Amtrak to spin off NE Corridor?

My question is this - and although I didn't look at all the various news articles yet, it might be mentioned in there, and if so, I apologize -

How is this state/federal partership going to work? The "blue states" in the Northeast, which i believe all of them, or at least those with the NEC running through them, only receive a portion of each dollar sent down to washington in transportation funding? How is this going to work? NJ for example, is having a hard time coming up with cash to match fed funds with the new SAFETEA projects - and now, more of the burden of operation is to be shifted to the states? Granted, maybe this new company could do a better job with the tens of millions (actually i think its over 100million) that NJT pays Amtrak yearly, but they could do worse as well.

What happens when things break? What happens when wires come down/switches get frozen, bridges get stuck and struck, signals stop working, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc. A PASSENGER railroad isn't one where you can fix things when its more convienent - and the NEC is hanging in there, but every year its getting older and older, and more and more trains are running -

Again, I think that Amtrak should shut down the NEC for at LEAST one day - including ALL commuter operations that run an inch on Amtrak rails. I honestly don't believe that the Feds realize how IMPORTANT passenger rail is to the US, especially the Northeast. How ever many billlions it costs to run Amtrak on a yearly basis, is NOTHING compared to the lost productiving of the Bowash megaopolis.....That will wake up W's people to the importantness of Amtrak

Yes, something needs to be done, but give Amtrak the money to do the improvements that they have identified first on the NEC and give passenger rail the attention it deserves first before starting to carve up the whole operation.

Shutting down Amtrak for a day, especially with the potential for an end-of-service in the forseeable future, may or may not work out as Jtgshu.

I'm going to make an assumption that most people who ride over the NEC (primarily commuters on lines like MARC, SEPTA, NJT, and Metro-North) are not particularly aware of the role Amtrak is in with regard to the NEC.

For most those people, shutting down Amtrak service is "merely" going to be a major disruption of their day, and they're going to make arrangements around it (probably by driving instead of taking a train). The reasons for it are generally going to be lost on them, and if they read news coverage that explains it well (unlikely, given the general quality of railroad-related reporting I've seen) they probably won't care too much.

I think a close analogy to the situation would be a worker's strike. More often than not, all the strike does is to frustrate people into going somewhere else for whatever they were hoping to get; the strike is primarily targeted at getting the attention of the management, and secondarily to calling public attention to the situation. Most people generally don't even know what the strike is about; they only know it makes their lives a little more frustrating (by having to go a different store, take a different method of transport, etc.) One post over in the SEPTA forum regarding the possibility of a strike by the transit worker's union said that "Yeah, you [SEPTA] moved me alright, right into South Jersey, thanks to their asinine strikes!"

I believe that shutting down Amtrak for a day would tend to have a similar effect on people; they still need to get to work, but they'll find an alternative because they have to, and some will tend to keep using that alternative because there isn't an incentive to change back to the train.

That's one possibility, and it tends to depend on the initial assumption I noted above. I don't think it's an unlikely situation, though, since for the vast majority of riders, the trains are a means to an end, and there are other options, such as driving or taking a bus, available to them if the trains stop running.

On the other hand, if the right volume and tone of media attention can be brought on the issue before any shutdown, maybe it would be possible to convince enough commuters to take notice of the situation and press for change. I just don't see this scenario as likely, given the relatively high "boring factor" for it as a news story for the paper or the "6 o'clock news," and the apathy among commuters as a result of not knowing the situation (and not really caring, so long as they get to and from work).

Phil, good points made, adn maybe a stoppage wouldn't be "beneficial" but maybe it would be - The operating and front line people at Amtrak, especially those who work on the NEC gave up hope a long time ago - there is a shirt in NYP in teh Amtrak rest area, that says "SEVEN years without a contract......" Workers are fleeing Amtrak to other railroads and organizations. They work their tails off day in and day out, doing the best with what they can, and the gov't continues to starve it more and more, and yet they have to worry EVERY WEEK about their paycheck clearing.....

In all honesty, what do they have to loose?

Those familar with NJ rail history, remember the revolt of the passengers and front line workers (in particular the worker's Union leadership) on the NY and LB RR (now the NJT coast line) people were fed up with the trains, the horrendous service adn equipment, breakdowns and derailments, all steming from inadequate funding and the state not taking rail seriously. The thought of "ignore it and it will go away" was prevalent. Protests and rallies were prevalant, and even strikes, the RR'ers of NJT were on strike for the first few weeks of its existance.

The state was FORCED to take rail seriously, and adequately fund operations and improvements. And although NJT in its present state has its shortfalls and problems, its 1000000 times better than rail in the state of NJ 20 to 30 years ago.

Something major like this needs to take place on a Federal level with Amtrak as a whole and the people whos lives directly and indirectly depend on it. EVERYONE needs a wake up call.......

I think there's one important element that may be missing here. I have heard that, by itself, Amtrak's NEC operations turn a profit. The revenues from that profit are, in large part, spent elsewhere in the Amtrak network as cross-subsidies.

Let's imagine that Amtrak's NEC operations were spun off as a separate entity. Then, all the NEC profits would stay in the NEC, and the new NEC company would actually have the money to do the necessary improvements. It's even conceivable that they might be able to be a proper private company, i.e. without having to constantly beg for operations money from the Feds.

It's true that would harm the rest of Amtrak. But the rest of Amtrak is not sustainable; many of their trains just lose too much money. I love trains, and I believe in passenger rail, but I believe we would all be better off to scrap the no-hoper services, and spend the money saved on improving and upgrading the services that actually do have a prayer - like the NEC. If the NEC actually worked well, maybe we would see a change of heart on Joe American, as he gets a chance to see how useful and convenient a proper rail network, albeit a limited one, can really be. As it is, will a trip on the NEC convince your average voter to support expansion of rail services to his hometown elsewhere? Not hardly.

krtaylor wrote:It's true that would harm the rest of Amtrak. But the rest of Amtrak is not sustainable; many of their trains just lose too much money. I love trains, and I believe in passenger rail, but I believe we would all be better off to scrap the no-hoper services, and spend the money saved on improving and upgrading the services that actually do have a prayer - like the NEC. If the NEC actually worked well, maybe we would see a change of heart on Joe American, as he gets a chance to see how useful and convenient a proper rail network, albeit a limited one, can really be. As it is, will a trip on the NEC convince your average voter to support expansion of rail services to his hometown elsewhere? Not hardly.

It may very well be the case that passenger rail (in its present form) is unsustainable in other parts of the country, but I don't see a profitable NEC corporation somehow inspiring more support for rail services in other places. For one thing, and this point has been made before in other threads here, is that the NEC has certain characteristics that make it fairly unique among rail lines in the US. For one thing, the high population densities along the way, coupled with the particular endpoints for the lines (Washington DC, New York, and to a slightly lesser extent Boston) are all quite popular in their own right, and a whole trip can be made in a few hours, without requiring any sleeper or dining services.

There are some other areas of the country that might benefit from an NEC-like setup and operation, I'm sure (I'm hard-pressed to come up with any at the moment, but they're out there). I don't think that very many areas have the same volume of commuters (especially comparatively long-distance commuters; the people who buy Amtrak monthly passes for NEC travel), and many areas, especially away from the coastal areas (east and west) are far less urbanized.

One of the things that rail has to offer people in order to succeed is something they can't get any other way. For some people, especially in the NJ area, they can get to jobs in Manhattan without the hassle of driving and parking. For others, it's the ability to relax while traveling, instead of focusing on driving. For others it's avoiding airport security hassles and delays. But rail is not a door-to-door service; people who work in Manhattan take the train not because it takes them right to work, but because they can ride the subway or the MTA bus there. Washington has the Metro and Boston has the T. Along the way there are local services that offer more destinations than Amtrak.

(At this point, I've lost track of what point I was trying to make. Forgive me if what follows is unconnected to what precedes.)

You say that the rest of Amtrak is not sustainable. However, it's mere existence and continued operation is important. One thing we're coming to realize of late is that once rail services goes away, it's much harder to restart it later than to upgrade existing service, particularly along dedicated lines, which, admittedly, Amtrak has few, if any, of outside of the NEC.

However, the NEC has been running, and decently well, for many years. Any improvements that may come about as a result of different ownership are likely to be evolutionary and not revolutionary. To those not using the corridor, and to many of those who do, even, it will continue to be business as usual. It's unlikely to inspire many changes of heart, and even when it does, the corridor approach will not work everywhere. Any expansion (or perhaps reactivation, if the "unsustainable" services disappear) of service is not likely to take a different form than it has today, because of the "catch 22" associated with it: offering more service may entice more people to ride, but to prevent any new service from being even more unsustainable, you need ridership, and so on (not to mention the likely opposition from the freight carriers which own the lines and are not likely to permit more service or dispatch it well, and the virtually-certain opposition of "NIMBYs" to building new lines or reactivating abandoned ones).

Well stated thoughts posted above, Mr. Taylor. That's pretty much my view as well. What's in place now is NOT working and just throwing more of my 28% at it will NOT make it work any better.

Incidentally, as much as I like trains (and ride NJT's NEC daily) a one day shutdown only means I'll be on NJT #68 bus shaving about 20 minutes off my commute time each way. (Kind of like I do now when Amtrak's switches freeze up or the catenary collapses or the Portal bridge catches fire/gets stuck open, etc,...)

pgengler wrote:Any expansion (or perhaps reactivation, if the "unsustainable" services disappear) of service is not likely to take a different form than it has today, because of the "catch 22" associated with it: offering more service may entice more people to ride, but to prevent any new service from being even more unsustainable, you need ridership, and so on (not to mention the likely opposition from the freight carriers which own the lines and are not likely to permit more service or dispatch it well, and the virtually-certain opposition of "NIMBYs" to building new lines or reactivating abandoned ones).

Precisely my point. Rather than have dozens of all but useless one-train-a-day services, Amtrak (or its successor) should examine likely places, particularly commuter runs, and flood them with service.

Case in point. I live north of Boston. There are a TON of people who commute to Boston every day. The drive is a nightmare, the highways are overloaded, and in the winter there's bad weather. And of course, little parking. They are building the highways bigger, but everyone knows that doesn't solve the problem for long.

However, there are plenty of available rail lines around. (True, alas, they are mostly owned by the nauseating Guilford Transportation, whose goal in life is to shut them down and sell off the real estate for development, but that's where eminent domain rules come in handy.)

Amtrak's Downeaster is a success, despite few trains a day, and a schedule all but useless for commuters. Imagine if Amtrak put in service every 15 minutes, or every half hour, on the Downeaster line, and established a new line from North Station > Lowell (current terminus of the T commuter rail) > Nashua south > Nashua north > Manchester airport > Manchester center > Concord center (plenty of room for parking there.

Even with the usual 79mph services, this would be viable for anyone working in the immediate Boston downtown, given sufficiently frequent and reliable service. And, of course, and advertising blitz. What would be even better would be some modern equipment, e.g. the JetTrain, which in theory can go 150mph without electrification. If that actually worked, taking the train would be FASTER door-to-door than fighting through the traffic, not just more comfortable.

AFAIK that's not been tried since the old services between Chicago and Milwaukee - and in the case of the North Shore Line, I've read that what killed it was more of a tax anomaly, because shutting it down released a massive tax writeoff. As an operation it was still covering its costs, without subsidy, and in an era of cheap gasoline.

Unreliable service every two hours isn't going to move anybody over to rail. Fast, frequent service just might, in this day of expensive gas and huge jams. That'll never happen while Amtrak has to serve Podunk because a congressman lives there. Better to have one good line with proper service, than 20 no-hopers with irrelevant service that gets ignored.

The problem with Mr Taylor's observation is that, if the NEC turns a profit, it does so only if capital needs are ignored. So the NEC doesn't cross-subsidize other Amtrak routes; it's probably the other way around. Besides, decades of deferred maintenance mean that the NEC requires billions just to prevent the railroad from crumbling into uselessness. Mr Gunn and his managers constantly worry if the next morning will bring news of an ancient drawbridge finally giving up the ghost, or of the Baltimore tunnels collapsing or of the electrical distribution system in NYP finally failing. I don't see how anyone but the Federal Government can provide the capital for that kind of work. No private operator will be willing or able to provide this kind of massive investment.

The PRR and B&O built for the ages. I'm not saying maintenance isn't required, and long-deferred, that's a fact. But I'm not sure the tunnels are likely to actually collapse.

If, even with capital costs ignored, the NEC turns a profit but the other routes don't, then separating the NEC from the rest is still an improvement. Maybe not an instant solution, but helpful all the same, for the simple reason that more of the money generated would stay there. Maybe it still wouldn't be enough, but it would be better.

I think we should take it as given that the Feds will never pay to upgrade the NEC. It's possible that the states might, though I think that somewhat unlikely. The question isn't what pipe dreams would be nice. It's what improvements are possible to actually happen.

krtaylor wrote: I think we should take it as given that the Feds will never pay to upgrade the NEC. It's possible that the states might, though I think that somewhat unlikely. The question isn't what pipe dreams would be nice. It's what improvements are possible to actually happen.

Why? The Feds should be paying for it. The federal govement is the appropriate place for something that spans multiple states. Introducing a multi state compact only introduces further inefficients, duplication of roles, infighting between competing interests, and many more opporunities for funding to be derailed as states fail to agree on who owes/who is reponsbile for what.

This is the kind of thing the Federal Goverment ought to be doing. If they aren't doing this, we should be actively encouraging them to do so. Splitting it up to muliple states will only make the problem worse, and more costly for less service.

I fundamentally disagree. All governance ought to take place at the lowest possible level. Something like the NEC, which affects only a very few states, should be governed by those states, as they best understand the benefits that it gives them, and their voters also are more likely to be acquainted with it. Otherwise it's likely to get lost in the national shuffle. The Feds should be involved only with things that directly affect everyone. Look at where federal operation of Amtrak has gotten us - into the rather sorry mess we are in now.

krtaylor wrote:I fundamentally disagree. All governance ought to take place at the lowest possible level. Something like the NEC, which affects only a very few states, should be governed by those states, as they best understand the benefits that it gives them, and their voters also are more likely to be acquainted with it. Otherwise it's likely to get lost in the national shuffle. The Feds should be involved only with things that directly affect everyone. Look at where federal operation of Amtrak has gotten us - into the rather sorry mess we are in now.

Federal 'operation' of Amtrak is a mess because it's been threadbare funding - delaying the day the piper needs to be paid. This isn't to say it has to be this way, and we need to demand more.

And let me be clear - the current situation with Amtrak needs addressing - I just beleive that splitting it will gain us

1) A much more expensive system as a whole
2) A much harder environment in which to coordinate changes that cross state lines
3) A increasingly fragmeneted NEC - you may no longer be able to get from Boston to DC without changing trains 2 or more times
4) A more commuter focus railroad. While not a bad thing for commuters per se, it's the death of competitve intrastate rail travel.

and what happens when one state doesn't pay for improvements or service?

No, this is simply a ploy by those who hide behind the 'small goverment' flag to cover their real agenda for killing intrastate rail as a real force

And make no mistake, I'd like small govement as well - but Intrastate travel is rightly a domain of the federal goverment, perhaps in partnership with state govements, but nonetheless, driven from a federal level.

Mr Taylor--
Where would you draw the line on eligibility for Federal support? Would the activity have to involve all 50 states? What if it only impacted 49? The NEC passes through 8 states and DC. These states contain a substantial proportion of the US population. Can you think of any interstate compact that involves taxing and spending money, and includes 8 states? I can't. In NY and NJ we have the Port Authority of NY and NJ, which can barely function cooperatively. Periodically, one of the governors refuses to approve any spending until the other gives in on some issue. If there were more states it would grind to a halt. The NEC states (and DC) just won't be able to get it together to form an agency to run the NEC. I submit that this is a situation calling for Federal action and oversight.

My thinking on this issue is in a state of flux.

As a general proposition, I very much agree with Mr. Metrarider's point. But as over 30 years of experience has shown, the federal government has proven to be an absolutely terrible steward of the NEC's intercity passenger rail services. In my opinion, the quality of Amtrak's NEC services -- all of them -- has never been worse.

So I cannot fully disagree with the position of krtaylor and others that it might be better to break up responsibility for the NEC. I certainly have come to the conclusion that New York State needs to assume complete ownership and control of the Empire Corridor.

Notwithstanding all of the above, however, I think it is important to point out that the outragious actions recently taken by Amtrak's board of directors does not really even accomplish an objective of transfering the NEC to state control. To the contrary, by all reports (and we've seen this train coming), the NEC below-the-rail infrastructure is to remain in federal hands. As I understand things, the real objective of this move is ultimately to transfer Amtrak's above-the-rail NEC operations to private operators, with the feds subsidizing the whole thing by maintaining responsibility for the below-the-rail infrastructure costs, and to force states to pay for the long-hauls or otherwise allow them to be discontinued. And to my mind, that is the biggest disaster on the horizon.

As I have said above, and I don't care how much this disturbs anyone (other than our moderator, for whose judgment I will always respect and defer), the transfer of Amtrak's above-the-rail operations (or any subcomponent of them) to private operators is nothing more than an assault on Amtrak's front-line employees. There is simply no other reason why these services need to be privitized.

Private operators have demonstrated over and over again that they are no more capeable of providing rail services than publicly owned operators. In addition, as we have seen from Amtrak's failed attempt to privitize its commissary operations, the services and products provided by private operators are much more expensive than those that are publically provided.

Amtrak's front-line employees and management are good people, and they are the most capeable employees in the transportation industry -- bar none. They deserve every penny they earn, and they have already given far more to the cause of preserving intercity rail transportation than they should be expected to provide.

It makes me absolutely sick to see what the beltway Brownies are doing to our country, and to Amtrak in particular. I welcome and respect any comments from our conservative correspondents that are contrary to my thoughts. But I think it is high time that those who purport to be apolitical pull their heads out of the sand and either defend the neocon experiement (as it applies to Amtrak, of course) or offer some other approach.

Amtrak's employees/front-line management are the most capable in the transportation industry? Again, opinions, we all have em!