Rethinking Amtrak and rail in the U.S.

[mlrr]

I concur with ThridRail7.

Being a professional transportation planner myself and after having ready your unsupported claim that the commuter agencies cited make all of their money back (which I know for a fact is completely wrong), there seems to be no way to have a productive conversation. It is simply talking in circles.

Also keep in mind that just because folks "feel the pinch" of the gas tax, tolls and taxes associated with airline tickets doesn't mean that other modes of transportation pay for themselves 100%. They don't. The only difference is that those modes have dedicated sources of revenue streams. Airports, highways, bridges and tunnels are ALL publicly subsidized (as they should be). Intercity passenger rail is just another option that IS being used.

RocketJet's logic precludes ANY infrastructure built or maintained in the U.S.

[RocketJet]

I concur with ThridRail7.

Being a professional transportation planner myself and after having ready your unsupported claim that the commuter agencies cited make all of their money back (which I know for a fact is completely wrong), there seems to be no way to have a productive conversation. It is simply talking in circles.

Also keep in mind that just because folks "feel the pinch" of the gas tax, tolls and taxes associated with airline tickets doesn't mean that other modes of transportation pay for themselves 100%. They don't. The only difference is that those modes have dedicated sources of revenue streams. Airports, highways, bridges and tunnels are ALL publicly subsidized (as they should be). Intercity passenger rail is just another option that IS being used.

RocketJet's logic precludes ANY infrastructure built or maintained in the U.S.

s

Come on people, I'm really trying not to insult anybodies intelligence, a simple "I think you are wrong and this is why" would have sufficed, no need for personal attacks. Talking in circles requires two people, you may say I am repeating myself but then so are you, I tried to level with you on my last post but I guess as it is a public forum, people get accused of either being stupid or trolling if they say something that is different than what the other person thinks.

You have constantly requested me for more numbers, more evidence, even to do my own formal studies. I do not care enough to argue with you than to waste my time finding every single bit of data there is. I have repeatedly shown that Amtrak is broken and is a subsidized mess right now, those numbers are the most important in all of this. I guarantee you commuter rail does better than Amtrak as a rule and arguing with that is silly, if you want to prove me wrong, show me your numbers:)

Amtrak is SIGNIFICANTLY different than other infrastructure because it has the LEAST contribution to the American economy than ANY other form of transit, that is why. Giving them more funding is not going to change that. In my opinion, the best thing we can do is to see what works here, what works in other countries, and see what could work, and replicate it. Amtrak has not been working but I do not think it is beyond saving.

Gas is getting more expensive (on a large scale at least) and may give Amtrak a boost but people still love their cars too much, that is why original rail companies wanted to get out of passenger rail, they lacked the ability to be profitable in the modern market.

Amtrak uses the old system that didn't work, I don't understand why everyone disagrees with me, we place way to much importance the Amtrak corporation probably because we are train fans but in the great scheme of things, the government has much more needed uses of what little money we have, at least to just inflate Amtrak's budget. I am not saying we should not give Amtrak more money, I am just saying that of we do, we need a new game plan.

Besides those advocating for a huge change in how Amtrak operates, I have heard two things: maintain the status quo or just give Amtrak more money. Throwing money into something without changing how you manage it never helps, our school systems are an example of that although I do not want to get into that debate. If we want to no longer have the worst rail system of any major developed nation, we need to stop thinking about keeping Amtrak on life support but reorganizing it to fit a bigger market.

[mlrr]

Ok, I'll return to the discussion one more time:

As far as personal attacks, nobody is personally attacking you. I admit it is frustrating (I can only speak for myself) when no NEW counterpoints are offered. There's no discussion. Everyone here has provided NEW counterpoints to your claims but people end up repeating themselves because you've offered nothing new, hence talking in circles. There are plenty of knowledgeable folks here who are willing to have a stimulating debate but you have to (as they say in my neighborhood) "come correct". I learned that in my earlier years on the forum. So I will address one claim at a time and see where this goes:

Gas is getting more expensive (on a large scale at least) and may give Amtrak a boost but people still love their cars too much, that is why original rail companies wanted to get out of passenger rail, they lacked the ability to be profitable in the modern market.

Private passenger service was NEVER profitable, that's a fact. It too was SUBSIDIZED by the railroads' freight revenue. All that means is that revenue sharing from freight operations allowed for covering the losses on passenger service.

Please only address my counterpoint with a counterpoint you haven't mentioned before. If you don't have one, please raise another.

Kyle

[AgentSkelly]

I would not go far as saying Amtrak is using the old system but rather they are using an old system that was updated from certain aspects of the Airline industry of the 1970s and 1980s and just it some how works better...

[mtuandrew]

Gas is getting more expensive (on a large scale at least) and may give Amtrak a boost but people still love their cars too much, that is why original rail companies wanted to get out of passenger rail, they lacked the ability to be profitable in the modern market.

Private passenger service was NEVER profitable, that's a fact. It too was SUBSIDIZED by the railroads' freight revenue. All that means is that revenue sharing from freight operations allowed for covering the losses on passenger service.

Specifically, US Mail supported the passenger lines in the United States until the late 1960s. That traffic isn't coming back without major governmental investment for high speeds (the freight railroads' Z trains are nearly as fast as a passenger schedule and much more reliable, and long-haul truckers have eaten most of the really high-value traffic) and cross-country Amtrak ownership of railroads (since Amtrak is barred from carrying freight over third-party lines.)

[R36 Combine Coach]

Gas is getting more expensive (on a large scale at least) and may give Amtrak a boost but people still love their cars too much, that is why original rail companies wanted to get out of passenger rail, they lacked the ability to be profitable in the modern market.

Private passenger service was NEVER profitable, that's a fact. It too was SUBSIDIZED by the railroads' freight revenue. All that means is that revenue sharing from freight operations allowed for covering the losses on passenger service.

Specifically, US Mail supported the passenger lines in the United States until the late 1960s. That traffic isn't coming back without major governmental investment for high speeds (the freight railroads' Z trains are nearly as fast as a passenger schedule and much more reliable, and long-haul truckers have eaten most of the really high-value traffic) and cross-country Amtrak ownership of railroads (since Amtrak is barred from carrying freight over third-party lines.)

Amtrak has carried mail, but since the Gunn era cuts to Mail & Express in 2005, this has been largely moot. But in the NEC, the high speeds and transit times between major cities could be feasible again.

[H Street Landlord]

Amtrak is SIGNIFICANTLY different than other infrastructure because it has the LEAST contribution to the American economy than ANY other form of transit, that is why.

Source for this statement?

"Gas is getting more expensive (on a large scale at least) and may give Amtrak a boost but people still love their cars too much, that is why original rail companies wanted to get out of passenger rail, they lacked the ability to be profitable in the modern market."
Source?

VMT per capita is down and number of driver's licenses per capita is down significantly: http://dc.streetsblog.org/2012/06/29/go ... obsession/

I can point to other sources -
public transportation was up significantly the last year, Amtrak ridership continues to increase 3.5% a year. Where are your sources for your assumptions?

[RocketJet]

I hate having to keep reposting this:
http://subsidyscope.org/transportation/ ... rak/table/

Out of all the travel in America for the entire years, there were 28,716,407 separate train trips in 2008 on Amtrak's roughly 44 different routes. Since then the numbers have increased, but not off the charts or anything. Out of those numbers 10,897,852 along came from the NEC (3 trains) and 13,648,196 (26 trains) came from the shorter, slightly less popular but still sustainable shorter Amtrak routes. That leaves ONLY 4,170,359 for 15 of Amtrak's Long distance trains which are also the most expensive and costly routes, that is less than 15% of all rail travel on the Amtrak system. That is a loss of $481,800,000 on those 15 routes alone with all the money we pay to use them.

We need to look at this as a marginal cost vs marginal benefit. Something has to change, the service given does not outweigh the cost to keep it going. Passenger Railroads need to serve more people with greater efficiency with better speeds and quality for the about of money the taxpayer gives them in addition to riders.

[Noel Weaver]

I do not know who "Rocket Jet" actually is but I would not be the least bit surprised if he/she is a government agent or maybe a politician who has an ax to grind with regard to either Amtrak or rail passenger service. Maybe it is part of the political establishment who is very anti Amtrak. I don't know and maybe nobody else knows either. This tread seems to be to have political purposes and I think it serves no purpose to continue this nonsense. The participants on here should be talking about building up our railroad passenger operations and not tearing them apart. I have had enough of this one.
Noel Weaver

[25Hz]

I do not know who "Rocket Jet" actually is but I would not be the least bit surprised if he/she is a government agent or maybe a politician who has an ax to grind with regard to either Amtrak or rail passenger service. Maybe it is part of the political establishment who is very anti Amtrak. I don't know and maybe nobody else knows either. This tread seems to be to have political purposes and I think it serves no purpose to continue this nonsense. The participants on here should be talking about building up our railroad passenger operations and not tearing them apart. I have had enough of this one.
Noel Weaver

I concur.

Amtrak needs to be beefed up, not watered down.

It costs the government next to nothing in the annual federal budget. Lets talk about wasteful spending in the military. Do we really need a fully manned base in every country? Do we need scores of aircraft constantly taking off & landing on aircraft carriers? Do we really need haliburton & mcdonald's on bases & in active forward operating areas? What happened to the military making its own food? What happened to security teams being military vs contractors? We have the largest military (by equipment & spending), consumption of petroleum distillates, food stuffs, and fleet of civilian vehicles in the world. Lets cut some of that, or is amtrak a safer topic politically when talking about spending?

Where's the thousands of new bridges that we need? Where are the building energy consumption & materials use restrictions? People talk about how regulations infringe on our "freedom". The very lifestyle we are living as a nation is limiting us, so i call BS on that one.

Lets talk about real issues, and come up with real solutions, and stop with the half measures & circle talking.

/rant

[mlrr]

I hate having to keep reposting this:
http://subsidyscope.org/transportation/ ... rak/table/

Out of all the travel in America for the entire years, there were 28,716,407 separate train trips in 2008 on Amtrak's roughly 44 different routes. Since then the numbers have increased, but not off the charts or anything. Out of those numbers 10,897,852 along came from the NEC (3 trains) and 13,648,196 (26 trains) came from the shorter, slightly less popular but still sustainable shorter Amtrak routes. That leaves ONLY 4,170,359 for 15 of Amtrak's Long distance trains which are also the most expensive and costly routes, that is less than 15% of all rail travel on the Amtrak system. That is a loss of $481,800,000 on those 15 routes alone with all the money we pay to use them.

We need to look at this as a marginal cost vs marginal benefit. Something has to change, the service given does not outweigh the cost to keep it going. Passenger Railroads need to serve more people with greater efficiency with better speeds and quality for the about of money the taxpayer gives them in addition to riders.

Can't say I've tried after having attempted to step away from the cyclical conversation for the first time. Nowhere in the response was my last reply even acknowledged:

As far as personal attacks, nobody is personally attacking you. I admit it is frustrating (I can only speak for myself) when no NEW counterpoints are offered. There's no discussion. Everyone here has provided NEW counterpoints to your claims but people end up repeating themselves because you've offered nothing new, hence talking in circles. There are plenty of knowledgeable folks here who are willing to have a stimulating debate but you have to (as they say in my neighborhood) "come correct". I learned that in my earlier years on the forum. So I will address one claim at a time and see where this goes:

Gas is getting more expensive (on a large scale at least) and may give Amtrak a boost but people still love their cars too much, that is why original rail companies wanted to get out of passenger rail, they lacked the ability to be profitable in the modern market.

Private passenger service was NEVER profitable, that's a fact. It too was SUBSIDIZED by the railroads' freight revenue. All that means is that revenue sharing from freight operations allowed for covering the losses on passenger service.

Please only address my counterpoint with a counterpoint you haven't mentioned before. If you don't have one, please raise another.

Kyle

One who does not want to know, but knows everything can be one of the most destructive and unproductive mentalities in society.

[CComMack]

Now, now, no need to get conspiracy-minded. I'm sure Mr. RocketJet is no more than what he says he is, not least because if he weren't, he would write better. Or much worse, depending. In any event, there are plenty of people who come by such opinions honestly; all those Reason and Cato papers sound quite convincing if one never hears (or never listens to) the counterarguments. At least Mr. RocketJet has the courage of his incorrect convictions to show up here; hopefully he will be willing to follow that up by learning a few things while he's here. Let's give him that opportunity.

Now, to any sane individual who doesn't run a hedge fund or a private equity firm, $481 million sounds like an awful lot of money. But in the context of a Federal Government that just passed a two year, $105 billion -- note the b -- transportation bill, and state and local governments that will spend even more, and leave pressing maintenance needs totalling even more than *that* unfunded... and that 451 million starts to look an awful lot like what it actually is, in context: a rounding error. Amtrak, and especially the long-distance network, has been a repository for physical and human capital required for the preservation and eventual restoration of rail passenger transportation in this country, which would be orders of magnitude more expensive to rebuild from scratch had we zeroed it out in the 1970s. Now that the freight railroads are deregulated and back to solid profitability (and, in the Northeast, back in private sector hands), and the rail passenger market is not only growing, but has clear signs of having latent demand (like the success of the Lynchburg NER), we can now pivot to the question of how to put meat on the bones of the Amtrak skeleton. That is far from a settled question, and shows every sign of having multiple answers. California needs a lot of greenfield right-of-way for 220 mph trains, which might end up having nothing to do with Amtrak. The Midwest needs signal upgrades to go 110 mph behind conventional diesels. The Northeast needs a list of incremental upgrades the length of my arm, plus tunnels under the Hudson. Everywhere needs more frequencies, and the rolling stock to support them.

The entire reason railroads, unlike airplanes, have provided a financial return since their invention, is that they have absurd economies of scale, which breaks a lot of naive microeconomic analysis which assumes that sort of thing to be impossible; hence one problem with "[looking] at this as a marginal cost vs marginal benefit". Another comes from the political nature of Amtrak; politics being the art of the possible, sometimes the business case for a plan really will be "this will get us votes", and there is nothing to be done about that without renouncing democracy. Much of what goes on here involves learning about the constraints the planners and engineers labor under; those constraints are as often political as they are technical or financial.

[25Hz]

Very well said. And it should be pointed out again that the DOTsec and president of amtrak are both republican.

[RocketJet]

I do not know who "Rocket Jet" actually is but I would not be the least bit surprised if he/she is a government agent or maybe a politician who has an ax to grind with regard to either Amtrak or rail passenger service. Maybe it is part of the political establishment who is very anti Amtrak. I don't know and maybe nobody else knows either. This tread seems to be to have political purposes and I think it serves no purpose to continue this nonsense. The participants on here should be talking about building up our railroad passenger operations and not tearing them apart. I have had enough of this one.
Noel Weaver

Oh please, let's not get carried away, it could be argued the other way that some of the others on this forum work for Amtrak and are therefore partisan as well. Let's not get into that, just objectivity:) If you think it is nonsense, don't contribute, it is just a discussion.

Now, now, no need to get conspiracy-minded. I'm sure Mr. RocketJet is no more than what he says he is, not least because if he weren't, he would write better. Or much worse, depending. In any event, there are plenty of people who come by such opinions honestly; all those Reason and Cato papers sound quite convincing if one never hears (or never listens to) the counterarguments. At least Mr. RocketJet has the courage of his incorrect convictions to show up here; hopefully he will be willing to follow that up by learning a few things while he's here. Let's give him that opportunity.

Now, to any sane individual who doesn't run a hedge fund or a private equity firm, $481 million sounds like an awful lot of money. But in the context of a Federal Government that just passed a two year, $105 billion -- note the b -- transportation bill, and state and local governments that will spend even more, and leave pressing maintenance needs totalling even more than *that* unfunded... and that 451 million starts to look an awful lot like what it actually is, in context: a rounding error. Amtrak, and especially the long-distance network, has been a repository for physical and human capital required for the preservation and eventual restoration of rail passenger transportation in this country, which would be orders of magnitude more expensive to rebuild from scratch had we zeroed it out in the 1970s. Now that the freight railroads are deregulated and back to solid profitability (and, in the Northeast, back in private sector hands), and the rail passenger market is not only growing, but has clear signs of having latent demand (like the success of the Lynchburg NER), we can now pivot to the question of how to put meat on the bones of the Amtrak skeleton. That is far from a settled question, and shows every sign of having multiple answers. California needs a lot of greenfield right-of-way for 220 mph trains, which might end up having nothing to do with Amtrak. The Midwest needs signal upgrades to go 110 mph behind conventional diesels. The Northeast needs a list of incremental upgrades the length of my arm, plus tunnels under the Hudson. Everywhere needs more frequencies, and the rolling stock to support them.

The entire reason railroads, unlike airplanes, have provided a financial return since their invention, is that they have absurd economies of scale, which breaks a lot of naive microeconomic analysis which assumes that sort of thing to be impossible; hence one problem with "[looking] at this as a marginal cost vs marginal benefit". Another comes from the political nature of Amtrak; politics being the art of the possible, sometimes the business case for a plan really will be "this will get us votes", and there is nothing to be done about that without renouncing democracy. Much of what goes on here involves learning about the constraints the planners and engineers labor under; those constraints are as often political as they are technical or financial.

I appreciate your sense towards the other silliness people have mentioned with some completely unfounded personal attacks and judgement but what makes you think my convictions are incorrect? The ideas may be wrong in your opinion but I find even that a little presumptuous, if people don't like what they hear, don't just say something like "you are stupid", qualify the arguments and consider the problems.

ANYWAY, back on topic. I would rely on the marginal cost versus benefit entirely if not for the fact that it is a public organization providing a service like freeways, electricity, and water (in some places at least). My view is that the service is far too poor and has FAR to small of a reasonably targeted market for Amtrak to be continually operated as it has been, even if they somehow give it more money. You (not you specifically), keep giving significant value to Amtrak's long distance network but then criticize my numbers when you give me none that directly support the necessity and rationality for continuing Amtrak's LD service. I will say this, railroads are no exception to the rules of the economy and government-funded programs.

I would be very careful to say "they have absurd economies of scale, which breaks a lot of naive microeconomic analysis which assumes that sort of thing to be impossible." They played by the same rules and fell apart in the 1970's for the same reason anything falls apart, they provided a service not enough people wanted anymore. The problem is not just money, the bigger problem I would argue is design.

Now seriously, I am not here to kill Amtrak, I simply think it needs to be reorganized to target reasonable markets. Because of Amtrak, which most non-railroaders consider to be a failed experiment (I wouldn't say that without qualifying it, there has been some lessons learned), railroads have not been able to go the way of Europe and China. Now, a HUGE part of that has to do with budget but they all learned something important. They redesigned their railroads in the 1990's to fit the modern markets of today, basically focusing on city-city routes. Today, that is the service most used by average people. Munich-Hamburg, Madrid-Barcelona, Paris-Lyon etc.

My plan was extreme, I admit that, but will any of you seriously say that Amtrak will become much more used and sustainable if we just gave them money without reorganizing the system as a whole, without reallocating service to where people are actually going and in great numbers?

[mlrr]

Contrary to what you may think, there are members on this very forum that actually agree with some of the thoughts you've shared but have not necessarily come to the same conclusions you have. A certain GB Norman comes to mind as he has voiced his opinion several times about his views on long distance routes. Nevertheless there is still a discussion that ensues and though both sides agree to disagree, both sides take something away from the conversation. That's at least the way I've seen it during my membership.

One of the biggest mistakes is to come to the table with a conclusion and expect an actual discussion. That is how the thread started and so there is very little room left for evolution in that discussion and thus folks like myself and others are frustrated and turn our attention elsewhere. Instead of repeatedly conveying your conclusion, think about asking questions learn about the other side's justifications for supporting what to you would seem like a broken system. Don't expect for everyone to "see the light" from your point of view. It should be a learning experience for both sides. Unfortunately, I have personally, yet to see anything "new" from your point of view that I haven't heard before and it is pretty typical of Washington Amtrak opponents (as it exists today anyway).

Unfortunately your posts suggest that you approach the discussion with a closed mind casting anyone who disagrees with your conclusion as an Amtrak fan with a nostalgic affection for the organization. Many have all heard the "bottom line" argument beat to death over and over. Why? Because it's the simplest "black and white" argument to use that requires little analysis other than looking at the numbers. Factoring in economics, social issues and understanding of how transportation infrastructure cannot be determined solely on profitability make it a bit more of a sophisticated topic.

I say this with all due respect with no intention of insulting you or your opinions. I personally welcome the debate but not "talking in circles".