Increasing Empire Builder capacity ?

[Anonymous]

John WR

Sam1

am not sure where you got the $840 million for state supported funding.

Sam,

The $840 million annual payment to Amtrak by states for state subsidized routes comes from Table 1 of the Brookings Institution report to which you referred.  Just now I double checked to be sure the number I used is accurate.  Actually it is something over $841 million.   I did not look at the Amtrak reports as you have.  I suspect the different reports refer to different expenses.  

John

Table 1 shows the state capital payments for the five years ended FY11.  Divided by five $841 million is $168.2 million per year on average.  These payments can vary significantly.  Best to look at Amtrak's financials for the latest numbers.

[schlimm]

In the charter legislation, Section 401(c) explicitly prohibits any railroad or person from running passenger train service over any route where Amtrak is already providing services, without permission from Amtrak..

In Section 403 (b), it says any state may contract with Amtrak to provide new service if the state or other agency agrees to reimburse Amtrak for a "reasonable portion of any losses associated with such services."   Section 403 (c) specifies reasonable to be between 66 2/3% and all "the solely related costs, including associated capital costs."

So it seems like states could contract with someone else for new services, at least as i read it.  But subsequent legislation may have changed that.  I do not know.

[John WR]

I guess I should have been more explicit in my original post.  I added a clarification to show that the figure covers 5 years.  

[John WR]

schlimm

So it seems like states could contract with someone else for new services, at least as i read it.  But subsequent legislation may have changed that.  I do not know.

My point, Schlimm, is that if a state wants to provide a service and that service either is not on an Amtrak route or Amtrak is agreeable to the state providing it the state still must ask the railroad that owns the track to allow its trains to use their track.  The private railroad may refuse to do so.  

John

[schlimm]

Of course.  And on the heavy traffic routes, especially out west, that gets a "No thanks" from the rails.  But there are some lighter trafficked routes in the east-midwest, like the decrepit old PRR Lines West, that if fixed up by the states from Chicago to Columbus that wold accept some fast trains in exchange.

[calzeph]

If Amtrak had the equipment a good idea would be to revivie The Western Star. I git to ride that train when I was little when we went to Glacier Park.

[VerMontanan]

Sam1

"If the Empire Builder dies, part of America's heritage dies, because part of Glacier National Park dies with it.  I suspect that those "who know the cost of everything and the value of nothing" would not care, and they'd likely not care if the national parks ceased to exist, either."

Where is the evidence to support this claim?  What percentage of the people who visit Glacier National Park arrive on a once a day train.  Again, don't confuse Amtrak's data regarding station activity.  It shows people getting off and on the train for each station.  Presumable most of the people who get off the Builder at one of the stops serving Glacier National Park get back on the train or depart via another means. Unless, of course, they are eaten by a bear.  Thus, the true activity is half of what Amtrak shows in its fact sheets, i.e. if one person gets off the train and gets back on at a later time, that is one customer using the train to and from a station..

Yup.  That's why when I gave the amount in the previous post (about 1 percent of total park visitation), I doubled the boardings at FCA to give a numer comparable with Amtrak's figures.

[VerMontanan]

 

 

Sam1

One anecdotal observation by a retired Amtrak ticket agent is not a valid statistical sample anymore than my sample fares from Chicago to Minot or Spokane to Minot or Williston were a complete survey. Which I believe that I acknowledged.  

In my company, which was a Fortune 250 energy company, and was engage in oil and gas exploration in Texas, people were expected to plan and book their travel arrangements well in advance. Of course, emergencies arose, and people needed to book immediately, but they were rare.  So why would oil field workers in North Dakota, most of who appear to be employed by major drillers, be any different?

You claim going out a bit more than three weeks is unrealistic?  Where is your evidence?  Who employs the oil field workers?  What is the travel policy for the company(s) that they work for?  What is the booking distribution for the workers who are traveling by Amtrak.

Again, what percentage of the oil field workers arrive or depart on the Empire Builder.  What would happen, for example, if the Builder did not run?  Would the oil fields shut down?

If I remember correctly, I stated several times that I was using examples and, furthermore, that individual situations would differ.  Are your sure my example is completely unrealistic?  How about just unrealistic.  Or better yet, how about skipping the inflammatory language (unrealistic) and sticking to facts albeit how imperfect they may be. That sounds better, don't you think.  

 

An anecdotal single obersvation?  More like common knowledge among Amtrak employees not only at Williston but working the Empire Builder route and on the train itself.  After all, leaving Williston isn't the only place that people involved in the boom travel on short notice, it's also going to Williston when they discover their work schedule has been changed.  This is verified by numerous ticket agents along the line, and the onboard crews who pick up people at Stanley (an unstaffed station with significant growth in patronage) who entrain passengers with no reservation, and, on occasion, leave them behind when the train is full.

 

While Sam dismisses the testimony of the Williston ticket agent who I would wager he does not know, just about everyone along the Empire Builder route was aware of her dedication and professionalism and campaigned nearly in unison that her work there be acknowledged by Amtrak, and indeed, it was: http://www.willistonherald.com/news/olsen-receives-president-s-award-from-amtrak/article_67606bdc-4de6-11e2-91e4-0019bb2963f4.html

Here is someone who had worked for Amtrak for nearly 40 years in Williston, and witnessed the boom in the 80s, which of course was nothing compared to this.  I believe she has more than sufficient experience and recognition to be good source of what's really going on.

 

I don't know why things are different than in your "Fortune 250 company," but here are a couple of reasons.  First of all, there are very few rules with regard to anything during a bona fide boom.  Therefore schedules are bound to changeable as are the number and scope of jobs.  The other point is that not all "workers in the oilfield" work for oil companies.  As with any boom, there are support people such as restaurant employees, public sector employees to maintain an expanding infrastructure, and those in the "hospitality industry."  There are also many, many small trucking and support companies involved in moving materials like pipe, sand, and water to the various drilling sites.  These are far from the resource-rich "Fortune 250".  All these people could use the train on occasion and might have employers that don't have the strict scheduling abilities, resources and clairvoyance to create a perfectly-planned work schedule. 

 

I do not know what percentage of oil boom workers use the Empire Builder.  I would wager you also don't know how many use air service or bus service or highways at a specific location and why they're really traveling.  Of course the oil boom wouldn't "shut down" if the Empire Builder ceased to exist (quite the ridiculous question to even pose).  What we do know is that this long distance passenger train is contributing, or very simply, if it wasn't, people wouldn't be riding it.  The real question is that if the cost of the Empire Builder exceeds the benefits it provides, and unlike the data on the Amtrak website, that amount, unfortunately, is not easily quantifiable.

 

 

[VerMontanan]

schlimm

Glacier National Park is #10 in patronage and had 1.6 million last year.  According to the official Amtrak state report for fiscal 2012, there were 21,061 boardings and alightings at the East and West Glacier stations.  So divide by 2 = 10, 530 visitors.  That is 0.66 %.   So it is highly unlikely that  "part of Glacier National Park dies" because of such a tiny loss of patronage.  Or maybe 10 sq. miles?    And please do not make ridiculous assumptions about others feelings concerning our National Parks. (" I suspect that those "who know the cost of everything and the value of nothing" would not care, and they'd likely not care if the national parks ceased to exist, either.")   They remain one of the US's crowning achievements.

I have to agree with Paul M. about at least one of his points, namely that it is important for passenger rail advocates to have their facts straight.  Otherwise it results in the speaker losing credibility and thus has a negative impact on convincing neutral folks of the trains' value. 

 

I see you missed the point.

 

Part of the park would not die because of the loss of visitors, but because of the loss of what made the park what it is.  Indeed, national parks are one of America's "crowning achievements" and so many of them were developed because of a railroad.  Without railroads, many would not be what they are today.  But none is more tied to a railroad than Glacier National Park (at least in the United States).  For example, the ex-Union Pacific station in West Yellowstone, Montana does a great job explaining the history of how no fewer than five railroads vied for Yellowstone National Park tourists.  Exhibits and displays are interesting, but they can have nowhere near the impact of detraining from the Empire Builder at Glacier Park station, walking up the flower-lined walkway to the railroad-built Glacier Park Lodge - 100 years young in 2013 - and being completely enveloped in the whole train-to-park experience.  Taking the train to a national park was commonplace early in the 20th Century, but it's a rarity now. In addition to the comfort (unique to train travel) and utility passenger trains provide, that we can still actively participate in this part of American history has value in itself, and is worth preserving.  You may feel differently.

 

And, by the way (per my previous post), Glacier Park visitors arrive at stops other than East Glacier and West Glacier.  Whitefish, with rental car facilities, certainly is a preferred stop for park visitors, especially during the summer.

[ecoli]

Sam1

MidlandMike

Sam1

...

There is no reason that route has to be operated by Amtrak, although the American Association of Railroads has said that the freight carriers will not deal without anyone other than Amtrak. The courts probably could fix that issue.  

IIRC the Amtrak legislation specified that if a RR turned their passenger trains over to ATK, they had to let ATK use their tracks.  The courts can't rewrite a law, and I doubt Congress will pass a law requiring private railroads to accept other passenger trains.  Of course RRs could allow other passenger operators on their lines, but probably just not at the bargain prices ATK enjoys.

Lets expand my point.  Congress could rewrite the law.  In fact, I may be wrong, but it sticks in my mind that the law has been modified.  Up to two of Amtrak's long distance routes can be bid out to other potential operators.  There have, of course, been no takers.  No money in long distance trains except to lose heaps of it.  

I am not a lawyer, but I suspect push come to shove the courts could rule that refusal to allow other passenger train operators access to a freight carrier's tracks ala Amtrak would be a violation of the Commerce Clause.  It has been used to justify heaps of changes.

You're not a lawyer. The Commerce Clause gives the US Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce. For example, if Congress decides that it's in the public interest to pass a law giving Amtrak a monopoly (and the courts agree that's rational), the Commerce Clause is what gives Congress that power. Conversely, if Congress were to force freight carriers to let non-Amtrak companies use their tracks (and the courts agree there's a rational public interest, and it doesn't violate another provision of the Constitution), the Commerce Clause would give Congress the power. But absent legislation from Congress, a non-Amtrak company can't argue that the Commerce Clause gives it access to freight-carrier tracks, because the Commerce Clause gives power to Congress, not to companies. As MidlandMike remarked, it's politically unlikely that today's Congress would force freight carriers against their wishes to allow open access; besides, depending on the details, today's courts might find that such a law constituted a taking of private property forbidden by the 5th Amendment.

[John WR]

schlimm

I have to agree with Paul M. about at least one of his points, namely that it is important for passenger rail advocates to have their facts straight.  Otherwise it results in the speaker losing credibility and thus has a negative impact on convincing neutral folks of the trains' value. 

Schlimm,  

It is always desirable for all of us to have our facts straight no matter what we may "advocate" or even comment on.  But to single out one group for that kind of criticism is to suggest that human beings who take one particular position are somehow different from all other human beings.  I can think of no greater distortion of the facts than that.  

John