If 39 Million people depend on rail transport in the USA (Amtrak and Commuter) thats one voting block you cant ignore. Amtrak should not only count revenue but each new rider is a new voter for rail transit. 19 Million new voters for Amtrak since the 1990s when ridership was 20,000,000.
If it were only that simple, that black and white. Many commuters have no affinity for long distance or even intercity trains and many Amtrak riders have never ridden a commuter train. So their thoughts, needs, desires, and political sway are not compatible.
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
That hardly translates into 39 million voters, since the ridership is composed of total rides. Many of those rides are by the same person, especially commuters.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
BonasAmtrak should not only count revenue but each new rider is a new voter for rail transit.
On March 5 Joe Boardman testified to the Congress that in 2012 Amtrak had almost 32 million "riders." These people voted with their feet and with their dollars for Amtrak.
By way of comparison, to put in a realistic perspective, according to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, a total of 631,939,829 passengers boarded domestic flights in the United States in the year 2010. This averages to 1.73 million passengers flying per day. So every 18.5 days, the airlines board what Amtrak boards in an entire year. Amtrak is a good starting point, but it has a long way to go.
The Highway Trust Fund became insolvent about five years ago. Ergo, they now get to feed at the trough just like NRPC to make up for monetary shortfalls. There are around 200 million drivers in the United States who will not be ignored. Guess where the money is going to go?
Editor Emeritus, This Week at Amtrak
Bonas If 39 Million people depend on rail transport in the USA (Amtrak and Commuter) thats one voting block you cant ignore. Amtrak should not only count revenue but each new rider is a new voter for rail transit. 19 Million new voters for Amtrak since the 1990s when ridership was 20,000,000.
What if we could gain 10M new riders by abandoning 5M? That would make that "voting block" 44M. Even better, right?
If we can get Amtrak, Congress, states, and advocates to focus on where passenger rail works best by developing corridors, particularly NEC extensions, we might be able to do just that. There is some Federal money available for investment. We have to help make sure it goes for corridor development and not more Viewliners and baggage cars.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
We need a National transportation policy which includes all modes of travel and all state DOT's participation. Determine efficient and safe use of each mode and apply it to a program to provide for the transportation needs of the local communities, local regional communities, state communities, state regional communities, and interstate and national communities. Air, highway, rail, water for freight and people. And taxpayers and businesses.
The long march begins with the first step. Amtrak can do some positive changes and avoid doing other foolish things right now on its own without a major reconfiguration of national transportation policies. The latter would be a great idea, but in the current climate in DC, passing a bill even to honor mothers would provoke a partisan death match.
D.CarletonThere are around 200 million drivers in the United States who will not be ignored. Guess where the money is going to go?
D. Carlton,
Many people make your argument. I find it curious that a guy who regularly writes about Amtrak would accept it so uncritically.
No doubt our 200 million drivers are a powerful voting block. The very fact that there is a Highway Trust Fund shows how powerful it is. Insolvent or not, all of our motor fuel taxes are still paid into the fund and no one in Congress questions that. And, as you point out, highways get the lions share of general revenues for transportation besides.
But you of all people have to realize that Congress has for a great many years found money for other kinds of transportation. For water transportation, for air transportation and, since 1970, for rail passenger transportation. The mood of the Congress these days makes me pessimistic about the continued funding of Amtrak even at today's relatively low levels. But Amtrak's situation may not be totally hopeless.
I do not see an us vs them situation where lobbyists for roads seek to shoot down Amtrak. Rather I see a situation where lobbyists for roads realistically point out to the needs for maintenance and repair of our roads and bridges for both automobiles and the trucks which carry so much of our freight.
All of our infrastructure needs repair and upgrading. Don't you think that, perhaps, focus on one to the exclusion of others overly simplifies the problems?
John WRAll of our infrastructure needs repair and upgrading. Don't you think that, perhaps, focus on one to the exclusion of others overly simplifies the problems?
There's the rub. The highway funding is all about investment in infrastructure. The Amtrak funding is about half direct operating subsidy. It's pretty easy and natural to be able to draw a bright line between the two. Not that it's totally fair, but we'll never win the "fair is fair" argument - for a variety of reasons (which we've debated here ad naseum).
So, we have to change the argument. The best way to do that is to show the operating subsidy is steadily decreasing, that new services don't require any Federal operating subsidy, that existing "biggest losers" are being dealt with. And, the action needs to come from inside Amtrak, not thru Congressional meddling ala PRIIA. That shifts Amtrak from being a purveyor of the status quo, "Soviet style railroading" with $15 hamburgers to a trusted and useful partner.
Some progress has occurred and Amtrak is slowly starting to hammer some of these points home, but let's hope and push for more change, faster.
Unfortunately I don't think we will ever see what Amtrak is capable of. If the government would of invested in railroads like they in highways and airports in the 40s and 50s we could potential have high speed rail similar to what is available in Europe across the northeast, California and possibly some coming of Chicago to St. Louis, twin cities and possibly a line running all the way to New York. Even seeing trains running at 100-150 between Chicago and the west coast.
oltmanndSo, we have to change the argument. The best way to do that is to show the operating subsidy is steadily decreasing, that new services don't require any Federal operating subsidy, that existing "biggest losers" are being dealt with. And, the action needs to come from inside Amtrak, not thru Congressional meddling ala PRIIA. That shifts Amtrak from being a purveyor of the status quo, "Soviet style railroading" with $15 hamburgers to a trusted and useful partner.
Except that those who accuse Amtrak of "Soviet style railroading" would never ever allow it to have the kind of autonomy it would take to make any real change. I think the best Amtrak can hope for with the present House of Representatives is to simply survive. Perhaps -- I hope -- in time the mood of the Congress will change. But unless and until it does at best Amtrak will have to struggle along as it is.
Everyone on all sides of the debate ignore the real solution. Deregulation. Deregulation saved freight railroads. Deregulation can save passenger rail. At this point just get rid of the FRA and FTA the AAR does a better job. The FRA is just a legislative busybody there to satisfy lobbyists and to justify its own existence.
Railroad to Freedom
ontheBNSF Everyone on all sides of the debate ignore the real solution. Deregulation. Deregulation saved freight railroads. Deregulation can save passenger rail. At this point just get rid of the FRA and FTA the AAR does a better job. The FRA is just a legislative busybody there to satisfy lobbyists and to justify its own existence.
What "regulations" are there on passenger rail? Right now, really, none, nothing that would affect anything as we know it in the US today. The heavy loading gauge to absorb accidents and signaling systems which could help keep trains moving and apart (PTC) are the two things which could be called regulation maybe. But aside from commuter rail and what little Amtrak has out there, there is nothing to regulate. Deregulation saved railroad companies but not necessarily railroads...we have fewer lines and fewer companies...they may be better of but it could be argued we as a population are not.
henry6 ontheBNSF Everyone on all sides of the debate ignore the real solution. Deregulation. Deregulation saved freight railroads. Deregulation can save passenger rail. At this point just get rid of the FRA and FTA the AAR does a better job. The FRA is just a legislative busybody there to satisfy lobbyists and to justify its own existence. What "regulations" are there on passenger rail? Right now, really, none, nothing that would affect anything as we know it in the US today. The heavy loading gauge to absorb accidents and signaling systems which could help keep trains moving and apart (PTC) are the two things which could be called regulation maybe. But aside from commuter rail and what little Amtrak has out there, there is nothing to regulate. Deregulation saved railroad companies but not necessarily railroads...we have fewer lines and fewer companies...they may be better of but it could be argued we as a population are not.
http://pedestrianobservations.wordpress.com/2011/08/25/the-fra-doesnt-need-reform-it-needs-a-revolution/
www.ebbc.org/rail/fra.html
Also there is the pointless EIS
So loosing a few lines is that bad. The companies were going bankrupt so without the deregulation there would be NO railroads of any kind. Government unions also impose inflexible work rules.
Bonas,
Where do you get your statistic about the number of commuters? I don't suggest you are wrong; I'm just curious.
Also, one thing polls often ignore is the depth of people's feelings. A person may commute by train. Clearly, he believes trains are good things because he rides one. But he may not think about it all that much and it may not influence his voting.
The good part of that is that among drivers support for roads may well be equally shallow.
John
ontheBNSFAt this point just get rid of the FRA and FTA
And how do you propose to get rid of government?
People get private and common carrier transport mixed up. Try watching a movie and working on your computer and driving at the same time. What do people use when they "Leave the driving to US"
I also heard that if Amtrak were a airline it would be the top 10 in "passenger miles" which is a industry standard.
For 2010, Amtrak would rank #9 before Allegiant Air. Amtrak had 6.420 billion (revenue) passenger miles and Allegiant at #10 had 5.486 billion RPM. But all US airlines (domestic services) had 555.8 billion in 2010. So comparing apples to apples, Amtrak had only 1.16% as many RPMs as the airlines, or 1.14% of the total passenger miles for air and intercity rail combined. As Paul M. has pointed out several times before, in the total picture, Amtrak is a minor player. In the NEC, it is a major player, and using that high speed corridor model, it could become one in other markets as well.
Some folks seem to think Amtrak is growing a lot. However, in 1991 it had 6.273 billion RPM compared to 6.420 in 2010, an increase of only 2.3% over a 20 year period, while the population increased by 24%.
Here's some numbers from the Bureau of Transportation Statistics.
rail = Amtrak passenger miles
air = domestic passenger mile
There are two trends and a blip.
Trend one: general decline from 1996 to 2006
Trend two: recovery from decline - 2006 to 2010.
Flat since mid 2010
Blip: 9/11/01 -all the way up to 1.6% share.
If you allow that Amtrak has half their passenger miles (and 75% of the revenue) from the NEC and another quarter from other short haul, that puts the LD "network" into insignificant-land - less than a half percent. Yet, it is the LD trains that attract all the political flak. Are the worth the effort?
Don: Between your post and mine, there is a clear perspective of what Amtrak is and has been for its 40 year history : a minor player in the transportation realm compared to air. Why? Because it continues to cling to the dimly recalled glorious past. of private passenger rail 60 years ago, with one notable exception. That has been the development of higher speed, 300 mile corridors first begun pre-Amtrak in the NEC and now expanding to other areas.
oltmanndf you allow that Amtrak has half their passenger miles (and 75% of the revenue) from the NEC and another quarter from other short haul, that puts the LD "network" into insignificant-land - less than a half percent. Yet, it is the LD trains that attract all the political flak. Are the worth the effort?
Don,
Let me begin by saying how impressed I am with your effort at gathering and posting that long list of monthly statistics.
While Amtrak's share of the market is, as you point out, small it is also quite robust. Also, as I read the news, the trains that get the flak are the relatively short hauls, not the long distance trains. For example, when John Mica wanted to find a horrible example of Amtrak food service he did not use the dining cars; he used a snack bar car where you buy a hamburger. And the Philadelphia -- Harrisburg service which is relatively successful has 14 trains where the Federal appropriation is being cut back. These are relatively short hauls. I find it paradoxical that Amtrak picks up most criticism in the trains that are objectively most successful.
The interesting angle here is the philosophical practice of difference in doing business from eras's past. And it was not just railroads who did this. Loss leaders, charter requirements, segments which added to the flow but not the cash flow, etc. Over the past 25 or so years CPA's, Hedge Fund Managers, and micromanaging investors changed all that in that every move of even a pinky had to add to the bottom line or it was eliminated. LD trains accounting for less than a percent of the passenger miles compared to the NE services is such an incident. Railroads used to run branch line trains or connecting trains at an out of pocket loss because they knew that it added to the income and value of the main line or connecting trains; take any of the brancline or connecting trains away and you also take away numbers from the main trains. Other businesses would drop a named product or service because of its out of pocket costs and in so doing have robbed themselves of the image or even the markets for their other or income products.
John WRFor example, when John Mica wanted to find a horrible example of Amtrak food service he did not use the dining cars; he used a snack bar car where you buy a hamburger.
Mica would probably take an "improved" Amtrak, but he believes that Amtrak is beyond hope. That they didn't find a way to sell a hamburger on a train at a profit - or at least at a reasonable cost - is a symptom. It didn't seem to bother anyone at Amtrak that it cost them $15 to deliver a hamburger to a customer. He thinks the way forward is without Amtrak. (I think that would be more problematic in the long term that trying to improve Amtrak)
The long time Amtrak critics ala McCain, have long used the subsidy per passenger on the LD trains to make their anti-Amtrak attacks.
Yes, a lot of how Amtrak is, is not their fault. They have been bullied and whipsawed by Congress for a long, long time. But, just because they've been beaten down is no excuse for lying down - particularly when thing may be starting to break you way. ..unless Mica is right and they are beyond repair.
From Amtrak's own FY12 Comprehensive Business Plan:
The contribution per rider for Acela was $56.78
The contribution per rider for NEC regional was $43.76
The contribution per rider for the NEC overall was $20.36
The loss per rider for State Supported Routes was $10.67
The loss per rider for overall Long distance services was $111.47
The worst route was the Sunset Limited: $373.34; 2nd worst was the Southwest Chief : $158.72
The horror story goes on and on. The worst offenders in LD service should be brought in line with the better LD routes, such as the Lake Shore Limited ($84.45) per rider.
henry6 discussed the wisdom of "loss leaders" in business, which is a great marketing tool, but not when they consume all the net income from the rest of the economic endeavor and create chronic yearly losses. To point out these facts is not being a petty bean counter who cannot grasp the bigger picture. It is seeing how an antiquated (50-60 year old) service model, by draining available operating funding, severely limits the real purpose of a service, which is to provide basic transportation for the largest numbers of taxpayers/riders.
http://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/963/948/AmtrakFY12ComprehensiveBusinessPlan-FINAL-wAppx.pdf
oltmanndThe long time Amtrak critics ala McCain, have long used the subsidy per passenger on the LD trains to make their anti-Amtrak attacks.
I think that makes a lot of sense. Were I looking for a way to criticize Amtrak it would be over the long distance trains. But Senator McCain has been doing that for many years without much success.
oltmanndHe [Representative Mica] thinks the way forward is without Amtrak.
So what happened with the Pennsylvanian when the State of Pennsylvania got the Federal Government to pick up part of the cost rather than none of the cost at all? Did John Mica simply cave in?
AMTRAK's request for the $2.1B capital budget stated that almost 1 million passengers on the NEC came from long distance trains. I find that hard to believe ?? and does that NEC figure contain those long distance figures and how are the LD trains accounted for on the NEC ??
What is your definition of a long distance train, Blue Streak? Boston to New York or to D.C. or Norfolk or to Atlanta or New Orleans or Orlando or Miami or? These are all Corridor train routes. So is Boston or NY to Chicago via the Cardinal or the Capitol (? out of Baltimore). Yes, the core of the Corridor is either Boston to NY and NY to D.C. but a lot of those trains are also carrying loads beyond the Corridor.
If you are willing to accept Amtrak's definitions of long distance routes, go to C-3 from the January report: and you will see the names of the current routes:
http://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/834/888/Amtrak-Monthly-Performance-Report-January-2013-(revised).pdf
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.