Is It Time to Retire/Replace Amtrak?

RussNelson wrote:Yer making stuff up! In Istanbul, Turkey, there are a variety of bus companies. They all use the same payment system and bus stops, so that people choose the bus that's going their way, avoiding bus companies that aren't well-run. The city doesn't interfere with the private busses. They set up the routes, and if no private bus company feels a particular route will be profitable, the city runs that route.

And the bus companies paid to have the road built too, I suppose? That's what I meant by the phrase "in isolation". I have yet to see any mode of passenger transport where a private company can pay for the initial infrastructure and still turn a profit. There are plenty of profitable bus lines on roads which are alreay built. Likwise, if the government paid to build a new high-speed rail line, doubtless a private company could turn a profit while paying for operating expenses.

MudLake wrote: It's not a long-standing fact but here's one: Southwest Airlines makes money every year. Now before we get 10 whines stating "they're subsidized!" keep in mind that the airlines don't keep the large tax amount and the security surcharges that go into every ticket, all for paying the government's cost of running the air system. There are also landing fees that are paid to the airports to support that part of the infrastructure.

See above-Southwest Airlines didn't pay anything towards having the airports built. It only pays fees to maintain it. As i said earlier, that model of covering operating expenses is quite feasible, but you still need government to build the initial infrastructure for any mode.

RussNelson wrote:I think that in a head-to-head, cost per person-mile, competition, rail will always come out ahead.

I tend to agree 100%. The only reason rail lost out to air and auto in the last 50 years is because of the disproportionate funding (both direct and indirect) of those two modes. Some politicians decided that for whatever reason air and auto were the future, and then voted accordingly. Since it's probably unrealistic to expect government-funding of transportation to end, all we can do is treat all modes equally regarding funding.

The big problem with Amtrak is MONEY. You can't set up an organization to operate passenger trains (Amtrak in 1971) and
then starve it every year. That it is still operating and actually carrying the heaviest loads since its beginning is a good
sign of its value.
Interstate travel should be a federal function in cooperation with the states involved in each route. There are some good
railroad people with Amtrak but their hands have been tied by the lack of federal support especially at the White House.
If anybody thinks a private solution is possible, why didn't the railroads persue passenger operations in the 60's? There
were only maybe one or two who were even interested in promoting passenger service in the last months leading up to day
one of Amtrak.
Here in Fort Lauderdale there is a big controversy over improvements to the local airport. They would not be needed if we
had a decent corridor type passenger service between here and Tampa, Orlando and Jacksonville which could take a huge
load of pressure off the local airport. The existing railroad system could be improved and upgraded far cheaper than
the work that they are proposing for the airport and no homes would be disrupted either.
Finally, Amtrak has the contract and the rights with the freight railroads to operate passenger trains over tracks that are
owned and controlled by the freight railroads. These freight railroads do NOT have to deal with any other passenger carriers
if they do not choose to and my guess is that for the most part, they will not choose to.
I agree that Amtrak needs to make some changes but you don't wipe out the whole system just because they are not doing
everything correctly.
I think the original proposal on here echo's the same stuff that is coming out of some places in Washington and is probably
an effort in disguise to just plain run the intercity passenger trains for the most part into the bone yard.
Noel Weaver

The British example is showing signs of a turnaround after some early pains but is still hardly a perfect solution, nor is it the model that could even be employed here in the States (the existing railroad infrastructure is not nationalized to be privatized).

Note that the infrastructure is now once again nationalised. Network Rail is a company that is in reality owned by the government - though New Labour pretends it isn't.

New Zealand has also bought back its rail infrastructure. I think the privatisation craze has gone into reverse. It didn't work, in the sense of producing good infrastructure.

Back in the 1960s the only trains and planes that concerned me were made of plastic or wood and usually came to me at Christmastime or on my birthday. But that era was an interesting time for transportation issues and the decisions made back then are certainly interesting to me 40 years later. When I was a kid the airline and passenger rail industries were tightly controlled by federal regulations regarding route authority and ticket prices. Airlines were fighting to receive route authorizations and ticket prices were kept high while the railroads were fighting to dump routes and/or raise ticket prices. For the citizens who wanted to travel at their own pace, the government was collecting a penny-a-gallon gas tax to pay for constructing an interstate highway system and major roads were lined with gas stations that pumped your gas, checked the oil and cleaned your windshield--all for about 20 cents a gallon.

from Mr. Weaver:

Here in Fort Lauderdale there is a big controversy over improvements to the local airport. They would not be needed if we had a decent corridor type passenger service between here and Tampa, Orlando and Jacksonville which could take a huge load of pressure off the local airport. The existing railroad system could be improved and upgraded far cheaper than the work that they are proposing for the airport and no homes would be disrupted either.

That story is being played out all across America. Seattle-Tacoma International Airport has spent over $1 billion on building a 3rd runway. If the $1 billion had instead been invested in the Cascades Corridor, the major cities in the Pacific Northwest would have 110 mph ground transportation that would easily and reliably beat the fly or drive times. Floridians have also had their chance at high speed intrastate passenger rail, but who can say "no" to a $10 airline ticket.

It's clearly time to re-focus Amtrak's mission. Congress seems to have divided itself into 2 attitudes; either Amtrak is a lazy dog that needs to be shot or it's an expensive mistress that needs to be kept--mainly for the scenery. Neither attitude is correct and neither attitude will solve the transportation problems we face.

Vincent wrote:

It's clearly time to re-focus Amtrak's mission. Congress seems to have divided itself into 2 attitudes; either Amtrak is a lazy dog that needs to be shot or it's an expensive mistress that needs to be kept--mainly for the scenery. Neither attitude is correct and neither attitude will solve the transportation problems we face

Mr. Vincent has put the ball 'way up there in the cheap seats. Although Amtrak has regained some creedence from the public in the light of the new energy picture, its perception among individual voters varies greatly, depending primarily upon what part of the organization they've dealt with. And this mixed message also applies to many politicians and opinion leaders.

Separating the institution into its component parts would allow each to be dealt with on a separate basis. It would also help to identify which segments of the public receive the greatest and most direct benefit, and would aid in allocating costs.

Unfortunately, it would also likely reveal the most blatant examples of waste and pork, and the beneficiaries are likely to protest loud and long at the prospect of no longer having accesss to the Federal trough. But if the economic difficulties worsen, this is an action that likely will have to be taken

2nd trick op wrote:Vincent wrote:

It's clearly time to re-focus Amtrak's mission. Congress seems to have divided itself into 2 attitudes; either Amtrak is a lazy dog that needs to be shot or it's an expensive mistress that needs to be kept--mainly for the scenery. Neither attitude is correct and neither attitude will solve the transportation problems we face

Mr. Vincent has put the ball 'way up there in the cheap seats. Although Amtrak has regained some creedence from the public in the light of the new energy picture, its perception among individual voters varies greatly, depending primarily upon what part of the organization they've dealt with. And this mixed message also applies to many politicians and opinion leaders.

Separating the institution into its component parts would allow each to be dealt with on a separate basis. It would also help to identify which segments of the public receive the greatest and most direct benefit, and would aid in allocating costs.

Unfortunately, it would also likely reveal the most blatant examples of waste and pork, and the beneficiaries are likely to protest loud and long at the prospect of no longer having accesss to the Federal trough. But if the economic difficulties worsen, this is an action that likely will have to be taken

Yes, and this goes right back to what has been commented in this forum a number of times. Amtrak costs the taxpayers relatively little money, delivers relatively little benefit to citizens, and Congress along with the Administration(s) are willing to leave it as such since it costs too much in opinion capital to get rid of it and too much in real capital to make into something truly useful.

This is how it will remain until someone is willing to take a risk. At some point Amtrak has to get rid of services that are sucking up money and returning little in real benefit. By "real benefit" I don't mean trains that appeal to rail buffs who want to take a leisurely vacation across the country by train with the taxpayer footing 50% of their fare. Until Amtrak and it's supporters in Washington finally make up their minds that Amtrak has to be oriented toward solving the most pressing transportation needs that Amtrak has unique abilities to solve, there won't be a consensus to provide it with the massive capital that it's going to need. Do we have the courage to leave the past behind so we can pursue the future?

jtr1962 wrote:And the bus companies paid to have the road built too, I suppose? That's what I meant by the phrase "in isolation". I have yet to see any mode of passenger transport where a private company can pay for the initial infrastructure and still turn a profit.

There are multiple privately built highways in the United States. If you don't go looking for something because you're afraid it will change your closely-held ideas, you'll never find it.

What about the various trolleys built between 1890 and 1910? I'm sure that a large percentage of them made money, at least until 1928 anyway.

RussNelson wrote:There are multiple privately built highways in the United States. If you don't go looking for something because you're afraid it will change your closely-held ideas, you'll never find it.

What about the various trolleys built between 1890 and 1910? I'm sure that a large percentage of them made money, at least until 1928 anyway.

You're talking about a completely different time. Back then, we practically had slave labor. Nowadays it seems like it costs millions just to replace a level crossing with an overpass. We'll never see anything such as the privately built and operated trolleys of yesteryear in today's climate. The infrastructure costs are just too great. Even if labor to buid things was free (i.e. androids), you'll still run into huge court costs thanks to NIMBYs and environmental studies. The government on the other hand can use eminent domain, whereas private entities can't.

Although Amtrak was created in 1971, those of us who were young men back then can verify that on most railroads, but particularly in the Northeast, relatively little hiring was done between 1945 and 1970, as employment shrank and the remaining positions were filled by attrition.

And as noted bt futurist author Alvin Toffler in his book The Third Wave, the America of 1955 was built around large, standardized institutions in all fields; the individual was expected to adapt himself (male gender emphasized) to the pattern or risk second-class status.

Because of this convergence, Amtrak's structure was subjected to a dual time-warp; created in 1970 as an agency molded to a 1945 mentality. And the full effects of both ethnic diversity and the emancipation of women had not yet run their course at the time.

This does not bode well if the combined fuel/transportation/economic issue is pushed further into the glare of the media spotlight, and the freight railroads react with a defensive mentality, thereby risking being cast as a major villain. While they will likely fight the issue tooth-and-claw, I believe that public/media pressure for both enforcement of passenger-service priorities and, if new forms of entrepreneurship arise, some form of open access, is almost inevitable. Better to treat these issues as contingencies at present than to allow them to arise spontaneously at a time when options may be more limited.

jtr1962 wrote:You're talking about a completely different time. Back then, we practically had slave labor. Nowadays it seems like it costs millions just to replace a level crossing with an overpass. We'll never see anything such as the privately built and operated trolleys of yesteryear in today's climate. The infrastructure costs are just too great. Even if labor to buid things was free (i.e. androids), you'll still run into huge court costs thanks to NIMBYs and environmental studies. The government on the other hand can use eminent domain, whereas private entities can't.

slave labor? c'mon. it wasn't paradise, but it wasn't the ante-bellum south. the PRR paid good wages. not sure about the traction companies. we also have far more technology today that reduces the need for the massive manpower it took then. what we have now that we didn't have them was excessive regulation and litigation as you noted. as kummant said, they can build a rail line in france in less time than it takes us to get one approved. nothing but bickering, suing, environmental studies, feasibility studies, etc, etc. as funding dries up for infrastructure of all kinds, we have to decide if we can tolerate the rampant waste that occurs today. we're no longer a country that gets things done. in the old days, RR's did get land deals and they certainly could again.

Vincent wrote:Seattle-Tacoma International Airport has spent over $1 billion on building a 3rd runway. If the $1 billion had instead been invested in the Cascades Corridor, the major cities in the Pacific Northwest would have 110 mph ground transportation that would easily and reliably beat the fly or drive times.

The problem with the logic is whether to spend $1B on a single corridor (Vancouver, BC - Eugene), which provides very little travel option to the region (but great mobility, if you are travelling within the corridor), or $1B on expanding a hub operation that provides links to 74 different domestic destinations (including the three major points along the same Amtrak corridor) plus 19 international destinations (four of which are in B.C.)?

The $1B is already paid for mostly with taxes assessed by previous airline passengers; most of those funds wouldn't be available towards expanding Amtrak anyways. Whereas, Amtrak is competiting with funds for highways, schools, police officers, and so on.

Similarly, if we look at the narrow view of Sea-Tac and its "catchment area", you have 31.3 million people who flew in or out of Sea-Tac, versus 826,000 who used the Amtrak stations within 50 miles of Seattle. Basic democracy would argue that the public wants the air service and are willing to pay for it.

RussNelson wrote:Why should any taxes be spent on transportation of any kind?

Because the public voted to do so?

I would love to see for a state - any state - to actually put before its voters a plan to eliminate transportation taxes, in exchange for a true tolling system. In fact, Oregon came close by piloting a vehicle-mile tax project in which a couple hundred participants in the Portland area had GPS transponders installed in their cars. When they went to a certain gas station (they were required to go to the participating gas stations at least once a month, IIRC) their "gas tax" would be recalculated based upon the miles driven, and the fixed per-gallon gas tax would be exempted.

While the project was technically successful, public opinion has kept this project from going any further. The public is generally acceptable towards paying a gas tax, in part due to its simplicity in collection, the lack of huge technological expense (electronic transponders, fare cards) or en-route congestion (tollbooths). Meanwhile, both Oregon and Washington voters have been adament about spending highway taxes on highways, not on Amtrak. The only way Oregon is funding Amtrak is through the vanity license plate fees, while paying for roadside trash clean-up through the general fund (instead of the other way around).

One last thing, there's that pesky issue of the Constitution stating that the postal roads are a federal concern, and Congress also has the right to levy taxes. Anyone want to add Amendment 28: The right of the Government to provide for the transportation of its citizens is hereby repealed. The Government shall have no right to levy taxes, nor authorize expenditures, towards transportation related expenses.?

Actually I think this question comes at a perfect time. For years working at Amtrak I have heard older heads say "hay kid get out while you can.This outfit is going under." Well with gas prices and airlines going out of business and inflating prices on just about everything from baggage checks to seat changes. I think a National Intercity passenger railroad is definitely needed throughout the country. Even if its one train in and out of smaller cities on a daily basis. Amtrak is at record ridership this year and looks like its showing no signs of slowing down as long as gas prices and airlines are where they are. Also lets not forget some people are still afraid to fly so thats another positive for Amtrak. What I do think is what is needed is for Congress to really step in and get a hold on this funding problem Amtrak has every year and come to terms with the fact that Amtrak is here to stay whether people like it or not.

amtbuff wrote:lets not forget some people are still afraid to fly

In that case, should the U.S. government also subsidize steamship lines for people who are "afraid to fly" but want to travel to Europe and Asia...not to mention Hawaii, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa, Alaska, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands?

Mr. Halstead: In a few cases, I'm sure the government does subsidize ship travel via US Mail payments to shipping line owners. They very well may directly subsidize the owners of the ferry lines to Alaska as well. As for the other destinations, there are a few companies that will take on passengers as supercargo on regular freighters. They're being subsidized by the huge volume of freight, but be sure that they're making a profit off the passengers. Otherwise, Carnival and other cruise lines would be happy for you to spend money on their cruises, I'm sure.

This is the problem with Amtrak - Congress split passenger train travel from freight operations without giving passenger service the ability to make a profit on its own, without freight subsidy. The formation of Amtrak (and the Staggers Act) did allow freight railroads the chance to improve profitability, so take that as you will. But, the critical mass of train travel isn't in place to allow Amtrak to be profitable on any route save perhaps the NEC, and government mail subsidies are long gone, causing Amtrak's payments to railroads to fall, causing worse on-time performance, further wrecking the chances that Amtrak could carry mail for a profit.