's not beat a dead horse" and let's move on.
And someone starts a new thread about "Amtrak costs" or some such thing, and the cycle starts all over again. And I suppose those of us who point out, not the existential fact of the Amtrak subsidy, but the high rate of the Amtrak subsidy as an impediment could simply end these cycles of discussion by keeping quiet and keeping our own counsel. And discussions here and elsewhere about passenger trains can continue to be gripe fests about how "the politicians" or "the voters" are stoopid for not agreeing to a comprehensive HSR network "as they have in all those other countries, and don'tcha know it, the U.S. is getting to be pretty Third World." As has happened for the past 40 years.
And Amtrak can continue to muddle along with the level of public support it gets, doing pretty much the same thing it has been doing the last 40 years for the next 40 years, which is "not much" (1 part in 1000 of total U.S. passenger miles).
Who is suggestion "dismantling Amtrak part by part"? The thing about "high speed baggage cars" is a question about whether Amtrak should take a rare opportunity to buy brand new passenger cars and then turn around and ask their mechanical department about the greatest need (yuh, we need baggage cars and crew-dorms) to maintain the same-old same-old status-quo.
Suppose the same money went into day coaches and that the long-distance trains (cough, Silver Service, cough) made do with Amfleet conversions or rebuilds? And that the day coaches went into increasing the frequency and capacity of corridor services? Would this in any way, shape, or form constitute "dismantling Amtrak" in any way?
The thing about a "thin corridor" on this thread is that maybe the resource put into that could be used to increase frequency and capacity in places the train is in high demand?
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Very nice article and thanks for sharing and telling us about this.
I rode on this route with my parents on the Pennsy heading for NYC and will never forget the conductor coming through the cars and announcing "Horseshoe Curve" and everyone moving over to the one side of the coach to watch the train go around this historic landmark. I also remember going through Johnstown and remembering stories I had read about the terrible flood.
A very scenic area and I hope Amtrak will be able to continue the route.
I ride Amtrak 42&43 3 to 4 times a year from Latrobe, Pa to Philly . my State of Pa better keep my train on, I will be one very Mad person come Oct 1, 2013.
It might have also been called the "Train to Nowhere" during its senseless existence. it ran from DC to Parkersburg, West Virginia, with a political stop in Keyser, WVA, Staggers' hometown.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
aegrotatioWhat's the "Potomac Turbo," anyway?
The "Potomac Turbo" was an assignment of the UA Turbotrain to a roundtrip between Washington and somewhere in West Virginia on a curvy not-so-high speed line meant to mollify Harley Staggers, who was chairman of the House Commerce Committee at the time.
John WR Schlimm and Don, I have said everything I can say about the Pennsylvanian. Both of you disagree with me. Is there something more I can say that will make either of you change your mind? If so, let me know. But I hope you will understand if I don't hold my breath waiting. John
Schlimm and Don,
I have said everything I can say about the Pennsylvanian. Both of you disagree with me. Is there something more I can say that will make either of you change your mind? If so, let me know. But I hope you will understand if I don't hold my breath waiting.
Show me it's worth $50 a head subsidy to keep it going versus letting it go. And, just for the record, I will not like seeing it go. I rode it a lot, way back when...
And, I wouldn't count out the Shuster boy finding a little slice of bacon for his home district....
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
John WRI see this as an impulsive decision that has no place in operating any agency public or private.
From a 2008 law to 2013 implementation. Such an impulse!
Do you remember all the "train-offs" that occurred during the Carter admin that were done in a matter of months? This time, they have 5 years warning...
Did you know the original 403B trains were supposed to start with a subsidy boost, but then supposed to cover their operating costs and/or the subsidy moved to the state. Somewhere in the 1980s some of the 403B trains got "enshrined" in the national network. (on impulse?)
Did you know the Pennsylvanian runs with four or five 60 seat Amtfleet II coaches? Perhaps they could go with an 80 seat arrangement and cut off a couple cars and knock a bit off that $7M .
John WRWhat you describe sounds to me like the local manager(s) had their own agenda that was different from Joe Boardman's.
There agenda apparently was: "Don't bother me!"
John WRBut just because government does things in a not very good way it does not follow that if government stops doing them they will then get done in a better way.
Agree! But, that's no reason to keep doing things badly, is it? You get what you provide incentive for. Change the rules, get different results! Not ALL the rules of the game are imposed on Amtrak from outside. There are quite a few they could change on their own, internally.
The PRIIA was passed in 2008. That act of Congress required reviews and based on that, the Pennsylvanian among other trains was required to be a state-subsidized train. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania decided to not provide its share of funding. Therefore, the train will be discontinued. hardly an impulsive act and its origins were not with Amtrak.
schlimmJohn: Oltman's questions weren't especially complicated, but you say you aren't qualified to "decide" when you are only asked for your opinion, since none of us are deciding anything on here. However, you seem to have no hesitation in continuing to make the case for retention of a specific train, the Pennsylvanian, on two threads. What's the story?
Actually, Schlimm, as I was typing the answer to Don I was thinking about the very question you ask. Thank you for bringing the issue up.
For better or for worse the Nixon Administration and the Congress created Amtrak to operate our passenger rail system. To the extent that we have trained competent people to do that they are at Amtrak. I think we should rely on Amtrak and its people unless and until we have something better. Just as I am reluctant to second guess Amtrak I would also be reluctant to second guess my local Chief of Police when he make recommendations about speed limits and stop lights.
In the case of the Pennsylvanian, the train was put into operation many years ago based on an agreement between Amtrak and the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation and, since it was put in place, it has operated without being questioned. At the time it was put in place the whole train ran in New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania and one part of it ran within Pennsylvania from Philadelphia to Pittsburgh. That was known and accepted and within the guidelines established. Now all of a sudden and with no change in the facts Congress decides to change the guidelines. I see this as an impulsive decision that has no place in operating any agency public or private.
I hope that answers your question.
John WR But just because government does things in a not very good way it does not follow that if government stops doing them they will then get done in a better way. More likely they won't be done at all. John
But just because government does things in a not very good way it does not follow that if government stops doing them they will then get done in a better way. More likely they won't be done at all.
I believe strongly in a modern passenger rail system which by necessity needs to be financed (for infrastructure and some operations as they are initiated) by the government. But sometimes the things the government, in the form of Amtrak, does in a not very good way (running unnecessary LD trains, for example) might be wiser to stop doing. Likely it will be be better if they won't be done at all.
oltmanndThey REALLY wanted to hang on to LA and DC commuter operations. Boardman made LA an absolute "must". They got crushed on price and local mgt. apathy.
What you describe sounds to me like the local manager(s) had their own agenda that was different from Joe Boardman's.
I worked for the Federal Government for many years. In my agency, anyway, subordinates were held accountable not for producing results but for obeying orders. Furthermore, there was such a lack of transparency that often subordinates (like me) didn't even know which result was desired. The system lumbers on (often due to built in redundancy) but it is not the best way to do it.
I can't speak about Amtrak where I have no experience. But I think you have spoken about this kind of problem in government.
John WR oltmanndDoes it make sense to you that, at a period of significant growth, you would buy mostly non-revenue equipment instead of revenue equipment? And, the revenue equipment you do buy, is not to support the area of your business where there is the most growth? Don, I am reluctant to analyze Amtrak decisions at this level. Clearly there are a lot of issues involved that I cannot begin to have knowledge of. I don't want to make shoot from the hip decisions about Amtrak or anything else. This doesn't mean that I think you are mistaken; all it means is that I can not qualified to decide. John
oltmanndDoes it make sense to you that, at a period of significant growth, you would buy mostly non-revenue equipment instead of revenue equipment? And, the revenue equipment you do buy, is not to support the area of your business where there is the most growth?
I am reluctant to analyze Amtrak decisions at this level. Clearly there are a lot of issues involved that I cannot begin to have knowledge of. I don't want to make shoot from the hip decisions about Amtrak or anything else. This doesn't mean that I think you are mistaken; all it means is that I can not qualified to decide.
John WR I did find some testimony on the issue by Joe Boardman. He considers commuter contracts a mixed bag; good in some cases but bad in others. That suggests that your comments are accurate.
They REALLY wanted to hang on to LA and DC commuter operations. Boardman made LA an absolute "must". They got crushed on price and local mgt. apathy.
John WR Don, I wasn't reading Trains when the commuter contract issues were discussed and I really no nothing about them. I did find some testimony on the issue by Joe Boardman. He considers commuter contracts a mixed bag; good in some cases but bad in others. That suggests that your comments are accurate. As far as the baggage car issue I can't see a connection between posting record ridership and buying more baggage cars. Of course, if Amtrak shouldn't have baggage cars at all it shouldn't be buying new ones. John
I wasn't reading Trains when the commuter contract issues were discussed and I really no nothing about them. I did find some testimony on the issue by Joe Boardman. He considers commuter contracts a mixed bag; good in some cases but bad in others. That suggests that your comments are accurate.
As far as the baggage car issue I can't see a connection between posting record ridership and buying more baggage cars. Of course, if Amtrak shouldn't have baggage cars at all it shouldn't be buying new ones.
Does it make sense to you that, at a period of significant growth, you would buy mostly non-revenue equipment instead of revenue equipment? And, the revenue equipment you do buy, is not to support the area of your business where there is the most growth?
If your whole focus is just to run yesterday's trains tomorrow, no more, no less. Then replacing the most obsolete equipment, operationally constrained equipment makes sense. The Mechanical Dept will tell you what they need most - and they obviously did. Amtrak ordered baggage cars, diners, dorms and a few sleepers. The growth was in the coach travel!
Overmod schlimmThe reason for all this is the PRIIA (Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act) of 2008. Section 209 of PRIIA requires that the Pennsylvanian transition to a state supported service by 2013. Future operation of the Pennsylvanian will require funding support from Pennsylvania. After all the Babeling on this topic, somebody finally brings up what the 'controversy' is really likely about. Can we please refine the discussion to the original general topic, now that we have a framework for guiding what it ought to address?
schlimmThe reason for all this is the PRIIA (Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act) of 2008. Section 209 of PRIIA requires that the Pennsylvanian transition to a state supported service by 2013. Future operation of the Pennsylvanian will require funding support from Pennsylvania.
After all the Babeling on this topic, somebody finally brings up what the 'controversy' is really likely about. Can we please refine the discussion to the original general topic, now that we have a framework for guiding what it ought to address?
It's a policy issue. Should intra-state, intercity trains have a federal operating subsidy? Congress says "no". They used to say "yes." The argument turns on whether these trains are part of a network or not. That is, do connections to other trains have much meaning beyond the lines on the map intersecting?
In the case of this train, the answer is "a little bit". So, maybe the policy is not such a bad one. Pennsylvania can judge the value vs. cost for this service pretty accurately.
John WR But, as you have pointed out in other posts, Amtrak is beholden to the Congress and must come hat in hand every year to beg for operating funds. This has imposed a limit on the initiative Amtrak is able to take. The only difference I have with with you (and correct me if I am wrong) is that you seem to expect Amtrak to solve this problem itself. I don't see how Amtrak can solve the problem.
But, as you have pointed out in other posts, Amtrak is beholden to the Congress and must come hat in hand every year to beg for operating funds. This has imposed a limit on the initiative Amtrak is able to take.
The only difference I have with with you (and correct me if I am wrong) is that you seem to expect Amtrak to solve this problem itself. I don't see how Amtrak can solve the problem.
And, neither does Amtrak.. In fact, they don't act like it's a problem.
You and I know that they are not responsible for all of their woes, but, there a quite a few under their control that they could work on. They just don't seem to notice...or choose to ignore.
A good example is how Amtrak lost the commuter contracts that they wanted to hold. There were some good columns written in Trains about it. Nobody in Congress steered the contracts away. It was high cost and lethargic local management.
Another example is ordering baggage cars when you are posting record ridership. Nobody in Congress told them to order them.
Cal,
Distinguishing between what we want to happen and what we expect will happen is important. But it is good to know that if, as we expect, the Pennsylvanian is put down on October 1 you will not be among the celebrants.
Well, my prediction is that The Pennsylvanian is finished as of October 1. I don't want that to be the case at all but I really don't see what can be done about it since the State of PA isn't showing any inclination to take over the train. On that date certain Amtrak trains WILL be making their last runs. Case closed. again, that'snot what I want at all but our present political environment, coupled with fiscal problems at the state lever in certain states, simplw won't allow for these trains to continue. It simply CAN'T happen. I'd give anything for events to prove me wrong but unfortunately, events have immunized me to being wrong.
Overmod,
Thank you for pointing out that you were not referring to the statistics I gathered.
Schlimm,
I am aware of PRIIA but there seems to be little about it to discuss. I am unaware that I "continue to insist there is a market" for the Pennsylvanian or even that I suggest there may be a market. However, I do believe that we should have accurate information to the extent such information is available.
Your statistics were not the 'Babeling' -- what I objected to was all the discussion about Amtrak this and Amtrak that and how the public had to be served by Amtrak subsidy -- when the actual reasons for Amtrak taking the Pennsylvanian off have little to do with passenger numbers.
In essence, it's a political mandate, for Pennsylvania to pay for Pennsylvania service. We shall see how that works out with the Pittsburgh-to-Harrisburg service. (Remember, it was not long ago that we were hearing about improvement projects to lower this trip time as part of a HSR-like 'bridge' between NY/PHI and western points like Chicago... I didn't exactly take this seriously at the time, but...
John: It's really quite simple as posted above from the Amtrak site:
PRIIA (Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act) of 2008. "Section 209 of PRIIA requires that the Pennsylvanian transition to a state supported service by 2013. Future operation of the Pennsylvanian will require funding support from Pennsylvania."
Hence, it is a done deal. Amtrak studied and does not want to continue this service. You continue to insist that there is a market for this train, for reasons unclear, when all the evidence suggests the ridership is very small west of Harrisburg. If it is really needed the political process in Western PA will exert pressure on the state legislature.
OvermodAfter all the Babeling on this topic
I went to some effort to actually gather the statistics I reported in my above posts because I like to stay as close as possible to the actual facts of the situation. I regret you regard my effort as "Babeling."
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.