Trump proposes cutting long distance support

[David Benton]

No need. The budget that eventually gets passed will look nothing like the original proposal. All the Congress members will add amendments and restore their pet programs, because doing so will only be a rounding figure. They can knock a few unnecessary bits of hardware from the military budget and pay for all the knick knacks that people care about.

I think the problem will be they will want their "pet programs "restored, but still want the overall budget to Amtrak reduced. At the end of the day, the total amount Amtrak gets is what matters , no matter how they slice it up. Since Trump failed to even mention his infrastructure program, it seems extra capital is off the table this year.

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

I'm going to disagree with that statement. If trains serve Philly, I'm happy. If trains are thousands of miles away from Philly, I'm not happy (especially since I'm paying for them). Think I'm selfish? So are most Congressmen/women with their "pet projects".

[ryanov]

I guess to me it seems more intelligent to support trains running from the place I live to all sorts of other places to which I'd like to travel (which so far have included Chicago, St. Louis, New Orleans, Boston, DC, Charleston, etc.), and places to and from which people like me also might want to travel. So yes, among other things, I guess I do.

[David Benton]

I didn't mean to imply that. In my opinion, it is a elected politician's duty to fight for his local constituents, and get them the best deal possible. My point was they tend to do that without thinking about the overall picture, and want "their train" saved , but also want overall Amtrak funding cut.

[eustis22]

congressmen can't do earmarks anymore.

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

I didn't mean to imply that. In my opinion, it is a elected politician's duty to fight for his local constituents, and get them the best deal possible. My point was they tend to do that without thinking about the overall picture, and want "their train" saved , but also want overall Amtrak funding cut.

This is why if I had my way Amtrak would be privately funded (or some private companies offered intercity passenger rail). I don't trust Congress with Amtrak as they stole my train and many others from 1979 because Byrd Crap was more important (Amtrak actually did cut it before Byrd demanded it return but the others lost he didn't care to save). The only reason Congressmen/women care about Amtrak is when their trains get cut. You think Byrd gave a crap about Amtrak? He would've shut down the entire system except for the Cardinal and Capitol Limited if he could (do you think it's a coincidence the Capitol Limited got started in the first place and eventually replaced the Broadway Limited?) You can bet Congress will try to see how much of a system they can get away with and you better hope your Senator is a senior member who will get what he/she wants and not a junior member who will be pushed over. I've said before this is called nepotism. I wouldn't be surprised if they kept the Empire Builder and cut the Silver Meteor and pushed all the Florida traffic onto the Silver Star like they did when they cut the Broadway Limited/Three Rivers and pushed all of the Chicago-New York traffic onto the Lake Shore Limited. If Congress is truly limiting the budget and LD trains are going to be cut, you better hope your train doesn't become the next National Limited, Floridian, Lone Star, or Broadway Limited/Three Rivers. They should give Amtrak the money and let them decide which trains to keep and which trains to get rid of.

[dcipjr]

This is why if I had my way Amtrak would be privately funded (or some private companies offered intercity passenger rail).

How would that work? Isn't long distance passenger rail inherently unprofitable? How would a privatized system today end up any differently than the privatized systems in the past, like the PRR, Reading, NY Central, etc.?

I'm not trying to shoot down your idea, I'm just curious if something really could be done differently. It seems to me that some government funding would always be needed.

[Safetee]

Say what you will but Iowa Pacific has been the most recent major "money where our mouth" is for privately funded rail passenger transportation. No expense has been spared to make sure that their trains, personnel, and amenities were all top notch. And to date, none of the IP properties have "made money". Without freight revenue and or sufficient subsidies private passenger operations are doomed.

For as long as I can remember, any proposed financing of railroad passenger service by the government has been greeted with cat calls of socialism. Bear in mind however that virtually none of our transportation today could fly without subsidies. I don't care if you're talking trucks, planes, buses, pipelines, barges, and now even freight railroads have their hands out. The complete cost of infrastructure, equipment, safety, personnel all lumped together make transportation of anything or anybody a very expensive business. Now the government increasingly finds itself in the business of subsidizing competing modes. It would be interesting to see how passenger rail would stand in a world with no transportation subsidies for any mode. As it is today, there is no question that passenger trains in of themselves can not survive without subsidies.

On a similar note, it will be interesting to see how the new administration comes up with a plan for rebuilding all the nations transportation infrastructure using private funds. In my opinion, without a payback of some kind for private investors, only a government financed infrastructure rebuilding plan funded by the evil t word is viable.

[rr503]

Yeah. In the past, most private infrastructure pushes have failed. Look at the Indiana tollway, for example. The state gave it over to a private operator, who, to make a return, put tolls, decreasing traffic, causing them to raise tolls, etc. The problem with doing private infrastructure (especially roads) in this country is that to make $$$, tolls/taxes are needed. It just ends up being more pricy than govt operation at cost.

Rail is another story though. Brightline raises interesting questions, and it will be interesting to see what happens there. I do think there is a future for at the very least p3s in rail operations in the US.

[David Benton]

The Coast Starlight is the only long distance train that runs through states that all support corridor trains. I would say it is the LD train with the biggest portion of its route shared with corridors.
I would say if anyone wanted to crunch some numbers, or come up with alternative proposals, this would be the train to do it on.
OTOH, these three states probably wouldn't take kindly to having to fork out more money because of a President Trump measure.

[AgentSkelly]

Coast Starlight is a pretty healthy train from what I remember, it survives despite issues with UP. However with that said, if it went back to its pre-Amtrak configuration of two separate trains of Seattle-Portland-Oakland and Oakland-LA, it wouldn't be end of the world.

[Arlington]

The Coast Starlight is pretty "typical" as far as LDS go: $14.5M in revenues so far this year versus $31.6M in costs, which is about at the same average as the whole system--the Coast Starlight is like most other "typical", covering only 1/2 of costs.

Empire Builder and Sunset are down at covering only 1/3 of costs
Auto Train and Palmetto cover about 90% of costs from revenue

[daylight4449]

Then lets assume that the long distance trains stay on... What do the Autotrain and Palmetto do or offer that allows them to cover that much of a chunk of their costs?

[SouthernRailway]

After the healthcare bill debacle, I don't see this administration fighting for anything, particularly fighting for cuts to Amtrak long-distance trains.

[R36 Combine Coach]

The Coast Starlight is the only long distance train that runs through states that all support corridor trains. I would say it is the LD train with the biggest portion of its route shared with corridors.

Also the only western LD to parallel a freeway much of its length: U.S. 101 south of the Bay Area and I-5 north of Sacramento.