Restating some quotes from the Midwest High Speed Rail Association (MHSRA) recently posted here:
"Tomorrow the House will vote on an authorization for Amtrak. Before the vote, anti-rail opponents introduced an amendment to the Passenger Rail Authorization bill (H.R. 749) that would cut all funding for Amtrak. These extreme voices, buoyed by outside groups like the Heritage Foundation, want to decimate a rapidly growing service that millions of Americans depend on each year.Anti-rail opponents have held America back for decades. Over the past 50 years dozens of other countries have introduced world-class high-speed trains and passed us by. Yet, despite relatively minimal levels of passenger rail funding, Amtrak ridership has skyrocketed over the past decade. At a time when we need to be making investments in our future, some members of Congress, who stick to an outdated transportation agenda, want to move us backwards. The majority of Americans who want more trains need to make themselves heard before it could be too late."
There are a lot of people to blame that we are not where we would like to be with Amtrak and passenger trains -- Amtrak itself, Congress, voters, etc. But do such press releases from advocates for trains advance the cause, hinder the cause, or perhaps in the end make little difference?
People in the "public square" and in Congress have been calling for the elimination of Amtrak ever since its inception. Is it beneficial to the cause to label our opponents as "extreme", in this case naming a conservative/Libertarian "think tank" as among the extreme people? Should we instead call them "Republicanist Zealots"?
Do such labels help the cause when the ascendancy of one party or the other in Congress often has to do with much "larger" issues than passenger trains. Furthermore, persons of Liberal or Progressive or Environmentalist political alignment are not universally supportive of the passenger train cause, so in the long run we need to be on good terms with people who may listen to Heritage on these other issues?
What does "held America back for decades" mean? The impact of trains on energy security in Europe is at best marginal -- 5 percent of total passenger miles via (largely electric) intercity rail vs .1 percent here (for largely Diesel powered). Would European-levels of passenger rail funding have made any meaningful difference regarding the environment or energy independence?
What does "minimal levels of passenger rail funding" mean? The absolute levels, yes, are minimal, but the per-passenger-mile levels are quite large. "Amtrak ridership has skyrocketed." What does "skyrocket" or "skyrocketed" mean, as this term gets used a lot in public discourse?
As for "The majority of Americans who want more trains", that is the result of polling questions? And this is followed with a kind of veiled scolding "need to make themselves hear before it could be too late." In other words, you sad-sorry sheeple out there, you tell polsters you want trains but you need to get off your hindquarters and show more enthusiasm for the cause?
Back in the day of Tony Haswell's NARP, I suppose one could advance such arguments because who had a stake in responding apart from some hidebound railroad corporate management who was paying to keep the trains running, management whose mercenary agenda was suspect and communication skills were rudimentary?
What is changed is that now that trains get intercity funding, this funding and the case pro and especially con draws attention from more stakeholders than railroad managers and directors, namely, those political "extremists." By relying on public money, the whole passenger train question opens itself up to political opposition.
Do we want to be so openly anti-Republican as it is a Republican Congress that beat back a "shut down Amtrak" provision, not only that, offering Amtrak 1.8 billion, which is actually a pretty good deal that on another thread was described as "minimal" or "stagnating"?
Does is use of "extremist", which is a "term of art" referring to people employing political violence to advance their agenda, appropriate in the context of passenger train advocacy?
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Succinctly: "If the shoe pinches...." "Every (not so) little bit (5% is 50X 0.1%) helps."
As even a 10-second examination of the vote shows clearly, it was not progressive/liberal Democrats, conservative Democrats or moderate GOP members of the House trying to scuttle Amtrak funding. It was a action in the GOP, led by organizations like Heritage.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Every little bit (such as the 5%) indeed does not help if the resources to get that 5 percent (30 billion/year according to the Vision Report) take away from something else that could give a larger return (hybrid vehicle, advanced battery, next-gen aero engines).
It is not a matter of a shoe being slightly undersized and a 5 percent adjustment making the difference. On the Climate Change front, the shoe needs to be 60-80 percent smaller.
Paul,
Thank you for putting quotes around what you were quoting. I missed them the first time, but could tell where their propaganda ended and your comments started.
FWIW I would like to see everything but NEC defunded as a waste of resources. Failing that ATK should pay at least average cost for its slots so freight carriers are not continuing to subsidize ATK and so Congress can see what ATK really costs. This last point seems too complex for the typical ATK supporter to grasp, so my first response is "Kill the beast".
Mac
Paul M: There certainly is not any growth in Amtrak passenger rail last FY. According to the September 2014 end of year report total number of rider up just 0.2% and revenue passenger miles down 2 %. So there is not any explosion. Appears that any growth is on the NEC. Now the various meltdowns of LD service in 2014 can skew the results.
Until Amtrak is forced to breakdown each route we can never know what really is going on.
The use of only one train on most LD routes per day certainly skews the operating results.
blue streak 1 Paul M: There certainly is not any growth in Amtrak passenger rail last FY. According to the September 2014 end of year report total number of rider up just 0.2% and revenue passenger miles down 2 %. So there is not any explosion. Appears that any growth is on the NEC. Now the various meltdowns of LD service in 2014 can skew the results. Until Amtrak is forced to breakdown each route we can never know what really is going on. The use of only one train on most LD routes per day certainly skews the operating results.
Your example gives a very distorted picture of Amtrak growth. Try making a more valid comparison showing the trend over the past 10-15 years.
Between FY10 and FY14 the number of Amtrak's passengers increased from 28.7 million to 30.9 million or 7.7 per cent. This was before an accounting adjustment, which had a minor impact on the overall numbers. It was not material enough to require a restatement of the financials prior to FY13.
In FY04 Amtrak carried approximately 23 million passengers vs. 30.9 million in FY14 or an increase of 34 per cent.
The number of NEC passengers in FY14 grew by 12.2 per cent compared to FY10, whilst the number of passengers on the state supported trains increased 6.2 per cent, and those on the long distance trains increased 1.5 per cent.
The increase in the number of passengers carried by Amtrak is only one indicator. Amtrak could have increased the number of passengers (people) carried even more by going for market share, i.e. sell the space at bargain basement rates, and forget about the bottom line.
Between FY10 and FY14 the average ticket price per passenger increased 18.2 per cent whilst the average cost per passenger increased 5.6 per cent. Equally important, over the same period the net loss in nominal dollars declined by 21.8 per cent or 14.9 per cent after adjustment for inflation.
Amtrak does not appear to be buying riders, especially in the corridors, by giving the store away.
Paul Milenkovic Tomorrow the House will vote on an authorization for Amtrak. Before the vote, anti-rail opponents introduced an amendment to the Passenger Rail Authorization bill (H.R. 749) that would cut all funding for Amtrak. These extreme voices, buoyed by outside groups like the Heritage Foundation, want to decimate a rapidly growing service that millions of Americans depend on each year.
What's interesting is that Bill Schuster (committee chair) pretty much shouted down and stomped on each of the amendments.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Amtrak annual ridership drpped in 2013. Nevertheless, it grew substantially over the period 2000-2014:
As per Page A-3.5 of the September 2013 Monthly Operating Report, total system ridership in FY13 was 31.6 million vs. 31.2 million in FY12.
Beginning in FY14 Amtrak changed its method for counting ridership. It began counting multi-ride e-tickets riders by actual bookings as opposed to estimates. It restated the FY13 numbers to conform to FY14 changes for comparison.
The restated FY13 ridership number was 30.9 million - rounded up, and the FY14 number was 30.9 - rounded down. The numbers are shown on Page A-3.5 of the September FY14 Monthly Operating Report.
The ridership numbers were unaudited at the time the FY14 report was issued. However, Amtrak has not issued a revised operating report, so I assume that the ridership numbers are good.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.