hsr_fan wrote:The following is my near term wish list for Amtrak, keeping things realistic (no new TGV style services or 300 mph maglev trains included here). If I were in charge of Amtrak, I guess you could say these would be my "pet projects", so to speak. These are things that I would like to see happen within the next couple of years...certainly within no more than 5 years. Yes, they are somewhat biased toward east coast services, being that I live on the east coast and am an Amtrak customer primarily in this region. What are your opinions on the likelihood of the following?
Being that I am a west-coaster and have never even been to the "right" coast save for Memphis (which isn't really the coast), I am going to restrict my comments largely to those services offered west of Chicago, with one exception.
That exception being - the NEC has proven, over decades, that it is a vital and essential transit route for both passengers and freight, by various operators, and that the proposal to force the states to take over operation would simply be a disaster in the making. Understanding that parts of the NEC are already owned by the individual states, I propose that the NEC essentially become part of the Interstate Highway System/National Highway System, in which either the states can maintain their own stretches or they can form some sort of partnership or independent public corporation to do so, but the funding would be 80/20 or greater. The sum of the NEC is greater than its parts, and as such national ownership or national recognition is important, as is the rest of the National Highway System.
West of Chicago, I will then separate my comments into short haul/corridor, and long haul.
Short Haul services should be regulated and administered (from a funding standpoint) by the FTA (Federal Transit Administration), not the FRA. The FTA already has the experience to carefully evaluate these types of projects, whereas the FRA's experience is demonstrated to be greatest in freight railroad oversight (safety oversight). The FTA has guidelines for determining the financial viability of such projects when it comes to federal funding for either capital or operating expenses.
It is understood that many of the corridor projects are conceived with the goal of reducing traffic on nearby highways; exactly the same as most FTA related business - busses, light-rail and heavy-rail commuter systems, which all fall under the FTA. The FTA can better analysis other options, to determine whether corridor rail is the 'best' option (and given the number of commuter rail and light-rail systems being planned, it is not necessarily pro-highway/anti-rail).
Amtrak's own commuter and 403(b) operations, using its own accounting, "makes a profit", or covers its operating costs. Certainly this is by design, and by no means faulty - however is this the intent of government? Amtrak, as we speak today, has too many hats to wear, and is distracted. This business should be spun off, which would allow the government to recoup some of the investment it made, while allowing a new profitable business to exist. I agree that Amtrak has had certain tax benefits, and as a government contractor it may be in the best interest for Congress to enact laws which allow certain tax advantages to continue for this new company, as well as any other company engaged in the same business (i.e. First, Herzog, or the freight railroads which perform commuter rail services). This would lower the cost for those other commuter rail lines, and provide little to no financial burden on the government.
This leaves the LD network.
There is a "need", but what is the "need" and how can it be measured? Further, what is the role of government to provide this "need" - is it "essential", is there a severe negative in not providing this "need" that would cause extreme hardship to this nation?
Those questions must be answered, to determine how LD train travel will continue. We can answer it now, as the Bush Administration has been prodding, or we can answer it later, as Congress is doing, but we have to answer it. Let's stop the B.S. and do it.
I envision a LD network that consists of a network of all class 1 mainlines, that can safely operate a passenger train at 55 MPH or greater (and an average speed of probably 30-35 MPH), has a minimum of ABS signalling (preferrably CTC), and had passenger service prior to 1971 - or is a new route built after 1971.
Each route will be designated, and set to bid to private operators. Each operator can pick as many routes as they want to operate, or as little as one. Each route will have a minimum of one daily round-trip serving the entire route. Each route will have a minimum service level, which will include a certain number of coach seats available, sleeping spaces, and access to dining and/or lounge services. The operator must provide or make arrangements for sleeping and lounge/dining services but may contract them out to another company (kind of like the old Pullman Company).
The federal FTA or FRA will create a new agency to oversee the LD network, separate from the corridor/commuter trains as well as the NEC and its connecting services. The role of the new agency will be to manage and oversee the train operators, hold the rights to track access, hold the host railroads accountable for undue passenger train delays (including fines/penalties), as well as hold passenger operators accountable for poor service and/or delays that they cause (which can include fines/penalties, or loss of the contract). In addition, an office will be created to operate trains in the event one of the private operators is unable to fulfill its contract, which will last a minimum of one year, and possibly a maximum of two years with right for renewal.
As the federal government (Amtrak) already owns a fleet of cars, these cars will be made available to the private operators for a lease of $1 per year. After the inital contract, the private operators may purchase the cars, or purchase their own equipment. However, once the existing cars need to be replaced, the operators will be responsible for acquiring their own equipment - with the exception of coaches, which will be paid for, and title held by, the DOT.
The federal government will make payments to assist the operation of these trains in the following ways:
1. Nominal payments to the freight railroads for access to their privately owned right-of-way. This can be in the form of tax credits/deductions, or as a train/mile payment.
2. Federal grants for passenger rail improvements, which reduce train delay by improving track speed or increasing capacity (i.e. new or longer sidings, improved yard trackage, improved station trackage).
3. The federal government will reimburse passenger operators the cost of coach passenger transportation if provided at an "above-the-rails" operating loss.
4. The federal government will also provide a flat fee to the carriers for each coach, dining and lounge car operated, for the transport of those cars; if the passenger operator purchases equipment. During the time the operators lease cars from the federal government, they will not receive a fee, however they will only pay $1 per car per year for the use of the cars.)
If a route receives no bids, then no service will be offered. Individual states can, and are encouraged to, assist in the recruitment of potential operators. However, the routes must be operated as whole components, unless it can be shown that a portion of the route is simply unviable, but other portions have sufficient traffic potential.
Note that I have not made any equipment recommendations unlike the past posters. I am not an equipment utilization manager. I believe these decisions must be made at a local level, based upon sound economics, and knowledge of traffic patterns and load factors. Further, I believe that trains have the advantage of adjusting for loads, unlike airlines (if you schedule a 767-200 but only 60% of it is used, you have to somehow move that aircraft to another route, and replace it with a smaller aircraft, like a 737-400/800/900 or a 757-200, or comparable Airbus.) To make a blanket statement that a particular train must have a certain consist, and even of a certain mix of cars, implies that trains are fixed and cannot adjust for load, resulting in either too much capacity (which wastes money) or too little capacity (which turns away revenue). At the least, the LD trains should have coaches, sleepers and a diner. I disagree with the federal subsidy on sleepers and diners, but I also agree that the LD trains do not make sense without them, it reduces those trains to Greyhound busses on rails, and thus would have no benefit to Greyhound (and we don't subsidize Greyhound, yet they are in business. (Please do not give me the whole "we subsidize highways" line, Greyhound pays highway use, fuel and registration taxes, they pay their share just like any other highway user. Greyhound is not the exclusive user of the roads, they should not be burdened with the entire cost.) The only reason that we are currently restricted to Superliners now, is because that is what exists. It is possible that, given a new "breath of fresh air", that new car designs from foreign makers or even Colorado Railcar, Talgo or Kalawsaki, could rival the old Superliner, even if the new equipment is single-level.
In essence, Amtrak of today, I do not envision a future for. I envision passenger rail with federal leadership and guidance and support, and I support the federal government taking a very proactive look at passenger rail in all its forms - local (transit/commuter), regional (corridor), and long distance, as well as looking over the NEC. I support limited funding of rail services were appropriate and were services are necessary or cannot be provided by other means or the private sector without such partnership. I support financial controls and accounting that are consistent with general practices and industry standards, and as this mode of transportation will receive taxdollar support well into the future, that accounting should be brought all the way down to the route level. I believe the public has a right to know what they are paying for and what the benefit is, and whether a particular route is justified for taxpayer support. I believe that "costs" should be clearly defined, and easy to understand unlike the current calculations. I agree that certain overhead costs are just that, overhead, every company has such costs that are too difficult and meaningless to drive down, that those overhead costs are simply attributed to the overall user (reservations/marketing/sales costs, are a good example. General office/administrative is another.) Any good company knows what its overhead is, keeps those costs as low as possible, and builds that overhead into the prices it sells its product/service for.
I believe the NEC needs to be separated from train operations, there are too many operators as it is. Right now, Amtrak is reduced to Acela (which supposedly used to make an "above-the-rails" profit until the brake issue) and a few other trains. Doing so would create one company whose sole existence is to maintain track and ensure the safety of its operating partners. As a "national highway system" component, there is no profit motive, and the FRA and FTA would oversee it to ensure that its funding (either through direct government grant/subsidy/allocation or through payments by its operators, including transit operators, or a combination of both) is consistent with the goal of maintaining a "state of good repair" and safety, and does not create a culture of waste or cutting corners.
