# 750 Mile Rule: Federal vs. State/Local Amtrak Funding



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Nov 7, 2015)

I think that many of us are against the so called "750 mile" rule requiring state funding for service below that distance. I can think of many < 750 mile routes that could be done if Amtrak did not need states to chip in.

On the other hand, there are some trains that I feel should require state support if the train(s) clearly serve a limited market as opposed to others that serve a larger percentage of the country.

Now which trains are "national" trains and which are "regional" is certainly up to debate and interpretation. If we can agree as to which are which, we can use federal money to serve national trains and state/local money to serve regional trains. But good luck with that.

Otherwise, maybe we have to say all trains must be funded by states they serve. Or you give Amtrak a blank check to start a short train in the middle of nowhere and use all of our money to pay for it.

Should we require all trains to be funded regionally or have no rules at all? Is there a compromise as to which trains are regional and which are national? I think the 750 number is very arbitrary. Maybe we can say a train that runs completely in one state is the responsibility of that state and local areas and that any interstate train can be funded nationally. Or 1-2 regionally and 3+ nationally (so if a train just touches the border of a neighboring state it still should be primarily the predominant state's responsibility). Can you think of a better "rule" to separate national vs. local?


----------



## jis (Nov 7, 2015)

You make the optimistic assumption that Amtrak has more available funds to fund operations than the states do. That is patently untrue. If Amtrak truly starts holding NEC operating surplus for NEC use we will actually start seeing LD trains off notices going out. That is why they will not do it. If Pennsylvania had not come up with funds for the Pennsylvanian there would have been no more Pennsylvanian! The sooner people start understanding this the more grounded in reality this discussion can become.

Of course an electoral miracle could change all that, but until then ....


----------



## A Voice (Nov 7, 2015)

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> I think that many of us are against the so called "750 mile" rule requiring state funding for service below that distance. I can think of many < 750 mile routes that could be done if Amtrak did not need states to chip in.
> 
> On the other hand, there are some trains that I feel should require state support if the train(s) clearly serve a limited market as opposed to others that serve a larger percentage of the country.
> 
> ...


You are quite correct, the '750 mile' rule seems largely or completely arbitrary and not a sound basis for such policy making. Expressed simply, trains which operate in only one state should ordinarily be the financial responsibility of that state (Empire Service, Surfliners, etc.) while interstate trains - those which routes traverse two or more states - should be a federal responsibility.

There are some 'gray areas' or potential exceptions, and the question thus arises how to write such special cases into policy. I would submit that trains primarily serving a single state, but which operate beyond that state's borders to a (nearby) major destination or rail hub (Hiawatha, Michigan trains, etc.) should still remain a state responsibility; Perhaps train which operate _past_ the next major destination or logical terminal point into a second state should be classified as interstate trains. Secondly, Amtrak should have the legal right (subject to contracts and negotiations with the sponsoring state agency, of course) to extend state trains beyond the point the state funds the service (for instance, extend the Illini to Memphis). This would technically make it an interstate train (outside Illinois borders), but its operation contingent on the original state service. ch.

That said, we might be as well or better off just to go back to the rules under the old 403(b) state supported services. Let Amtrak run whatever it chooses within the limits of its federal appropriation and let the states add what they will with the corresponding federal match.



jis said:


> You make the optimistic assumption that Amtrak has more available funds to fund operations than the states do. That is patently untrue. If Amtrak truly starts holding NEC operating surplus for NEC use we will actually start seeing LD trains off notices going out. That is why they will not do it. If Pennsylvania had not come up with funds for the Pennsylvanian there would have been no more Pennsylvanian! The sooner people start understanding this the more grounded in reality this discussion can become.
> 
> Of course an electoral miracle could change all that, but until then ....


The amount of federal funds available to Amtrak for Northeast Corridor and nationwide operations is not written in stone. Amtrak annual appropriation is completely up to Congress and could increase or contract sharply on a whim or as the political winds blow - and has done both in the past. Other than _maybe_ very limited exceptions I don't see Congress going along with much increased funding for more long-distance trains in particular, and probably not much for Amtrak operations of any sort. Amtrak could always present a plan for increased national service (short, medium, and long distance) if Congress chooses to fund it. I don't think anyone here would expect such a proposal to get very far in Washington - more accurately it would go over like a lead balloon - but we'll never get anywhere just assuming Amtrak cannot ever have money for greater service levels.

Political fortunes can change at the state level too - look at what happened in Wisconsin and other states a few years back. It is not at all inconceivable that even in states with a longer history of state-funded trains a change in political administrations or political control of state legislatures could curtail funding for those trains. This seems less likely in the midwest with contracts in place for state purchased equipment, but again it is not impossible. You don't want large or critical segments of your rail network at the mercy of individual states, because just one could always pull the plug. This further illustrates why the '750 mile' rule is arbitrary and makes little sense; It is not practical to even try to get two or three states to coordinate and agree on funding passenger rail for interstate trains. Even for intrastate service, the states are often cash-strapped as well; Congress, if only they would stop micromanaging and start actually governing the nation, has a far larger budget at its disposal.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Nov 11, 2015)

The 750 mile rule is a big handicap IMHO. Some of you have clearly said that shorter trains are more popular and more profitable. Anytime I ask for more LD service or extending an existing train even five feet I get the "it will add to the delays" response. But Amtrak's hands are tied less than 750 miles and you can bet they're not really pushing down the doors for anything over 750 miles.

Here's another big problem I see. How many trains serve Las Vegas? Las Vegas I believe is the largest market with no train service (if you consider Maricopa part of the Phoenix area).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_major_cities_in_U.S._lacking_Amtrak_service

In addition, it's obvious Vegas is a big tourist attraction many people want to go to.

I know right now I cannot take Amtrak to Las Vegas right now unless you count Thruway bus. No one can.

Now would Amtrak want to start a 750 mile route just to serve Vegas? That's a lot of money and it requires sleepers they probably don't have. Do you think Amtrak wouldn't want to start an LAX-Vegas train? Do you think it would not be successful? You add that train and anyone who can get to LAX on Amtrak can go to Vegas. I claim this train serves a national purpose. I think there are others that certainly can serve a big population (3 C's, CHI-MSP, CHI-CIN, ATL-Carolina) but it's still mostly regional. But I think anyone who wants to visit Las Vegas whether in California or Philly gains from this service. So telling Amtrak to beg Nevada and California to support it hurts anyone who wants to visit Vegas.

Quite a few of us agree that there are plenty of unserved or under served markets/routes that would add quite a bit of R & R to the Amtrak system but Amtrak can't even touch them without state support. Maybe Iowa Pacific will be a game changer and other states will seek private support to help them support state supported trains.


----------



## Eric S (Nov 11, 2015)

Even if the rule disappears, that does not suddenly mean Amtrak has the funds to start all these new trains.

The issue still remains of where the funding comes from, whether federal, state, or other sources.


----------



## jis (Nov 11, 2015)

I don;t view the rule as a deal breaker. All that has to happen is that any federal funding has to get routed through the state(s). It is in general good to have a local stake in these things. Witness what is happening with the Southwest Chief even when there is no 750 mile rule applicable.


----------



## Anderson (Nov 11, 2015)

I think no small part of the issue at hand is that of "direct costs" versus "fully allocated costs". Basically, you've got at least some trains that are doing well on direct costs but which get sandbagged with all of those "additives" for generically computed advertising costs and overhead (not to mention capital charges...which get interesting from the standpoint of the states often being stuck using roughly 40-year-old equipment and/or breakdown-prone locomotives but Lord only knows how they're being billed for it).

The other issue is the "fig leaf" of running money through the state(s), which involves playing games with (1) who's going to put in the application and/or (2) a stray governor deciding to throw a spanner in the works. This can reach a point of silliness such as we saw in VA (where if a bill hadn't passed, the VA Regionals would have been axed immediately (1) _in spite of running in the black_ and (2) _in spite of there being a substantial surplus that VA hasn't requested back_).

I'm not necessarily opposed to requiring states to pick up some share of the tab for shorter trains (or indeed encouraging them to pick it up for part of longer trains if they can get better service in the deal); the issue is, I think, more deeply, the fact that now you _have_ to throw in an "extra actor" _and_ force them to pick up part of the bill for Amtrak's dubious accounting.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Nov 11, 2015)

Eric S said:


> Even if the rule disappears, that does not suddenly mean Amtrak has the funds to start all these new trains.


That's where I get stuck as well. Without additional funding how is the 750 rule an issue?


----------



## Eric S (Nov 11, 2015)

Devil's Advocate said:


> Eric S said:
> 
> 
> > Even if the rule disappears, that does not suddenly mean Amtrak has the funds to start all these new trains.
> ...


Exactly. Congress wrote the 750 mile rule into law. Congress can write it out as well. But unless Congress also appropriates funding for one, some, or all of these train proposals, why does the 750 mile rule matter?


----------



## WoodyinNYC (Nov 12, 2015)

Eric S said:


> Devil's Advocate said:
> 
> 
> > Eric S said:
> ...


Well, no state wants to plan one that's either more or less than 750 miles. LOL.

No way this Congress will back down on making the states' pay 85% of the existing short corridors, leaving Amtrak to absorb the 15%.

But perhaps explore another option like, on new routes that pass thru more than one state, and over 600 miles, but less than 1,000 miles, Amtrak will pay 50% for the first 5 years, then 30% for the next 5 years, then 15% thereafter. That would make Amtrak share more of the costs of starting a new corridor train, but not forever; after the new route is established, it would go to the same PRIIA formula as the older corridors.


----------



## neroden (Nov 23, 2015)

All the real cost issues are in the overhead anyway.

-- Amtrak badly needs to finish its "IT project from hell", which is to get everything in ARROW replaced with something which is not written in mainframe assembly language. This has been very expensive and very slow and as a programmer I understand exactly why.

-- Amtrak is finally getting its maintenance cost allocations straightened out.

-- Amtrak needs to figure out what's going on with "ancillary", which is officially losing very large amounts of money. What IS this, anyway?


----------



## Paulus (Nov 23, 2015)

neroden said:


> All the real cost issues are in the overhead anyway.
> 
> -- Amtrak badly needs to finish its "IT project from hell", which is to get everything in ARROW replaced with something which is not written in mainframe assembly language. This has been very expensive and very slow and as a programmer I understand exactly why.
> 
> ...


Ancillary was just a term I used to cover things like cash F&B, PV fees, etc., as opposed to ticket revenue. The "loss" also is the result of some weird accounting and only showed on a monthly basis for one year.


----------



## neroden (Nov 23, 2015)

I was referring to the "ancillary customers" who are listed in the "fully allocated" numbers in the monthly reports. But of course my mistake is to look at fully allocated numbers, which are of course meaningless gibberish.

On a "fully allocated" basis,

-- "freight and other customers" lose large amounts of money for Amtrak

-- "ancillary customers" lose large amounts of money for Amtrak

And I don't even know what the "ancillary" customers are.

I tried to match up "freight and other customers" revenue ($185.1 August YTD) with the revenue earlier in the same report; it's close enough to the sum of "freight access fees" and "other transportation" (which is what the commuter railroads pay Amtrak).

I suppose it's reasonable to say that Amtrak loses money on these after considering incremental maintenance costs, given how little the commuter railroads pay... but...

However, "Ancillary revenue" is 394.4, and I can't figure out where that number comes from. I guess it's "reimbursable revenue" plus "commercial development". But what the heck is "reimburseable revenue"?... after looking at the 2011 (!!!) report, I see that this is contract work by Amtrak for others. maybe?

There is no sane way in which Amtrak is losing money on contract work or commercial development.

Fully allocated numbers are absolute garbage.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Apr 29, 2016)

I had posted comments about this topic in another post but just to not clutter that post any more I'll repeat my comments here.

Unless you want to get into which routes are of a national interest and which cater to a local/regional/state level, have a common formula for funding of all Amtrak service, long distance and otherwise. It shouldn't be all federal or all state but a combination of both (50-50? 75-25 one way?) A state like Pennsylvania would have to put up funding for trains that pass through like the Silver Meteor and Capitol Limited but would also receive more aid from the federal government for the Pennsylvanian and the Keystone routes. They'd have to figure out a reasonable formula as to proportions of each route each state is responsible for. Maybe they can use train miles through each state. Or ridership (but this puts more burden on states with big cities like Illinois). The level of train service should not be dictated on the state's willingness (or lack of) to pay for it. On the other hand, should the nation be paying for service through states with small populations that they would unlikely ever ride?

Maybe we just put an amendment to the 750 mile rule as follows: You can run a route less than 750 miles funded fully by the federal government for a period of three years. Then after three years the states/cities must pay any operating losses. So we start DAL-HOS for three years at no expense to Texas but after that either they pay or the line gets shut down (or maybe it runs a profit). Hopefully in those three years the state(s) involved will see the benefit of the train running and be more likely to run it. In theory the state would be more likely to pay for a currently running train with a good track record than to start up a new train with no guarantee of success. Even Scott Walker isn't stupid enough to shut down the Hiawatha service.

And if Amtrak/Congress has no money to even fund a short train then it needs to look at its national map and either cut or truncate some under performing or unnecessary routes. I would absolutely hurt 1,000 passengers if I can help 10,000. Otherwise unless Amtrak gets more money, we'll be stuck with the same crap with no gains in service ten years from now.


----------



## neroden (Apr 30, 2016)

I think the fundamental problem is the use of "fully allocated" garbage numbers. I don't know what Congressional hatchetman pushed this, but it was a terrible idea.

Congress should be paying for the overhead. Period. After that, it becomes possible to take some sort of rational look at the variable costs of routes and argue about who should pay for them. Without that, it's just fake numbers.


----------



## Anderson (May 2, 2016)

I'm not opposed to allocating _some _costs (if only as an incentive for Amtrak to try and encourage new operations) but I agree that "full" allocation leads to baloney.


----------



## WoodyinNYC (May 2, 2016)

You asked. ...



neroden said:


> All the real cost issues are in the overhead anyway.
> 
> ...
> -- what's going on with "ancillary", which is officially losing very large amounts of money. What IS this, anyway?


Here's an old but perhaps timely document full of interesting stuff.

http://www.gao.gov/assets/160/154870.pdf

I mean, how much of this has changed in 20 years, ya think?



> p 76
> 
> [SIZE=11pt]The financial contribution from Amtrak’s ancillary activities is largely unknown. During our review, Amtrak had difficulties in identifying the costs of these activities and, for the most part, was unable to provide us with financial statements for them in a timely manner. This was particularly true for commuter rail activities. Data on revenues and ridership were available but data on expenses were not. We also had difficulty identifying general and administrative expenses for these activities and the way these costs are allocated to specific lines of business or specific contracts. According to Amtrak, these costs are not accounted for separately but are instead allocated according to standard corporatewide formulas. We did not audit these formulas. As a result, it is not clear what the financial contribution of Amtrak’s ancillary activities might be, nor whether costs are being allocated correctly. [/SIZE]


----------



## jis (May 2, 2016)

At least the LD gang has claimed for quite a while that a lot of NEC costs are surreptitiously being charged to the National account and thus getting reflected as inordinately high allocated costs in LD trains. And for whatever reason to date apparently Amtrak has not been able to dispel that impression conclusively. Admittedly, I have no clue about the details of all this, but this is what the argument boils down to as presented by the likes of RailPac and Selden and such.


----------



## neroden (May 2, 2016)

Bluntly, I think every single sector of Amtrak has bad accounting due to the pervasive "allocations". None of the segments and none of the routes has a meaningul accounting, and the commuter and freight services have the least meaningful accounting.

The only way to get a meaningful accounting is to rip off all the allocations and look at the real underlying numbers. "Direct costs". And for the overhead, look at each category: how much does the national reservations system cost, how much is being spent on Beech Grove, how much is being spent on Bear, et cetera.


----------



## Anderson (May 5, 2016)

Honestly, the only way I'd be thoroughly convinced one way or another is if someone went in and did a deeply detailed audit, broke out the "indirect" costs, and gave a _specific_ rationale as to why each line was being handled in a certain way (e.g. "Shared station expenses are being allocated slightly more heavily towards the LD trains than their passenger loads might indicate because of higher lounge use, redcap use, etc." or "Management overhead is split up on a per-business-line basis rather than a per-frequency basis"). At least then we could dicker over whether the allocation was reasonable (and/or ignore the allocation).


----------



## WoodyinNYC (May 5, 2016)

Anderson said:


> ... a deeply detailed audit, broke out the "indirect" costs, and gave a _specific_ rationale as to why each line was being handled in a certain way (e.g. "Shared station expenses are being allocated slightly more heavily towards the LD trains than their passenger loads might indicate because of higher lounge use, redcap use, etc." or "Management overhead is split up on a per-business-line basis rather than a per-frequency basis"). ...


Good suggestions.

But Amtrak probably thinks that Critters of Congress already indulge in too datum much micromanaging, and this sort of info would just bring on more such. I think they're probably right.

However, just as we are exasperated by the opaque "Amtrak accounting", the Congress Critters are exasperated as well. That probably isn't helping things.


----------



## Anderson (May 5, 2016)

I've got issues with both sides of that fight. Yes, Congress micromanages things they probably shouldn't, but part of the problem with that micromanagement is that it's often based on bad data...but the bad data is Amtrak's own data, so in a sense Amtrak is in a hole of their own making on that front. Of course, they made that hole due to calculations in another era that it was the "lesser of the evils" since the LD network serves _far_ more states than does the NEC, for example.


----------



## WoodyinNYC (May 5, 2016)

A Voice said:


> Philly Amtrak Fan said:
> 
> 
> > ... many of us are against the so called "750 mile" rule requiring state funding for service below that distance. ...
> ...


This is a great idea.

Adding a day train to/from Memphis would gain at least 100,000 riders. (The two state-sponsored trains CHI-Carbondale carried 289,000 passengers in 2015, not counting the _CONO, _running overnight on this stretch.) The added revenue on the SB _Saluki_ and the NB _Illini_ would reduce their operating loss CHI-Carbondale. If Illinois would agree to lock in to paying the same subsidy as before, no more but no less, that could get the extension past the Illinois-Kentucky border, probably to the Tennessee border. In turn, that would make the subsidy required from Tennessee to be much less. Of course, Tennessee could very well refuse to pay any reduced amount. In that case, Amtrak would have to eat it. But it would be easier to eat if Illinois kept paying its share.

Extending one of the CHI-Carbondale runs to Memphis would require no more equipment. No idea where they could store the train at Memphis. Or if there would be crew hours problems. (Depart CHI at 8:15 am., arrive Memphis before 8 p.m., leave Memphis by 11 a.m., arrive CHI at 9:45 p.m.)

It frustrated me so much I toyed with a second frequency of the _City of New Orleans_ extending all the way: CHI-Champaign-Carbondale-Memphis-Jackson-Hammond-New Orleans. But that does have big problems: It would need more equipment, probably including a sleeper. Arrival in Jackson (the biggest intermediate station after Memphis) could be 2 a.m., arrival in Hammond (Baton Rouge) 4 a.m., into New Orleans around 6 a.m. Maybe go slow on purpose to make Hammond at 5 a.m. and NOLA at 7 a.m.? (With a good connection to 3-days-a-week _Sunset Ltd_ Lafayette-Houston-San Antonio train leaving about 9 a.m.)

Nah. Maybe next time. Right now I'd just like to see a day train CHI-Memphis. Under current rules that's not going to happen, but your little change could fix that problem.


----------



## Anderson (May 7, 2016)

Presuming the 100k rider figure were to be accurate (I'm not saying it isn't accurate but let's presume that it is), let's fiddle with some numbers:
-In FY15, ridership was 292,187 and revenue was $8.387m. Thus per-passenger ticket revenue was $28.705.

-Total revenue (incl. cafe revenue and state subsidy) was $15.4m

-Total costs were $19.6m. NB this included two round trips and I presume only one would be extended to Memphis (probably 391/392; you lose an equipment turn, but the other options involve awful-hour times for Memphis which would defeat the purpose of the exercise), so the cost per round trip was $9.8m.

I'm strictly spitballing here, but presuming you add 100k riders off of Memphis (and the two existing flag stops, and I would presume one or two additional stops, flag or otherwise), I'd put 40% of those as being to/from Chicago at an average fare of $80 ($3.2m in revenue) [1] with the remainder behaving as existing passengers at an average fare of $30 ($1.8m in revenue). This would give $5.0m in new revenue plus whatever extra you might get from the cafe. I might be able to kick out a slightly larger revenue figure with some massaging. Note that this only increases the overall PPR to $34.13 (not an insane hike). However, given that you're adding 4-5 hours of runtime to the train (nearly doubling it) and increasing mileage by about 220 (on a base of about 310) as well as adding a set of equipment (and possibly adding a car or two to each set) and adding crews? I suspect your costs are going to jump by at least $6m (I'm presuming that there's at least _some_ shared costs that won't increase, but this is close to doubling the needs/cost drivers of that train).

[1] $80/passenger is probably too low; coach fares on the CONO CHI-MEM run $105-202; however, assigning the endpoint market 40% of the new business probably skews a bit too high.

Edit: Just to be clear, I like the idea of enabling Amtrak to do something like this. The issue is, of course, that if costs increase down the line Amtrak could have trouble getting the state to kick in to cover "their part" (since the state would likely say, in response, that the increases were probably on Amtrak's extension). Amtrak could of course respond by . I think you'd need a formula, probably which slightly advantages the state(s) already funding a route, to deal with that.


----------



## neroden (May 21, 2016)

Anderson said:


> Honestly, the only way I'd be thoroughly convinced one way or another is if someone went in and did a deeply detailed audit, broke out the "indirect" costs, and gave a _specific_ rationale as to why each line was being handled in a certain way (e.g. "Shared station expenses are being allocated slightly more heavily towards the LD trains than their passenger loads might indicate because of higher lounge use, redcap use, etc." or "Management overhead is split up on a per-business-line basis rather than a per-frequency basis"). At least then we could dicker over whether the allocation was reasonable (and/or ignore the allocation).


Yeah. At the moment, the allocations just look like complete garbage. And they're huge: they're bigger than the direct costs by quite a lot.


----------



## MARC Rider (May 22, 2016)

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> I think that many of us are against the so called "750 mile" rule requiring state funding for service below that distance. I can think of many < 750 mile routes that could be done if Amtrak did not need states to chip in.
> 
> On the other hand, there are some trains that I feel should require state support if the train(s) clearly serve a limited market as opposed to others that serve a larger percentage of the country.
> 
> ...


You know, there seems to be no controversy about having the Federal government fund highways that only serve very localized interests. Why should Federal funds be used for roads like the Capital Beltway in Washington, the Baltimore Beltway, and practically every metropolitan freeway across the country? Shouldn't the states and local governments pay for roads that are mainly being used by local commuters?

I wonder (and this is mere speculation on my part) if the 750 mile rule was, at some level, designed to ensure that passenger rail would not be a viable transport mode in this country. After all, passenger rail is a most practical intercity transport mode for trips that take 4-5 hours or less. This is about the minimum time it takes to fly anywhere, if you take getting to the airport, security lines, clearing the airport at the other end, etc. And, of course, many airline city pairs require changing planes, so, most airplane trips take a lot more than 4-5 hours door to door. Thus, in a rational world, the Amtrak national network should be a system of interconnected city pairs of 750 miles or less. These corridors should have multiple daily trips to maximize their usefulness to travelers. By sharing the overhead costs of multiple trips, costs per train in the corridors are much lower. The costs for the long distance trains that travel through multiple corridors is also lower, perhaps to the point that the long distance trains that travel though multiple corridors have much better financial performance than they do now, and that outright subsidies would be needed only for the one that serve the more remote communities in the interior West.

And as it turns out, with the exception of California, New York, and Pennsylvania (and a couple of routes in Illinois), corridor services tend to serve multiple states: The NEC, obviously, the whole point to the Virginia services is to connect Virginia with DC and the northeastern States. The same is true for the Carolinian. The Vermonter and Ethan Alan connect Vermont with New York and the NEC, Downeaster connects Maine and New Hampshire with Massachusetts. Most of the Midwest corridors connect Chicago with points outside of Illinois. This all seems like "interstate commerce,: if you ask me. So why is Congress so insistent that States be forced to pay the lion's share for rail projects that have a good chance of being a practical transportation alternative when they have no problem doling out zillions for highway projects that have extremely local benefits?


----------



## MARC Rider (May 22, 2016)

MARC Rider said:


> And as it turns out, with the exception of California, New York, and Pennsylvania (and a couple of routes in Illinois), corridor services tend to serve multiple states: The NEC, obviously, the whole point to the Virginia services is to connect Virginia with DC and the northeastern States. The same is true for the Carolinian. The Vermonter and Ethan Alan connect Vermont with New York and the NEC, Downeaster connects Maine and New Hampshire with Massachusetts. Most of the Midwest corridors connect Chicago with points outside of Illinois. This all seems like "interstate commerce,: if you ask me. So why is Congress so insistent that States be forced to pay the lion's share for rail projects that have a good chance of being a practical transportation alternative when they have no problem doling out zillions for highway projects that have extremely local benefits?


Actually, a good bit of Keystone traffic connects southeastern PA with New Jersey and New York. And I myself have used Empire service to travel between New York and Maryland, though NEC connections. Oh, yes, and the Cascades connect Washington and Oregon, and even the Heartland Flyer connects Texas and Oklahoma, and feeds an interstate train, the Texas Eagle.


----------



## norfolkwesternhenry (Jul 4, 2016)

there are hundreds of <750 mile routes that should be served.

MSP-Rochester

MSP-Rochester-La Crosse-Madison-MKE-CHI

MSP-Duluth

(these are a few examples from my area, the twin cities)

BUT MN CHOOSES NOT TO FUND ANY RAIL AT ALL!!!!!!


----------



## Eric S (Jul 4, 2016)

I'm not sure it's quite right to say Minnesota doesn't fund any rail. The state has been a partner in building the Twin Cities area rail transit and has at least entertained the idea of partnering with Wisconsin to add a second train between Chicago and St. Paul (although it remains to be seen if either MN or WI will actually follow through).

EDIT: In other words, there are truly anti-rail states out there that will contribute no funds at all to either urban/regional rail transit or Amtrak/intercity rail transit and MN is not one of them.


----------



## CCC1007 (Jul 4, 2016)

norfolkwesternhenry said:


> there are hundreds of <750 mile routes that should be served.
> 
> MSP-Rochester
> 
> ...


MN is working to establish their own rail network within the state, on almost all of the listed routes. They like the north star line and want more, with dedicated tracks and multiple trips every day. Most will serve the St. Paul Union Depot, so keep your eyes open on that front.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Sep 16, 2016)

I'm thinking of a "fairer" way to assign fiscal responsibilities of Amtrak trains, present and future. I'm trying to think of allocations that would keep the federal allocation about the same (if they want to raise it I won't object).

My proposal:

Trains less than 750 miles: States are responsible for 50%, Federal is responsible for 50%

Trains 750 miles or more: States are responsible for 25%, Federal is responsible for 75%

The same rules apply for existing and proposed trains.

To determine a fair allocation among states for trains, you can allocate each state's responsibility either by the number of station stops or the number of train miles through the state (or a combination of both). I would exempt New York State from any train that only stops in NYP, Illinois from any train that only stops in CHI, and Washington DC from having to pay for any trains . The three stops (NYP, CHI, WAS) are popular transfer stops as well as popular travel destinations so they should be a federal responsibility. The states can negotiate with each other so one or two states don't kill a train.

I'm sure people are fearful states won't pay and trains will end. But after Congress stopped subsidizing trains less than 750 miles, I didn't hear of any of them that stopped running (there were rumors about the Keystones/Pennsylvanian and the Hoosier State needed Iowa Pacific to help but neither stopped running). And remember that the states would only have to pay 25%, not 100%. And in the past states who lost service were more likely to start state services (according to Wikipedia, the Pennsylvanian was a response to the National Limited being canceled). There is talk in Minnesota about a 2nd train between CHI and MSP. If you tell Minnesota you're going to take away the Empire Builder, I'd imagine the money required for the 1st train between CHI and MSP will get through their capital a lot faster (or they will pay for their share of the EB). States might wind up having to choose between paying for 25% of an LD train or 50% of a "state supported" train. What would be cheaper for Minnesota, 25% of their proportional costs of the EB or 50% of their proportional costs of a new CHI-MSP train?

I'm not sure how much Congress is expecting from Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida for reinstating Gulf Coast service (all or a portion)? I think 25% would make the states more willing to pay. Maybe Pennsylvania will be willing to contribute 25% of the costs of the you know what (especially when they will only have to pay half of the Pennsylvanian/Keystone subsidies). Most states won't pay for service but maybe if you cut those price tags in half some of them might change their mind.

Maybe the %'s have to be adjusted but the goals should be to fairer distribute costs between states and Congress and the price tag to start/reinstate service would be lower for states and encourage them more to start new trains. The federal government would then pay more to help new/existing "state" services but less for LD trains.

I'm hoping this change in allocation would lead to more trains and that states will actually chip in for LD trains which will free up more money for more corridor trains to be (partially) funded by Congress.


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Sep 16, 2016)

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> I'm thinking of a "fairer" way to assign fiscal responsibilities of Amtrak trains, present and future. I'm trying to think of allocations that would keep the federal allocation about the same (if they want to raise it I won't object).
> 
> My proposal:
> 
> ...



Uh-huh...and here is the problem. What happens when a state has more route miles and stations stops but is actually delivers less riders than a state with less stops/riders?

In other words, the NEC passes through multiple states. Maryland has four major Amtrak stops (ABE,BAL,BWI and NCR), but most of the route through the state (90 miles) is expensive, high speed rail. Indeed, out of the 90 miles on this route, 80 miles of it are rated at or above 110mph.

How do you tell Maryland that they are responsible for maintaining all of that expensive track to feed riders to Washington DC, an area that is exempt? Even if you charged them, they have a grand total of 8 miles of route miles and 1 station. Out of the 8 miles, you have 1 and 1/2 miles of 125 mph track, 3 miles of 95 mph track, roughly 1 mile of 45mph track. The rest is 15mph track. Their costs wouldn't be that high. How do you explain to Virginia, a state loaded with route miles and stations that they will have all of these costs to feed Washington DC? What happens when they say I'm not paying?

The same can be said for NY. They don't really have a lot of route miles. However, if they do have a lot of station stops if you include the Empire Service. However, their costs will be quite small compared to N.J. which has almost 57 expensive miles of multi tracked high speed rail. Out of the 57 miles, roughly 51 miles are rated above 90mph. How do you tell N.J. they will bear the costs of bringing millions of people into and exempt station?

These scenarios mirror the the questions asked when the Amtrak Reform Council issued their findings. The solution was if a state didn't want to pick up the costs, the feds would do it....but the trains wouldn't service the state. The states (with Senator Biden leading the charge) basically said good luck with getting through our states without stopping because if you do that, there will only be small number of passengers riding to NY or WAS.

This scenario played out all over the country. States without rail service asked why their taxes should pay for anything? That is why this line of thinking ended. While I don't like the 750 mile rule and I find it arbitrary and random, your allocation of costs has already proved to be a recipe for disaster.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Sep 17, 2016)

I'm thinking the 750 is the magic number created because North Carolina was already funding the Carolinian at 704 miles and the next up was the Capitol Limited at 780 miles so it's real convenient to draw the line there. Is the Carolinian really any less of an LD train than the current LD trains? They're a day train? So is the Palmetto. Also, it is easy to tell North Carolina to pay for the Carolinian as they clearly are the #1 state that benefits. Then again, you can certainly say the same about the "Texas" Eagle.

You can say that divvying up state's shares would be just as difficult for a LD train as it is for the NEC but several "state" trains serve many different states (Carolinian, Vermonter, even the Pennsylvanian serves three states). The Heartland Flyer and Vermonter are paid for by multiple states so figuring out some way to allocate state expenses for LD trains is certainly possible.

Well currently the NEC is exempted from the 750 mile rule and requiring state funding so I'd probably still exempt it from state funding requirements as well even if the LD trains were not exempted. New Jersey, Delaware, and Maryland can refuse to pay but is Amtrak going to just cancel NEC service? They're not that stupid. I know most of the other states don't like that the NEC is exempt, but like it or not if there's no NEC there's no Amtrak, period. You can't say the same about the Sunset Limited or Coast Starlight. I see no reason Amtrak shouldn't go to states and demand they pay for their LD trains the same way they demanded they pay for the "state" supported service. It's not like Amtrak has never demanded states pay for LD service or canceled them when they didn't (cough... Three Rivers). And where's that Gulf Coast train? They're waiting for the states to chip in aren't they? Amtrak has never had rules that required it to not demand states pay for specific trains. The 750 mile rule made it so they couldn't just pick and choose which "state" funded trains would be federally funded and which wouldn't be. Why not extend it to LD trains?

And remember, I'm not saying the states should pay 100% of the LD expenses, just 25% (and that money can be used to cut the state requirements for the other trains to 50%). Under my plan, a state like California would have to chip in money for the SWC, CZ, CS, and SL but would see their Capitol Corridor, Pacific Surfliner, and San Joaquin bill cut in half. I think 100% and 0% is too extreme.


----------



## jis (Sep 17, 2016)

I frankly don't think we should back off from the general principle that infrastructure and services supporting interstate commerce is primarily a federal responsibility. If any state funding should be involved it should not go beyond the 90-10 formula used for the interstate highway system. However, the problem even with that as Thirdrail has pointed out is 90-10 of what top line? Hence the 750 mile compromise. I don't think anyone has come up with a formula that works much better than that.

Of course the issues faced by the NEC Commission, while rooted in the same core issues, is possibly quite a bit more difficult to resolve because of the large number of trains operated by large number of entities requiring different qualities of track, the primary beneficiaries of which are not necessarily the places that the tracks pass through. Having been a past resident of NJ I can vouch for how hard it is to convince anyone in NJ that it is worthwhile for NJ to fund high speed tracks through NJ. The tunnel OTOH many understand benefits NJ more than anyone else.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Sep 17, 2016)

In reality, most of the < 750 mile trains outside of the NEC already were state supported to some degree so it was easier for Congress to pressure the states to take over the costs. You had the case where the Pennsylvanian was in jeopardy but eventually PennDOT blinked and where the Hoosier State was in jeopardy but Indiana brought Iowa Pacific into the mix. On the other hand, if Amtrak made the same demands on most of the LD trains, how many states would willingly agree to pay? Is there any LD route that Amtrak/Congress can bully a state or states to take over the costs of it? I'm sure if they could they would've done so already. Why pay for a train when you can get someone else to?

So it becomes a question as to whether Amtrak/Congress really wants the route(s) or not? Right now the answer for all of the current LD routes is yes. Whenever they change their answer to no on a specific route or routes, they'll probably go to the states/localities involved and say "pay for it or lose it". And we know they've done it before.

I'm not even sure the 750 mile rule is even necessary now. All of the current "state supported" routes are off the federal government's hands and it's not like Amtrak is starting any new trains now, whether it would be more than 750 miles or less than .


----------



## west point (Sep 17, 2016)

Our posters here need to re read third rail a couple times. Lets listen to all persons throughout the USA. This poster feels that this 750 mile amendment is an attempt by certain congress critters to continue to Balkanize the USA. We already fought one civil war that tried separating us. Of course the population differences and area differences can never be equalized. To put it on the states is _________________.


----------



## WoodyinNYC (Sep 17, 2016)

It could be easier to work on the problem by talking about it differently.

Under current law and definitions, trains are long distance or state-supported because they are not long-enuff distance. (Not getting into local commuter systems.)

When Amtrak was formed, the system included the long distance routes. of course. It also included a bunch of shorter corridor trains that mostly overlay some LD routes. The NYC-Buffalo Empire Service, for example, and the St Louis-CHI Lincoln trains, and a few others.

As years went by, various states made deals with Amtrak to start or expand corridor service, and at some point someone noticed, and began to agitate, that some corridor trains got a lot of federal Amtrak money and others didn't much or any help at all.

The PRIIA solution equalized things by treating all, or almost all (not the _Palmetto_. for example), the non-LD trains the same, by shifting 85% of the costs to the states, while Amtrak covers 15% of costs recognizing that the corridor are some part of the national system.

The either/or line was set somewhat arbitrarily at 750 miles.

With the passage of time, it's clear that the 750-mile limit has discouraged states from adding corridor service where they have to pay 85%, especially where states (like New Hampshire, Alabama, Mississippi, and others) will not agree to partner their fair share of the costs.

Most of us see the corridor trains as part of the national system, to some degree or another. The _Cascades_ trains Eugene-Portland-Seattle-Vancouver, BC seem as much a part of Amtrak as the _Coast Starlight_ on most of the same tracks.

But the degree any given corridor is actually part of the national system may differ considerably. The 750-mile breakpoint is too crude a measure.

Looking at the actual miles involved, it's clear that NY-Albany are NY State trains. Extend them to Buffalo, well, hmmn. Take them to Montreal or Toronto and why the hell are NY taxpayers covering 85% of those costs? Chicago to Milwaukee, yeah, that seems like something for Illinois and Wisconsin to handle. But CHI-St Paul with 418 miles? Or CHI-St Paul-Fargo with 662? Maybe CHI-St Paul isn't quite the same level of 'national system' as the _Empire Builder_ is, but it seems at least halfway national. And CHI-Fargo -- a four-state corridor over 650 miles, that's national system.

It's the 750-mile limit that's most in need of changing. Leave NY-Albany and CHI-Milwaukee for the states. Set the cut-off limit for 15% federal cost-sharing at 200 miles. Then have the states pay 50% of routes between 201 and 400 miles, with the feds, that is, Amtrak, paying the other 50%. Make that 400-mile figure be the new maximum requiring state support. Any route of 400 miles or more will be part of the national system like any other LD train.

If we could get the 750-mile limit cut almost in half, and federal money to help support middle-distance trains, we'd see a clamor for more trains to expand the Amtrak system.


----------



## neroden (Sep 19, 2016)

I think the key is entirely elsewhere, as I've mentioned before. I think the keys are:

1 -- accept that the infrastructure is a government responsibility like roads. Whether state or federal is not the biggest issue; the biggest issue is getting the governments to admit that they should own and maintain the tracks like they do the roads, out of property tax, sales tax, income tax. Barely any roads make money and many roads serve only a couple of people. *All* the tracks. (The freights can pay access charges or lease 'em.)

2 -- Get away from bogus "cost allocation" accounting. Get the federal government to admit that they need to pay for Amtrak's central reservations system, Amtrak's accounting system, Amtrak's head office, Amtrak's backshops at Beech Grove, Bear, etc., and so on. Just like they manage Air Traffic Control or pay for the NHTSA. These central operations need to be unified and are a national (or even international) issue, so they are quintessentially federal.

At that point, the actual operations subsidies are so much smaller that it becomes much less of an issue to argue about.

I guess I'm arguing for a massive reframing of the debate.


----------



## jis (Sep 19, 2016)

Neroden, I completely agree with the way you frame it. That helps clarify what are the top lines that then may be split 90-10 or even 100-0 or 0-100 between the feds and the states.


----------



## Anderson (Sep 19, 2016)

Part of the issue is that there were a hatful of "holdover" trains in MI, NY, PA, and VA that the states were getting for free. In the case of VA, IIRC it was four of the five WAS-RVR trains; I believe in the case of NY it was basically the entire NYP-ALB-NFS set of trains. I think there were some other cases of this floating around as well (one or two Surfliners _may_ have qualified as "system" trains as well), and in yet other cases the contracts had wildly variable terms.

VA was a sort-of hilarious situation since IIRC either 3 or 4 of the 6 trains were in the _black_ for Amtrak, basically rendering the contracts this wacky academic exercise...but in all of the cases, standardizing (or close to standardizing) the contracts _was_ a matter of fairness (e.g. why should the Adirondack, Carolinian, and Wolverines all have different contract terms insofar as the service provided was the same?).

Now, the point was made that PA blinked. The truth is a bit more complicated...IIRC both sides blinked: PA got a special deal because of plans to run through cars onto the Cap and because there is a _lot_ of transfer business between those two at PGH which would be lost to the national system. PA still had to fork over some cash, but I think they got a discount of a few million dollars per year.

Edit: Honestly, there probably should have been 2-3 tiers below the "national system". _Really_ short trains running either exclusively intrastate (Capitol Corridor, NYP-ALB) or barely interstate (Hiawatha) which more-or-less serve a commuter function probably should be down to the state(s) involved and/or treated generally the same way that "actual" commuter trains are. Longer stuff (NYP-NFS comes to mind) I would be inclined to give something closer to a 50-50 split (and/or at least cover equipment charges, with some sort of credit to operations where the states have their own equipment). One thing to remember, however, is that the closer analogy is tollways, not freeways.


----------



## jis (Sep 19, 2016)

The big controversy with New York State was about what it considered to be exorbitant charges for fleet renewal, when there was no sign of any such. It came to a point that NYSDOT apparently threatened to simply discontinue the entire Empire Service (which I heard about from ESPA with much consternation), which apparently caused Amtrak to blink and they then came to a settlement.


----------



## WoodyinNYC (Sep 19, 2016)

Anderson said:


> _... Really_ short trains running either exclusively intrastate (Capitol Corridor, NYP-ALB) or barely interstate (Hiawatha) which more-or-less serve a commuter function ... Longer stuff (NYP-NFS comes to mind) . .


 NFS Notifier Fire Systems NFS Normal for Swindon (UK) NFS Net Feet Squared NFS Network Frame Synchronization NFS Net Foreign Selling (finance) NFS Non-Flying Status/Not on Flying Status NFS Nuclear Fuel System NFS Need for Speed: High States (game) NFS Nashua Federal Savings and Loan NFS Navigational Filmstrip NFS Near-Field Scanner NFS Nitrogen Fixation Stimulation NFS Non-Fermented Sugar (brewing technology) NRS New Frontiers in Organic Syntheses NFS Network Forecasting System (Sprint) NFS Nuclear Fuels Service NFS Normalized Flow Sum (network traffic) NFS Northern Free State (South Africa) They said, *"Just google it. So it's got to be in here somewhere."*


----------



## CCC1007 (Sep 19, 2016)

WoodyinNYC said:


> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> > _... Really_ short trains running either exclusively intrastate (Capitol Corridor, NYP-ALB) or barely interstate (Hiawatha) which more-or-less serve a commuter function ... Longer stuff (NYP-NFS comes to mind) . .
> ...


NFS-Niagra FallS


----------



## jis (Sep 19, 2016)

WoodyinNYC said:


> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> > _... Really_ short trains running either exclusively intrastate (Capitol Corridor, NYP-ALB) or barely interstate (Hiawatha) which more-or-less serve a commuter function ... Longer stuff (NYP-NFS comes to mind) . .
> ...


Try Googling "Amtrak NFS" and see what you get. Looks like you are deliberately doing something a bit silly to make a silly point.  I am assuming that you did it deliberately as opposed to actually believing that just plugging "NFS" into Google would get you anything reasonable.If you actually believed just plugging in "NFS" would get you something useful, I guess I misjudged you.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Sep 19, 2016)

I think the rule on AU should be if the Amtrak code isn't obvious to most of us, it's better to say the name. How many of you know CHM without looking it up?


----------



## jis (Sep 19, 2016)

Frankly I don't care either way since it is so easy to look it up. I will continue to use codes whenever I have them readily available in my head, and not otherwise.  Making such rules about what people may or may not do is silly "big brotherism" IMHO.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Sep 19, 2016)

Sorry, I posted my response to another post here by mistake! Please delete.


----------



## jis (Sep 19, 2016)

Sure. But so what? Net net it is an improvement to run seven days as opposed to three.


----------



## neroden (Sep 21, 2016)

Anderson said:


> One thing to remember, however, is that the closer analogy is tollways, not freeways.


Interesting point. I actually think it would be better if it were less like tollways and more like freeways.

The federal government should designate "strategic passenger routes" and "strategic freight routes" and maintain them primarily out of general taxation, like federal highways.

Then each state government should designate additional "strategic passenger routes" and "strategic freight routes" and maintain them primarily out of general taxation, like state highways.

Then localities or private companies can own and maintain additional "non-strategic routes" if they like, like local roads.

Passenger and freight operators on the strategic routes should pay nothing at all to run on the routes as long as there is spare capacity. If the total of all interested operators are asking for more slots than actually exist, then a committee can decide on the allocation between passenger and freight and between locals and expresses, while an auction system can be used if there's too much demand within one of those sub-categories. Funds raised by the auction can be used to expand the congested corridor. Auction prices can be done even if all the prices are negative, in which case the lowest-subsidy operator wins. This is a bit like the British system, and it certainly has its problems. But it's better than what we have now.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Mar 30, 2017)

I heard at another board of North Carolina's plan to extend the Carolinian to Connecticut to not have to fund the train anymore (http://www.ncleg.net/documentsites/committees/JointAppropriationsTransportation/2017_Session/3.22.17_RailDivision_NCRR/3.Worley_NCDOTRail_Division.pdf, p. 9).

I'm thinking the chances of Amtrak falling for that are slim and non, especially with proposed Amtrak budget cuts. The Carolinian covers 95% of its operating costs by ticket revenue (https://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/Details/L18616) so it wouldn't be that much extra a cost to the US and would be far better than any LD train other than the Auto Train. Of course then other states could try to follow suit so it would set a precedent I'm pretty sure Amtrak/Congress wouldn't want set.


----------



## A Voice (Mar 30, 2017)

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> I heard at another board of North Carolina's plan to extend the Carolinian to Connecticut to not have to fund the train anymore (http://www.ncleg.net/documentsites/committees/JointAppropriationsTransportation/2017_Session/3.22.17_RailDivision_NCRR/3.Worley_NCDOTRail_Division.pdf, p. 9).
> 
> I'm thinking the chances of Amtrak falling for that are slim and non, especially with proposed Amtrak budget cuts. The Carolinian covers 95% of its operating costs by ticket revenue (https://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/Details/L18616) so it wouldn't be that much extra a cost to the US and would be far better than any LD train other than the Auto Train. Of course then other states could try to follow suit so it would set a precedent I'm pretty sure Amtrak/Congress wouldn't want set.


It may depend somewhat on the degree to which Connecticut also pushes for the extension; A second state desiring an expansion of service is a rather different matter than North Carolina just trying to get off the hook. But I do think the plan has a reasonable chance, partially for the reasons you mention (cost to Amtrak is marginal); The _Carolinian_ is arguably already a long-distance train in all but technical definition. As mentioned, beware however of what the so-called '750 mile rule' actually says rather than what you read on the forum.

And yes, there is the issue of precedence. However, there are relatively few state-supported trains which are even possible candidates (such as the Pennsylvanian, again to Chicago). Nobody is going to buy the idea that Illinois suddenly decides the Carbondale trains really need to run all the way to Mississippi.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Mar 30, 2017)

So what happens to a break even train at fleet renewal time? State funded or not a break even train is not maintainable forever without additional funding.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Mar 30, 2017)

The non NEC corridor trains that have the next highest % of operating losses by ticket revenue are the Hiawatha (73%) and the Pennsylvanian (71%). The Pennsylvanian has a PM/TM of 211 while the Hiawatha service has a PM/TM of 151 so both would be reasonable to take off the states' backs while not driving up the federal Amtrak budget. After that, you get the Maple Leaf (68%, 116), Pacific Surfliner (63%, 157), Vermonter (62%, 138). They would be a harder sell (the Maple Leaf's PM/TM is lower than any LD train). If Canada chips in for the Leaf and the US's portion of the train's cost is lower then it might make more sense. For sure the Carolinian would be relatively "cheap" and the PM/TM would be higher than any non AT LD train by a big margin.


----------



## A Voice (Mar 30, 2017)

Devil's Advocate said:


> So what happens to a break even train at fleet renewal time? State funded or not a break even train is not maintainable forever without additional funding.


Even back in the days of the "glidepath to self sufficiency" debacle, nobody was pretending that Amtrak (or passenger rail in general) could exist without significant capital support. There's no free lunch; Some form of subsidy will always be required no matter what you call it (operating, capital, or whatever).


----------

