John WR CSSHEGEWISCHIt appears that they want the "Sunset" reinstated, but they also don't want to pick up any part of the tab for operating it. It is not really up to the mayors to decide about paying for the Sunset Limited. But I imagine you are right and the states involved have not been forthcoming with any funds. On the other hand, this is part of a transcontinental route and states do not pay for other transcontinental routes.
CSSHEGEWISCHIt appears that they want the "Sunset" reinstated, but they also don't want to pick up any part of the tab for operating it.
It is not really up to the mayors to decide about paying for the Sunset Limited. But I imagine you are right and the states involved have not been forthcoming with any funds. On the other hand, this is part of a transcontinental route and states do not pay for other transcontinental routes.
I want free stuff for my town, too! Where do I sign up?
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
"The route operated up to Hurricane Katrina but has never been restored. It was a very lightly ridden route and a very expensive one from Amtrak but none the less the loss of it is noticed: "
Not quite sure why that makes any difference. The residents of the 40 cities apparently didn't notice it when it was there. I'm sure there are plenty of mayors who would like a train service, but there needs to be a clear rationale established as to why that would be a wise use of funding.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
John WR Schlimm, Here is an article about a group of 40 mayors from cities along what was the Sunset Limited Route between New Orleans and Jacksonville, FL. They met in Mobile because they want the service back. They believe there are adverse economic consequences for them by no longer having the service. The route operated up to Hurricane Katrina but has never been restored. It was a very lightly ridden route and a very expensive one from Amtrak but none the less the loss of it is noticed: http://www.wnyc.org/blogs/transportation-nation/2012/aug/24/7-years-after-katrina-washed-it-away-mayors-amtrak-considering-gulf-coast-rail-bigger-than-before/ John
Schlimm,
Here is an article about a group of 40 mayors from cities along what was the Sunset Limited Route between New Orleans and Jacksonville, FL. They met in Mobile because they want the service back. They believe there are adverse economic consequences for them by no longer having the service. The route operated up to Hurricane Katrina but has never been restored. It was a very lightly ridden route and a very expensive one from Amtrak but none the less the loss of it is noticed:
http://www.wnyc.org/blogs/transportation-nation/2012/aug/24/7-years-after-katrina-washed-it-away-mayors-amtrak-considering-gulf-coast-rail-bigger-than-before/
John
It appears that they want the "Sunset" reinstated, but they also don't want to pick up any part of the tab for operating it.
schlimm Also you seem to have overlooked my suggestion that some of those routes could be developed into new corridors for a portion of the route
I acknowledged your suggestion and I agreed that paired city routes would be desirable. However, recent legislation specifically excludes corridor routes of less than 750 miles from Federal funding.
John WRThe only way I can see to maintain that is to run the long distance trains that you so dislike. Cutting back on long distance trains will remove service from whole states. After taking away their rail service why should those states support Amtrak?
It will gather support because LD services serve so few people, even in those states, that the discontinuance will be largely unnoticed. Also you seem to have overlooked my suggestion that some of those routes could be developed into new corridors for a portion of the route, much as Don has proposed for the Crescent and Empire Builder and sam1 has mentioned for a different type of split. The role for subsidies will become largely for infrastructure (RoW and capital improvement) along with short-term operating subsidies for new corridors in partnerships with states. Along those lines, if the folks in Montana or Wyoming, for example, really want passenger rail, let them pony up like folks in NC and Illinois.
I agree with you about corridor service, Schlimm. I even agree that increasing and improving (speeding up) service along those corridors will increase support for Amtrak in places where the corridors exist. There is an irony in the fact that the recent reform cut back or eliminated money for precisely those corridors where Amtrak is most successful. Corridor service will come only to the extent that the states involved are willing to pick up the costs. I hope they will do that but I imagine different states will make different decisions.
However, to maintain a consensus for Amtrak it is not enough to have more people supporting it along new corridors. There also needs to be broad support over the whole country. The only way I can see to maintain that is to run the long distance trains that you so dislike. Cutting back on long distance trains will remove service from whole states. After taking away their rail service why should those states support Amtrak?
I would like to see a real passenger rail system here. Pruning back the legacy routes which are irrational as transportation is a means to expanding corridors. Portions of some of those routes could be converted into new corridors. You value consensus, which is important. But there will be far greater support, by the numbers of passengers using it, if we build a real service network within the limitations of where passenger rail can compete, i.e., corridors of various lengths, dependent on sustained speeds, but generally no more than 4-5 hours between the rider's start and destination points.
blue streak 1A political wag told me JohnWR is correct.
Thank you, Streak. It is good to know that somewhere out there a political wag agrees with me.
My point, Schlimm, is that underlying Amtrak is a political consensus in America that we need a national passenger rail system. The foundation of that consensus is a system which serves the whole nation. Any long distance route we take away weakens that consensus and if enough are taken away the consensus will be destroyed. With no national consensus it doesn't matter how efficient Amtrak is; we will loose Amtrak. Even now Amtrak critics argue that the fact that the Northeast Corridor has relatively slight losses or even operates at a profit is a reason to sell it to the private sector. Since I believe that Amtrak is rooted in a national consensus I do not believe the the important issue is whether or not individual routes lose money but rather how best do we preserve that national consensus.
I personally do not want to see Amtrak abandoned but I do understand the logic of those who do. If all subsidy is bad then any service subsidized by the government should be stopped. But if subsidy is bad it makes no sense to stop some subsidies and let others continue.
As far as Ibsen goes, I did not intend here to give you a homework assignment. If I recall correctly the parable of the lone scout is from The Master Builder. On a beautiful sunny day an army marches along a road. The soldiers and officers feel very strong and confident they are invincible and each reinforces everyone else's belief. Then a lone scout who has been riding far ahead rides back to warn that up ahead is the enemy and the army is marching into an ambush. But the feelings of self confidence are so strong that the army ignores the lone scout's warning and is ultimately destroyed.
A political wag told me JohnWR is correct. You cut here then cut there. Soon any program dies because it is very regional. "Try cutting the whole thing at once never". He used the example of agriculture subsidies..
Well, if that is your view, it seems much like saying "If we can't have long distance, then all of Amtrak will die, so let's kill it now." I searched for the Ibsen work (a poem?). I found nothing besides his plays, except his complete poetry, in Norwegian only, which I do not read.
schlimmNo one on these forums is talking about elimination of the entire system, except you.
That is correct, Schlimm. And there is a reason for it. I believe the one essential element that must be maintained if Amtrak is to continue is a national consensus. Cutting back the long distance routes undermines that consensus and in my view ultimately is what would lead to abandoning Amtrak. No one here has come forth to agree with me and that is why no one except me talks about eliminating the entire system. However, I do believe that is what would happen.
Other people are free to disagree with me on this point. No where is it written that anyone must agree with me and I don't expect anyone to. On the other hand, did you ever read Henrick Ibsen's parable of the lone scout?
Even more off base is your use of total ridership for Amtrak rather than long distance ridership. No one on these forums is talking about elimination of the entire system, except you. Boardman and others have politely suggested that the LD routes, if they perform some social need, should be funded separately, not drain money from the corridors, which are Amtrak's future.
Sam,
I agree you have a valid point. The total number of Amtrak riders is some fraction of the total number of passengers because many passengers ride the train more than once. In fact some passengers ride the train a lot more than once. For example, commuters who typically ride 10 times a week.
But if the purpose of government is to do for people what people cannot do for themselves how do we decide when the number of people who need a service is so low that we will dismiss their needs?
If such a number does exist the fact that Amtrak carries more passengers than ever suggests that there is no consensus that we have reached that number.
Finally, if the purpose of government is not to do for people what they cannot do for themselves how then do we justify even expenditures for national defense?
JohnWRAmtrak reports 31.2 million passengers rode its trains in 2012. The US population is about 313 million. So altogether about 10 per cent of the total population road Amtrak. I think that is pretty respectable.
You fall into a statistical error here. Many of those 31.2 million rode multiple times. So it is simply not true to say 10% of Americans ride Amtrak. That is why I suggested a survey which would probably show very few ride Amtrak even once in their lifetime and even fewer ride the over 2000 mile/40 hour LD trains.
In a nation of 81.8 million people, DB (German Railways) serves about 2 billion people. They provide good service to many people. Seems to me we might learn something from their examples, which include serving many towns with local services, but not burdening intercity services with routes that serve few. And they manage quite well without baggage cars, even on their overnight sleeper trains, which go beyond the German borders.
John WR Amtrak reports 31.2 million passengers rode its trains in 2012. The US population is about 313 million. So altogether about 10 per cent of the total population road Amtrak. I think that is pretty respectable. However, it is well established that 85 per cent of all passengers ride on the north east corridor. That means about 4.7 million rode long distance services which is, as you say, less than 2 per cent of the whole public. Of course some people are not really available to ride Amtrak because they are too infirm to travel or incarcerated or in the military and overseas and for similar reasons. Still, I think your "under 2 per cent" figure is pretty reasonable. But the question I would ask is if there are people who genuinely need a service should the government as a matter of principal ignore that need because there are so few of them?
Amtrak reports 31.2 million passengers rode its trains in 2012. The US population is about 313 million. So altogether about 10 per cent of the total population road Amtrak. I think that is pretty respectable.
However, it is well established that 85 per cent of all passengers ride on the north east corridor. That means about 4.7 million rode long distance services which is, as you say, less than 2 per cent of the whole public.
Of course some people are not really available to ride Amtrak because they are too infirm to travel or incarcerated or in the military and overseas and for similar reasons. Still, I think your "under 2 per cent" figure is pretty reasonable.
But the question I would ask is if there are people who genuinely need a service should the government as a matter of principal ignore that need because there are so few of them?
Approximately 72 per cent of the U.S. population is 18 or older. Most people over 18 determine how they will travel; many if not most people under 18 have that choice made for them by a guardian.
Amtrak's 32.1 million passengers in FY12 is not comparable with the population. They are different data. The population is the projection of the estimated population generated by the results of a valid statistical sample. The population is every human body that can be counted in accordance with the Census Bureau guidelines. The number of passengers reported by Amtrak represents the number of tickets lift from customers (individuals).
Last year I made 11 trips on Amtrak. I was one person who used Amtrak 11 times and, therefore, I was counted as a passenger 11 times. I also made six trips on Southwest Airlines and, as was true for Amtrak, I was one person counted as six passengers.
Just reporting the number of passengers carried without disclosing the number of customers hoisted by a carrier, i.e. Amtrak, commercial airlines, commercial bus companies, cruise ship lines, etc., does not reveal the true picture. Well, does not tell a reader how many customers the company has, and that is different from the number of its riders or passengers.
As far as I have been able to determine, Amtrak does not reveal how many customers it had in FY12. Clearly, it was less than 32.1 million, if for no other reason than I was one customer taking 11 trips. My guess is Amtrak may have had as few as 22 million customers in FY12. When I lived in NYC and Hartford (12 years), I knew people who took the train from NYC to Philadelphia and Washington two or three times a week.
The same dynamic that applies to determining Amtrak's customers, as opposed to passengers, also applies to the commercial airlines and the commercial bus companies. However, it does not apply to motorists. They are licensed as individuals. In 2010, if I remember correctly, there were approximately 210 million licensed motorists in the U.S.
John WR I don't want to go on and on arguing issues where we will never agree. And this certainly is one of those issues. But I can accept the logic of your position that we drop all long distance trains. If it does come to that far better that Amtrak should have a clear and clean ending than that it should just slowly be dismembered which would only prolong its death.
I don't want to go on and on arguing issues where we will never agree. And this certainly is one of those issues. But I can accept the logic of your position that we drop all long distance trains. If it does come to that far better that Amtrak should have a clear and clean ending than that it should just slowly be dismembered which would only prolong its death.
i don't want to belabor the point either, but I do not agree with your premise/contention. Cutting off the most useless and biggest expense drains within Amtrak doesn't kill it. If anything, those changes are to save Amtrak and convert/expand it into a real transportation alternative for the future. Running one nostalgia train per day or three times per week each way on a 2000 mile run is not a viable transportation service. Land cruises? Maybe, but not something Amtrak should be engaged in, anymore than the government should offer heavily subsidized (~25-60 cents on the dollar) river and ocean cruises.
To put it another way: if a properly conducted survey were done of Americans 16 and up, and you asked if they thought they would use a train service that takes 40+ hours to get somewhere, I'll bet 98% would say no, and of the 2% who said yes, less than half of them would use it more than once a year. So you want a government program that might serve less than 2% of the public, at best?
Sam1 am not advocating cutting just one long distance passenger train. They all should be dropped as per my previous post. The reference to the Texas Eagle was just an example of how the equipment could be redeployed in Texas, as well as perhaps elsewhere, to provide a better service to a burgeoning market.
John WR Sam, I stand corrected. As you point out, Amtrak has a wealth of data. I looked at a table that compared information from 2012 and 2013 rather than the table that show costs per passenger mile. The title was off the top of my screen and I should have scrolled up to double check it. However, I still believe a logical case may be made to cut all long distance routes but to cut just one makes much less sense because Amtrak is a system. John
I stand corrected. As you point out, Amtrak has a wealth of data. I looked at a table that compared information from 2012 and 2013 rather than the table that show costs per passenger mile. The title was off the top of my screen and I should have scrolled up to double check it.
However, I still believe a logical case may be made to cut all long distance routes but to cut just one makes much less sense because Amtrak is a system.
I am not advocating cutting just one long distance passenger train. They all should be dropped as per my previous post. The reference to the Texas Eagle was just an example of how the equipment could be redeployed in Texas, as well as perhaps elsewhere, to provide a better service to a burgeoning market.
Sam1The best performing long distance train in FY12, i.e. with the lowest financial loss per passenger mile, was the Palmetto at 13.3 cents.
Surprise, surprise! A day train! It's also the stronges ridership growth in the the first part of the year.
Sam1 John WR Autotrain loses 14.9¢ per passenger mile. Losses on all other trains are in the single digits, many in the low single digits except for the Lakeshore Limited which breaks even. In can conceive of a case being made to cut Autotrain. But I still regard Amtrak as a transportation system. In any system some parts perform better than others but each contributes to the system as a whole. My little toe is less important to my body than my right hand but I am not inclined to cut off my little toe. I would look to strengthen the system rather than weaken it. On the other hand, I can see arguing that we should abandon all long distance routes. I hope that does not happen but I think that is more logical than piecemeal cuts. As an aside, I notice the Crescent loses the second highest amount of money, 9.1¢ per passenger mile. I think that strengthens Don's argument that the Crescent should run as two daily trains each of which ends in Atlanta. In FY12 the Lake Shore Limited lost $33.1 million or 16.2 cents per passenger mile before depreciation, interest and miscellaneous charges. These charges probably added another $3 million to the net loss. In FY11 the Lake Shore Limited lost $37.5 million or 18.5 cents per passenger mile before depreciation, interest and miscellaneous charges. The Auto Train lost 15.4 cents per passenger mile in FY12, up from 14.1 cents per passenger mile in FY11. The best performing long distance train in FY12, i.e. with the lowest financial loss per passenger mile, was the Palmetto at 13.3 cents. The worst performer was the Sunset Limited at 49.9 cents per passenger mile. Overall the long distance trains lost $600.9 million in FY12, up slightly from $597.7 million in FY11. These numbers are before depreciation, interest, and miscellaneous charges.
John WR Autotrain loses 14.9¢ per passenger mile. Losses on all other trains are in the single digits, many in the low single digits except for the Lakeshore Limited which breaks even. In can conceive of a case being made to cut Autotrain. But I still regard Amtrak as a transportation system. In any system some parts perform better than others but each contributes to the system as a whole. My little toe is less important to my body than my right hand but I am not inclined to cut off my little toe. I would look to strengthen the system rather than weaken it. On the other hand, I can see arguing that we should abandon all long distance routes. I hope that does not happen but I think that is more logical than piecemeal cuts. As an aside, I notice the Crescent loses the second highest amount of money, 9.1¢ per passenger mile. I think that strengthens Don's argument that the Crescent should run as two daily trains each of which ends in Atlanta.
Autotrain loses 14.9¢ per passenger mile. Losses on all other trains are in the single digits, many in the low single digits except for the Lakeshore Limited which breaks even. In can conceive of a case being made to cut Autotrain.
But I still regard Amtrak as a transportation system. In any system some parts perform better than others but each contributes to the system as a whole. My little toe is less important to my body than my right hand but I am not inclined to cut off my little toe. I would look to strengthen the system rather than weaken it.
On the other hand, I can see arguing that we should abandon all long distance routes. I hope that does not happen but I think that is more logical than piecemeal cuts.
As an aside, I notice the Crescent loses the second highest amount of money, 9.1¢ per passenger mile. I think that strengthens Don's argument that the Crescent should run as two daily trains each of which ends in Atlanta.
In FY12 the Lake Shore Limited lost $33.1 million or 16.2 cents per passenger mile before depreciation, interest and miscellaneous charges. These charges probably added another $3 million to the net loss. In FY11 the Lake Shore Limited lost $37.5 million or 18.5 cents per passenger mile before depreciation, interest and miscellaneous charges.
The Auto Train lost 15.4 cents per passenger mile in FY12, up from 14.1 cents per passenger mile in FY11. The best performing long distance train in FY12, i.e. with the lowest financial loss per passenger mile, was the Palmetto at 13.3 cents. The worst performer was the Sunset Limited at 49.9 cents per passenger mile. Overall the long distance trains lost $600.9 million in FY12, up slightly from $597.7 million in FY11. These numbers are before depreciation, interest, and miscellaneous charges.
It is helpful to see accurate data, without which decisions are bound to be wrong. Thanks.
I'd keep the long distance trains because they provide a better quality of service to intermediate points (i.e. small towns) than other modes of transportation. An example is the Southwest Chief serving the Philmont Scout Ranch in New Mexico. Anyone going to Philmont has gear that they won't (knives, axes) or can't (camp stoves) check as airline baggage.
Next, I'd create an internal route analysis group. Their job would be to do the demand analysis on every reasonable city pair where improved passenger service is a reasonable possibility. As part of the demand analysis, they would determine where the stations should be to serve the traffic.
An example of station analysis would be the proposed Chicago-Milwaukee-Madison service. To serve the traffic, the Madison station should be within walking distance of the University of Wisconsin. Chicago stations should be at O'Hare Field, Union Station, and Midway Airport.
Amtrak has a wealth of data. And it makes more of its operating and financial data public than many if not most organizations. What's missing, apparently, is management's ability and willingness to tie the data analysis to its strategic planning. Boardman acknowledged as much in his response to the OIG's report on Amtrak's asset management policies, procedures, and practices. Hopefully, the relatively new Operations Research person will help fix the problem.
Amtrak has segment data re: revenues. It uses this data, amongst other things, for its Guest Rewards Program. This is just one data set that is not made directly available to the public. There may be others.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.