More anti-Amtrak from the heartland

http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/news/op ... edd02.html
According to a report issued by the government in June, Amtrak is in its worst financial shape ever. The national passenger railroad is carrying debt topping $3 billion, and it lost $944 million last year alone, despite a growing ridership of 22.5 million passengers.

It's a subsidy, not a loss....
Never-the-less, is Amtrak in its worst financial shape ever?

well , he's abput 5 million low on the ridership for a start .

Looks like they are using FY2003 ridership numbers and a several year old debt number. Amtrak had 28.7 million passengers in FY2010 and based on the increase so far this year, should exceed 30 million this year. Amtrak debt is down to $2 billion. The Amtrak FY2012 budget request to Congress has a current overall summary of it's financial and operating status. See http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/BlobServe ... Budget.pdf.

If all the revenue sources are added, Amtrak is covering 85% of it's operating cost. After the past few years of better funding, stimulus money which addressed many of the most critical maintenance and system needs, and increased ticket revenue, Amtrak is in much better shape than it was 5 to 8 years ago.

Ron, please note that your linked material is Opinion, not reportage. Let us also note that this opinion originates from a region that hasn't seen a passenger train since A-Day and likely will never see one again.

All told, if Amtrak is in a position to offer, and a carbuilder is prepared to accept, an order for 130 single level cars for which there is presently no specific appropriation, then somehow I would think Amtrak is feeling pretty good about the "copper in the hopper". Unlike most other Federal agencies, because so much of Amtrak's budget comes from Service Fees, or otherwise ticket sales, the additional revenue from a ridership increase flows to Amtrak and not to the US Treasury. They are not under any requirement to return a portion of their appropriation owing to this fortunate circumstance.

But on the other hand, best expend that appropriation lest you lose it next fiscal year.

It's even less than Opinion. It's a letter to the editor. Columns at most papers are subjected to some nominal fact-checking, and consideration of credibility of source, whereas letters to the editor aren't.

Anyone interested in writing a quick, gentle reply to the paper correcting the errors?

218+51+1.

Iowa sees 1 stop on 3/4 daily and 5 stops on 5/6 daily (none of which directly serve one of Iowa's more significant cities).

You expect Iowans to be pro-Amtrak? You expect the Iowa Congressional delegation to be pro-Amtrak?

They have no stake in it.

If you want support, even from Letters to the Editor, then you have to give a State a stake.

There's work on bringing Amtrak to Iowa's doorstep in the Quad Cities (2013/14 is what I hear) with an extension to Iowa City (2015 is what I hear) and far future extensions through Des Moines to Omaha.

I've also read news that Gov. Branstad is open to spending the allocated money on upgrading the rails to Iowa City, but isn't so keen on the obligation to subsidize the train's operation after the initial construction.

So I don't know that I'd say that Iowa has no stake in this, but I'd hesitate to say that they want a stake.

http://www.qcrail.com/

Mr. Norman wrote:

Let us also note that this opinion originates from a region that hasn't seen a passenger train since A-Day and likely will never see one again.

Yep.

And while were at it, let's not forget that Sioux City lies at the northwest corner of Iowa, and that its surrounding area includes portions of Nebraska (minimal Amtrak service) and South Dakota (None).

And that its economy is based largely on the agricultural model which has little compatibility with rail pasenger service.

Yet an attitude that "We urbanites know what's best for you bumpkins." persists at some portions of this site.

Clearly, the HSR program is becoming an albatross which is discrediting an Amtrak which could (by tradeoffs with programs better suited to an agrarian region) be adapted to better deal with the enegy and infrastrucural issues.

Dead birds soon start to smell.

John_Perkowski wrote:218+51+1.

Iowa sees 1 stop on 3/4 daily and 5 stops on 5/6 daily (none of which directly serve one of Iowa's more significant cities).

You expect Iowans to be pro-Amtrak? You expect the Iowa Congressional delegation to be pro-Amtrak?

They have no stake in it.

If you want support, even from Letters to the Editor, then you have to give a State a stake.

Well DOT has tried to (the extension of the in-development QC service to Iowa City), but the Gov. doesn't seem to want to take it.

2nd trick op wrote:And while were at it, let's not forget that Sioux City lies at the northwest corner of Iowa, and that its surrounding area includes portions of Nebraska (minimal Amtrak service) and South Dakota (None).

And that its economy is based largely on the agricultural model which has little compatibility with rail pasenger service.

Yet an attitude that "We urbanites know what's best for you bumpkins." persists at some portions of this site.

What the heck does that mean??

Rural areas have older populations than the nation as a whole (Iowa being a prime example), which are increasingly in need of alternatives to driving, and public transportation options (either bus or Amtrak) in such areas have shriveled in recent years.

Nonetheless, I'm sure it's better to pay farm subsidies than "waste" money on Amtrak .....

John_Perkowski wrote:218+51+1.

Iowa sees 1 stop on 3/4 daily and 5 stops on 5/6 daily (none of which directly serve one of Iowa's more significant cities).

You expect Iowans to be pro-Amtrak? You expect the Iowa Congressional delegation to be pro-Amtrak?

They have no stake in it.

If you want support, even from Letters to the Editor, then you have to give a State a stake.

They may not be pro-Amtrak, but I wish they'd at least get their facts straight.

Sort of reminds me of Norman Mineta. I had to decide if he was merely incompetent or actively lying after he kept repeating facts about Amtrak that he had been told were wrong.

I'm up for honest debate, and I can certainly see feelings playing a part in a debate. But as they say, everyone is entitled to their opinion, but not their facts. The author of the letter seems to think he can pick any facts he wants to support his argument.

Not picking on John, since I know you know better, just that your post was a good leaping off point.

I think it's an unfortunate viewpoint but one that is completely accurate for that area. I would murder someone if I didn't have trains in Chicago - it's the only way to get around. Despite my propensity for fast gas hogs, I parked mine before winter and haven't seen it since, and it's been delightful. But if I lived in Sioux City (I've lived in South Bend, Lawrence, and Oxford, so I get the small-town idea) I would go nuts without a car. Some guys live twenty miles outside of town, are we going to build a light rail to every four corners outside Sioux City? No.

The train makes sense in corridors and certain LD routes that seem to do well, like 3/4. Other than that, it doesn't surprise me that Sioux City thinks it's unfair to be taxed to run one train/day to Chicago, when most of the Siouxians probably go to Denver more than anywhere else big.

Hence, my 218+whatever=/= nothing rule. Corridor states vote for defense spending near Sioux City, and Sioux City votes for corridor trains near Chicago or New York.

For background: there's occasionally talk of an extended Heartland Flyer from MSP, west through Willmar and down to Sioux Falls, then to Sioux City, Omaha and Kansas City before continuing to Wichita and Oklahoma City. That's about the only way Sioux City is getting Amtrak service, short of a stub train from Omaha to Sioux Falls, and to say it's "unlikely" is kind.

StationAficionado wrote:

2nd trick op wrote:
And while were at it, let's not forget that Sioux City lies at the northwest corner of Iowa, and that its surrounding area includes portions of Nebraska (minimal Amtrak service) and South Dakota (None).

And that its economy is based largely on the agricultural model which has little compatibility with rail pasenger service.

Yet an attitude that "We urbanites know what's best for you bumpkins." persists at some portions of this site.

(Station Aficionado Replied:)

"What the heck does that mean??"

Rural areas have older populations than the nation as a whole (Iowa being a prime example), which are increasingly in need of alternatives to driving, and public transportation options (either bus or Amtrak) in such areas have shriveled in recent years."

Most rural areas no longer have the popuation to sustain even a highway bus service on a private basis. A subsidized bus or vanpool system is likely to be all a contracting economy can sustain. (This writer, BTW, grew up on a dairy farm and operated the Greyhound/Trailways franchise in his home town of Berwick, Penna, for two years.)

Mr. Aficionado's unsubsantiated generalizatons regarding rural life, biased both by age and by cultural differences, simply serve as more evidence that the rail passenger and HSR advocacies have been hijacked by people who are long on youthful enthusiasm and short on economic facts.

What irony.

As Amtrak fights off cuts ot its subsidy, our busy beavers in Washington have enhanced Essential Air Service (EAS).

From the Plattsburgh (NY) Press-Republican:

http://pressrepublican.com/0100_news/x1 ... l-airports