by Rockingham Racer
I think it's a foregone conclusion that Amtrak will add service, corridors--call them what you will--only when states put up the money for them. Texas? Forget about it.
Railroad Forums
Moderators: GirlOnTheTrain, mtuandrew, Tadman
Rockingham Racer wrote: ↑Tue Sep 10, 2019 7:00 pm I think it's a foregone conclusion that Amtrak will add service, corridors--call them what you will--only when states put up the money for them. Texas? Forget about it.Amtrak could lower the PRIIA rate and entice non-traditional states to fund service expansion. Indiana might bite again (possibly), Ohio might bite, but Texas feels to me a stronger possibility. Unlike those two states, Texas already partly finds a corridor.
gokeefe wrote: ↑Tue Sep 10, 2019 11:12 pm I think using the word "support" is a complete misread of his own statements. Anderson's interest in expansion is focused on corridors. He made it very clear in the article linked recently that Amtrak follows the law and fulfills their statutory mandate.I hope this is on topic, but I've always been struck by how much Congressional support Amtrak has enjoyed for decades when most states have never had more than a token amount of service. Is it mostly symbolic? I'm guessing that many of their constituents in Tulsa or Columbus or wherever might like the idea of Amtrak service if they thought about it - but that's probably not often. Is it that the supporters of trains are more vocal while the indifferent majority are just that - indifferent?
He is using that kind of language to make it absolutely clear to Congress that they have won the fight and they don't need to worry about him going after the Southwest Chief or any of the other major money losers again.
These routes are still operating because that's what Congress has told Amtrak to do. Anderson clearly would still like to cut several of them but he now knows he most certainly cannot.
In the meantime he's cutting where he can and foodservice reductions are one of the few areas that he could safely address with the support of Congress.
I think he's very sharp and is going about these changes in a very intelligent way. The level of nuance and grasp of fine detail seems very promising to me. The most recent example being enhancements to the Auto Train dining service and sleeper amenities. He knows the company has a winner on that route and is going to make it perform even better.
Paul1705 wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2019 10:51 pmYou hit the nail on the head. It's hard for people to really want what they've never had (in the case of Tulsa) or haven't had since 1979 (in the case of Columbus). Sure other Congressmen may discuss Amtrak and expansion and it will sound like a great idea ... until the price tag is shown. Then there's the big cities like my Philly. Sure, the Acela/NER are important to them. But the Silver Service? I may want to use it to go to Florida but the average Philadelphia area resident likely won't and the Philadelphia/Pennsylvania Congressmen has many more issues on their mind than those trains or the Three Rivers back in the 2000's. On the other hand, the Montana Congressional representation will fight hard for the Empire Builder and in the Senate there are enough irrelevant states so they get what they want (plus back in the 1990's/2000's it didn't hurt that one of theirs was the Senate Majority leader). The idea of getting rid of the trains in the irrelevant states and serving the Tulsa's and Columbus's with the same appropriation will never fly because the Montana's and West Virginia's will fight tooth and nail to prevent it from happening, thus the status quo will remain (and if there are cuts, they will probably be in the trains where people want to go but hey you'll always be able to go to Shelby, MT!)
I hope this is on topic, but I've always been struck by how much Congressional support Amtrak has enjoyed for decades when most states have never had more than a token amount of service. Is it mostly symbolic? I'm guessing that many of their constituents in Tulsa or Columbus or wherever might like the idea of Amtrak service if they thought about it - but that's probably not often. Is it that the supporters of trains are more vocal while the indifferent majority are just that - indifferent?
Philly Amtrak Fan wrote: ↑Sun Sep 22, 2019 5:50 am You hit the nail on the head. It's hard for people to really want what they've never had (in the case of Tulsa) or haven't had since 1979 (in the case of Columbus). Sure other Congressmen may discuss Amtrak and expansion and it will sound like a great idea ... until the price tag is shown. Then there's the big cities like my Philly. Sure, the Acela/NER are important to them. But the Silver Service? I may want to use it to go to Florida but the average Philadelphia area resident likely won't and the Philadelphia/Pennsylvania Congressmen has many more issues on their mind than those trains or the Three Rivers back in the 2000's. On the other hand, the Montana Congressional representation will fight hard for the Empire Builder and in the Senate there are enough irrelevant states so they get what they want (plus back in the 1990's/2000's it didn't hurt that one of theirs was the Senate Majority leader). The idea of getting rid of the trains in the irrelevant states and serving the Tulsa's and Columbus's with the same appropriation will never fly because the Montana's and West Virginia's will fight tooth and nail to prevent it from happening, thus the status quo will remain (and if there are cuts, they will probably be in the trains where people want to go but hey you'll always be able to go to Shelby, MT!)As long as Amtrak relies upon federal subsidies every year you should expect politics to effect where the trains go every day. Some might not even think Shelby, MT ranks high enough in traffic to have a federally funded highway running through it. But they pay federal taxes just like everyone else and expect services in return. I'm positively sure the taxpayers in Tulsa, OK and Columbus, OH feel the same way too.
Paul1705 wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2019 10:51 pmI hope this is on topic, but I've always been struck by how much Congressional support Amtrak has enjoyed for decades when most states have never had more than a token amount of service. Is it mostly symbolic? I'm guessing that many of their constituents in Tulsa or Columbus or wherever might like the idea of Amtrak service if they thought about it - but that's probably not often. Is it that the supporters of trains are more vocal while the indifferent majority are just that - indifferent?It's partly that nobody wants to be the politician responsible for "taking away our train". This is especially true now that Amtrak has been able to operate for so long without completely losing all ridership. Furthermore recent growth has proven the value of the service to the most rural locations (especially on the Empire Builder).
electricron wrote: ↑Sun Sep 22, 2019 7:42 amRegarding the Empire Builder, Cardinal, etc.: I think the Congressional role in Amtrak has mostly been defensive or reactive. They have been able to retain various trains (or influence the original routes in 1971) but they haven't been willing to fund significant expansion.Philly Amtrak Fan wrote: ↑Sun Sep 22, 2019 5:50 am You hit the nail on the head. It's hard for people to really want what they've never had (in the case of Tulsa) or haven't had since 1979 (in the case of Columbus). Sure other Congressmen may discuss Amtrak and expansion and it will sound like a great idea ... until the price tag is shown. Then there's the big cities like my Philly. Sure, the Acela/NER are important to them. But the Silver Service? I may want to use it to go to Florida but the average Philadelphia area resident likely won't and the Philadelphia/Pennsylvania Congressmen has many more issues on their mind than those trains or the Three Rivers back in the 2000's. On the other hand, the Montana Congressional representation will fight hard for the Empire Builder and in the Senate there are enough irrelevant states so they get what they want (plus back in the 1990's/2000's it didn't hurt that one of theirs was the Senate Majority leader). The idea of getting rid of the trains in the irrelevant states and serving the Tulsa's and Columbus's with the same appropriation will never fly because the Montana's and West Virginia's will fight tooth and nail to prevent it from happening, thus the status quo will remain (and if there are cuts, they will probably be in the trains where people want to go but hey you'll always be able to go to Shelby, MT!)As long as Amtrak relies upon federal subsidies every year you should expect politics to effect where the trains go every day. Some might not even think Shelby, MT ranks high enough in traffic to have a federally funded highway running through it. But they pay federal taxes just like everyone else and expect services in return. I'm positively sure the taxpayers in Tulsa, OK and Columbus, OH feel the same way too.
You want to get rid of long distance Amtrak trains, your first step should be to eliminate politics entering into the debate by eliminating all federal subsidies going to Amtrak. Once Amtrak is standing upon it own two feet financially, then they can determine exactly where they wish to provide services where demand for it is high enough to earn a profit. You know that old capitalist quote of supply meeting demand might actually be true. As long as government subsidies occur, demand for services will always overcome Amtrak's ability to supply it.
gokeefe wrote: ↑Sun Sep 22, 2019 2:44 pmThat is indeed a long period of time. But, even though no one expected to get back to the peaks of 1917 or 1945, Amtrak has not become a significant transportation alternative outside of the Northeast.Paul1705 wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2019 10:51 pmI hope this is on topic, but I've always been struck by how much Congressional support Amtrak has enjoyed for decades when most states have never had more than a token amount of service. Is it mostly symbolic? I'm guessing that many of their constituents in Tulsa or Columbus or wherever might like the idea of Amtrak service if they thought about it - but that's probably not often. Is it that the supporters of trains are more vocal while the indifferent majority are just that - indifferent?It's partly that nobody wants to be the politician responsible for "taking away our train". This is especially true now that Amtrak has been able to operate for so long without completely losing all ridership. Furthermore recent growth has proven the value of the service to the most rural locations (especially on the Empire Builder).
Consider this ... Amtrak's nearly 50 year operating history is equal in length to the private railroads from 1971 to 1923. That's a very significant span of time which includes the post WWI and post WWII passenger peaks.
Another 20 years and Amtrak will have operated for as long as the private railroads did in the entirety of the 20th century.
Paul1705 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 26, 2019 8:10 pmThat is indeed a long period of time. But, even though no one expected to get back to the peaks of 1917 or 1945, Amtrak has not become a significant transportation alternative outside of the Northeast.To an extent that's raising the bar beyond reason. I would note first the market share that Amtrak has clawed back from the airlines in the Northeast. Intercity rail was well on its way to total failure, even on the Northeast Corridor in 1971.