Trump proposes cutting long distance support

Guys, guys, guys,

You're forgetting the essential rule of Amtrak: 218+51+1

The 1 has proposed to line out the LD subsidy. The 218 and the 51 (actually 238 and 52 or so) have a bunch of fires to put out in the 1s proposed FY 18 appropriations. At this time, can any of you clearly state a Congresscritter for whom Amtrak LD funding is his/her must pass issue?

Thought so.

If you want LD service in FY18 or beyond, start calling your 3: Representative and two Senators. If you know your guy is on the Appropriations Committee (House or Senate) and the Transportation Subcommittees of same, work them really hard.

Let's leave the extraneous stuff out of this as well. There's no need to talk about SCOTUS; Congress controls the purse strings, the President wields the pen. Leave the adjectives out to the extent they don't apply. For the most part, this is a fine discussion and all well and good, but it is basically a theoretical.

http://www.whitefishpilot.com/article/2 ... /170409986" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Some local reaction from Whitefish , Montana.

It mentions a Senator writing a letter to Secretary of Transportation Elaine Chao. I am curious wether the response has been published, or wether she s on record saying anything at all about Amtrak funding.

Jon Tester of Montana can talk about how important the Empire Builder to Montana all he wants. Correct me if I'm wrong but Montana pays nothing/zero/zilch for the operating costs of the EB. Meanwhile, Pennsylvania pays for all of the operating costs of the Pennsylvanian and Keystone and if they didn't there would be no service between Pittsburgh and Philadelphia at all and the only stations that would have any service at all would be Philly, Pittsburgh, Erie, and Connellsville. I heard that the Three Rivers got canceled because PA wouldn't pay for it. Texas doesn't have train service between Dallas and Houston and they only way they will get it is if Texas pays for it. Same with Cleveland and Cincinnati. So why are taxpayers in PA, TX, OH and many other states paying for Montana's service. If Montana wants/needs service so bad, tell them to pay for it. There are 560 train miles between Wolf Point and Libby and many stations. For the money we pay to run Montana DOT we probably could run PGH to PHL, DAL to HOU, or CLE to CIN and even if the cost were higher the routes would make way more money. If I had my way, I wouldn't be paying for Montana DOT, North Dakota DOT, or the small number of passengers wanting to go from CHI or MSP to SPK, SEA, PDX. I know I have no desire or reason to spend 3 days to go to Seattle and I have made the trip to California three times the past 20 years. In 2015, I took the CZ, Thruway-Pacific Surfliner, and SWC to visit both San Fran and Los Angeles. If we have to pay for our train service, so should Montana and North Dakota. Other than Delaware, Montana and North Dakota are the two least populous states with significant train service (and Delaware isn't many train miles at all). Montana has barely over one million people (North Dakota has less than a million). Meanwhile, Kentucky has four million and only has service on the western and eastern ends while most of the state's population (Louisville and Lexington) has none. I'm not saying all LD trains are a waste of federal taxpayer money but the Empire Builder to me is (and you can guess what other train I think is as well). Several states were forced to pay for their service( (or don't and have no state supported service) but others get federally funded service.

Philly,
With respect, there are a lot of misconceptions above for which you know better. The Empire Builder is a long-distance train for which it is appropriately (and completely) federally funded. In would be both impractical and ill-advised to promote a funding mechanism for interstate trains which relies on state support (for one thing, you'd never get all the states to consistently agree). While your taxes help support trains in Montana, their taxes help fund various services and governmental programs in Pennsylvania (like the Northeast Corridor), and such arguments are largely pointless.

But the Pennsylvanian (and the Dallas-Houston example) are intrastate trains and are thus a state responsibility. I believe we more or less agree that a '750'mile' distinction (with its own misconceptions) isn't the best way to separate long-distance from regional trains, and thus state or national funding, but certainly there is a difference in utility to varied regions of the country between the Keystones and the Crescent.

It's not about population, either. North Dakota is smaller than Pennsylvania, but sees only one train a day (in each direction) whereas Pennsylvania is served by dozens on two different routes. When there are half a dozen daily trains on the Empire Builder's route, then maybe you'll have a point. But you don't for a minimal level of service which is actually provided for much of the nation.

The primary purpose for the former Three Rivers was not to carry passengers but Express traffic. When that went away, so did much of the perceived rationale for the route. I'm not saying I agree with that decision, but its not some vast conspiracy theory.

OrangeGrove wrote:Philly,
In would be both impractical and ill-advised to promote a funding mechanism for interstate trains which relies on state support (for one thing, you'd never get all the states to consistently agree).

Well said. The 70's incarnation of the LSL is a perfect example. LSL did not come about a A-day, it was one of the first state-supported trains. NY, PA, OH, IN, IL all wrote a check. After a while, some states (probably Indiana) balked at the bill, pulled out, and the train goes away even if other states are ok. LSL came back years later as part of the national network.

This is why the 750 mile rule is a bit silly.

David Benton wrote:I am curious wether the response has been published, or wether she s on record saying anything at all about Amtrak funding.

Not a bloody word on the DOT website, or in google news.

The animus towards PRIIA/state contribution to Amtrak is always interesting to read here, since I think a variant of it would do wonders for VIA Rail.

States like Illinois, Michigan, California, Washington all have "a seat at the table" because they actively partner with Amtrak. States like New Hampshire, Indiana, Ohio, Montana, South Carolina are content to sit on their stools and take the benefit of trains passing by to the urbanised states, and the improvement in overall journey times funded by improvements to tracks in those States. It's long past time those stools were kicked from under those comfortable seats.

Now, I'm not talking about penal contribution here - that the federal taxpayer be liberated from their burden. It should be measured by how many train miles Amtrak runs in the State and how many boardings occur. But stops in States solely served by LDs should only be limited to those that are explicitly profitable for the service unless and until, in cash or in kind, those States put their shoulder to Amtrak's wheel. The Builder has become integral to supporting the oil industry in ND? Well either the State can pay or the industry can pay, but someone should pay to keep that service well resourced instead of the continuing desperation to save a penny here and there that Amtrak does now.

It sickens me to see Indiana benefiting from the doubtless well compensated positions in Beech Grove while they lead a race to the bottom in manufacturing wages and contribute only as grudgingly as possible to the HS. If there was even the slightest excuse to do so, that yard work should be moved to states that contribute to forward motion for Amtrak: Illinois, Michigan or Missouri.

dowlingm wrote:But stops in States solely served by LDs should only be limited to those that are explicitly profitable for the service unless and until, in cash or in kind, those States put their shoulder to Amtrak's wheel.

SC is not going to pay for LD trains, period; the state is barely finding enough money to repave I-85, so you'd eliminate stops in SC. Reducing ridership on LD routes is good for what?

dowlingm wrote:The animus towards PRIIA/state contribution to Amtrak is always interesting to read here, since I think a variant of it would do wonders for VIA Rail.

States like Illinois, Michigan, California, Washington all have "a seat at the table" because they actively partner with Amtrak. States like New Hampshire, Indiana, Ohio, Montana, South Carolina are content to sit on their stools and take the benefit of trains passing by to the urbanised states, and the improvement in overall journey times funded by improvements to tracks in those States. It's long past time those stools were kicked from under those comfortable seats.

Now, I'm not talking about penal contribution here - that the federal taxpayer be liberated from their burden. It should be measured by how many train miles Amtrak runs in the State and how many boardings occur. But stops in States solely served by LDs should only be limited to those that are explicitly profitable for the service unless and until, in cash or in kind, those States put their shoulder to Amtrak's wheel. The Builder has become integral to supporting the oil industry in ND? Well either the State can pay or the industry can pay, but someone should pay to keep that service well resourced instead of the continuing desperation to save a penny here and there that Amtrak does now.

It sickens me to see Indiana benefiting from the doubtless well compensated positions in Beech Grove while they lead a race to the bottom in manufacturing wages and contribute only as grudgingly as possible to the HS. If there was even the slightest excuse to do so, that yard work should be moved to states that contribute to forward motion for Amtrak: Illinois, Michigan or Missouri.

I think most LD trains are useful for endpoint to endpoint (and/or significant intermediate point) traffic. I don't think it's unreasonable for trains from the NEC to/from both Florida and Chicago which allows transfers to trains in California and Texas. These trains have to pass through intermediate states. It's pretty hard for a New York-Chicago train not to pass through Indiana and Ohio without a major detour and I don't think skipping over Ohio or South Carolina is necessary. On the other hand, a NYP-CHI does not need to go through West Virginia when going through Pennsylvania is not just shorter in miles but serves a larger population. Also I find no need for a Chicago-Seattle train which has two other significant markets. Even if Amtrak federally funded CHI-CIN, CVS-NYP, SEA-SPK, and CHI-MSP (assume the 750 mile rule goes away) that would save a ton of train miles while still serving most of the population along the two routes that it does now. Maybe the equipment and money can be used to start/reinstate routes which serve more people and generate more revenue. Running trains for hundreds of miles through nowhere costs a lot of taxpayer money with limited financial gain.

SouthernRailway wrote:

dowlingm wrote:But stops in States solely served by LDs should only be limited to those that are explicitly profitable for the service unless and until, in cash or in kind, those States put their shoulder to Amtrak's wheel.

SC is not going to pay for LD trains, period; the state is barely finding enough money to repave I-85, so you'd eliminate stops in SC. Reducing ridership on LD routes is good for what?

Why do so many think fly over states must pay for Amtrak's long distance train services running through them?
Let's take the Texas Eagle for an example, and specifically Arkansas' Station ridership data..
Texas Eagle FY 2016 ridership = 301,884
Arkansas FY 2016 ridership = 32,196
Walnut Ridge ridership = 3,345
Little Rock ridership = 18,130
Arkadelphia ridership = 1,177
Hope ridership = 1,608
Malvern = 1,729
Texarkana = 6,207
Sources of data https://www.narprail.org/site/assets/fi ... shouse.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; and https://www.narprail.org/site/assets/fi ... ains-1.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Less than 11% of the Texas Eagle riders originate or terminate within Arkansas.
Now let's look at Missouri ridership for the Texas Eagle FY2016
Missouri TE FY2016 total = 80,767
Popular Bluff ridership = 4,764
St. Louis ridership (total) = 327,899
St. Louis ridership (Lincoln) = 183,753
St. Louis ridership (Mo. Runner) = 68,143
St. Louis ridership (Tx. Eagle) = 76,003 (math required)
Less than 27% of TE FY2016 ridership originated and terminated within Missouri, even though Chicago and St.Louis was the Prime City pair for the train.
So this means 62% of all Texas Eagle riders originated or terminated in Illinois and Texas.
The fly over states, or in Amtrak lingo, the sleep through states, contributed little to the train's ridership. They're mainly land that must be bridged to get most of the riders to their destinations.

Yes, we agree that "flyover" states contribute little to Amtrak's ridership and are mostly bridges to cross to get to bigger markets. That's why "flyover" states aren't generally interested in funding Amtrak LD trains.

But, again, what good would it do to eliminate stops in "flyover" states? If eliminating stops in SC reduced the Crescent's ridership by only 5%, that still 5% lower revenues and the elimination of reasons for SC's Congressional delegation to support Amtrak.

electricron wrote:
Why do so many think fly over states must pay for Amtrak's long distance train services running through them?
Let's take the Texas Eagle for an example, and specifically Arkansas' Station ridership data..
Texas Eagle FY 2016 ridership = 301,884
Arkansas FY 2016 ridership = 32,196
Walnut Ridge ridership = 3,345
Little Rock ridership = 18,130
Arkadelphia ridership = 1,177
Hope ridership = 1,608
Malvern = 1,729
Texarkana = 6,207
Sources of data https://www.narprail.org/site/assets/fi ... shouse.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; and https://www.narprail.org/site/assets/fi ... ains-1.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Less than 11% of the Texas Eagle riders originate or terminate within Arkansas.
Now let's look at Missouri ridership for the Texas Eagle FY2016
Missouri TE FY2016 total = 80,767
Popular Bluff ridership = 4,764
St. Louis ridership (total) = 327,899
St. Louis ridership (Lincoln) = 183,753
St. Louis ridership (Mo. Runner) = 68,143
St. Louis ridership (Tx. Eagle) = 76,003 (math required)
Less than 27% of TE FY2016 ridership originated and terminated within Missouri, even though Chicago and St.Louis was the Prime City pair for the train.
So this means 62% of all Texas Eagle riders originated or terminated in Illinois and Texas.
The fly over states, or in Amtrak lingo, the sleep through states, contributed little to the train's ridership. They're mainly land that must be bridged to get most of the riders to their destinations.

I think that's mainly the problem, they contribute little ridership. But depending on the distance traveled it could be a large portion of the costs. Most LD trains get little ridership from Delaware, but how little does it cost to run the train through Delaware and the few miles it covers? On the other hand, Montana is not a lot of potential passengers but think about the number of train miles and cost to go through Montana.

If we had to allocate costs to various states IMO it should be based upon train miles and/or stations served. If the LSL is served by one Pennsylvania station and not many miles, its portion should be small (if any at all). But then again the LSL contributes nationally to Amtrak as it gives passengers traveling between CHI and NYP/BOS and also serves the LD needs of upstate NY (including BUF, SYR, ALB) as well as Ohio (including CLE and TOL), although not well. Not all LD trains costs should be passed on to the states, just the ones that don't serve a national interest.

Philly Amtrak Fan wrote:

dowlingm wrote:The animus towards PRIIA/state contribution to Amtrak is always interesting to read here, since I think a variant of it would do wonders for VIA Rail.

States like Illinois, Michigan, California, Washington all have "a seat at the table" because they actively partner with Amtrak. States like New Hampshire, Indiana, Ohio, Montana, South Carolina are content to sit on their stools and take the benefit of trains passing by to the urbanised states, and the improvement in overall journey times funded by improvements to tracks in those States. It's long past time those stools were kicked from under those comfortable seats.

Now, I'm not talking about penal contribution here - that the federal taxpayer be liberated from their burden. It should be measured by how many train miles Amtrak runs in the State and how many boardings occur. But stops in States solely served by LDs should only be limited to those that are explicitly profitable for the service unless and until, in cash or in kind, those States put their shoulder to Amtrak's wheel. The Builder has become integral to supporting the oil industry in ND? Well either the State can pay or the industry can pay, but someone should pay to keep that service well resourced instead of the continuing desperation to save a penny here and there that Amtrak does now.

It sickens me to see Indiana benefiting from the doubtless well compensated positions in Beech Grove while they lead a race to the bottom in manufacturing wages and contribute only as grudgingly as possible to the HS. If there was even the slightest excuse to do so, that yard work should be moved to states that contribute to forward motion for Amtrak: Illinois, Michigan or Missouri.

I think most LD trains are useful for endpoint to endpoint (and/or significant intermediate point) traffic. I don't think it's unreasonable for trains from the NEC to/from both Florida and Chicago which allows transfers to trains in California and Texas. These trains have to pass through intermediate states. It's pretty hard for a New York-Chicago train not to pass through Indiana and Ohio without a major detour and I don't think skipping over Ohio or South Carolina is necessary. On the other hand, a NYP-CHI does not need to go through West Virginia when going through Pennsylvania is not just shorter in miles but serves a larger population. Also I find no need for a Chicago-Seattle train which has two other significant markets. Even if Amtrak federally funded CHI-CIN, CVS-NYP, SEA-SPK, and CHI-MSP (assume the 750 mile rule goes away) that would save a ton of train miles while still serving most of the population along the two routes that it does now. Maybe the equipment and money can be used to start/reinstate routes which serve more people and generate more revenue. Running trains for hundreds of miles through nowhere costs a lot of taxpayer money with limited financial gain.

Cut off the LD trains whether it be Montana or Georgia or anywhere else and those folks in congress will not fund Amtrak in the NEC or anywhere else. This is the reality of politics today. I rather doubt if much will happen over this, they will come up with the funding for most if not all of the nationwide existing trains. What Pennsylvania really needs to do is to provide some funding for a couple more round trips between Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, the sooner the better.
Noel Weaver

dowlingm wrote:The animus towards PRIIA/state contribution to Amtrak is always interesting to read here, since I think a variant of it would do wonders for VIA Rail.

States like Illinois, Michigan, California, Washington all have "a seat at the table" because they actively partner with Amtrak. States like New Hampshire, Indiana, Ohio, Montana, South Carolina are content to sit on their stools and take the benefit of trains passing by to the urbanised states, and the improvement in overall journey times funded by improvements to tracks in those States. It's long past time those stools were kicked from under those comfortable seats.

Now, I'm not talking about penal contribution here - that the federal taxpayer be liberated from their burden. It should be measured by how many train miles Amtrak runs in the State and how many boardings occur. But stops in States solely served by LDs should only be limited to those that are explicitly profitable for the service unless and until, in cash or in kind, those States put their shoulder to Amtrak's wheel. The Builder has become integral to supporting the oil industry in ND? Well either the State can pay or the industry can pay, but someone should pay to keep that service well resourced instead of the continuing desperation to save a penny here and there that Amtrak does now.

It sickens me to see Indiana benefiting from the doubtless well compensated positions in Beech Grove while they lead a race to the bottom in manufacturing wages and contribute only as grudgingly as possible to the HS. If there was even the slightest excuse to do so, that yard work should be moved to states that contribute to forward motion for Amtrak: Illinois, Michigan or Missouri.

This is a bit misguided to say the least.

1. Amtrak needs Beech more than Indiana does. Indiana has lots of good manufacturing jobs as they have a fiscally sound state and present a very business-friendly location. Amtrak, on the other hand, does not have a lot of places they could move Beech shops. You need a well-equipped empty railroad shop with a trained workforce ready to go. Aside from a few shops Hunter just closed, you're out of luck.

2. Indiana spends lots on passenger trains, but not on Amtrak. The South Shore is a well-funded operation that contributes to vibrant growth in NW Indiana. OTOH the thrice-weekly Cardinal does little for state economics. The Michigan trains barely stop in-state, leaving 2x/day LDs to east coast. The money is far better spent on NICTD trains.

3. I suspect if you kicked that stool out from states like Montana, they couldn't care less.

4. The states "at the table" are all experiencing serious financial woes. Illinois is really super unbelievably broke. Monied people and business are leaving in terrific rates.


PRIIA hate is well justified as it is very hard to get different states to play along. It even happens with roads, its just not as noticeable to the casual observer. Try driving Detroit to Chicago. Michigan roads are atrocious while Indianas are far better. Illinois roads are perhaps average except in Chicago where they are rotten.