# Manager of Valley's San Joaquin trains may ditch Amtrak as operator



## frequentflyer (Nov 15, 2019)

A former Amtrak CEO stated Amtrak needed to get its costs down or this may start happening.

https://abc30.com/travel/amtraks-presence-in-the-valley-may-be-in-jeopardy/5698401/

"FRESNO, Calif. (KFSN) -- Amtrak has provided rail service in the San Joaquin Valley since 1974.

However, Amtrak's presence in the Valley could be in jeopardy, based on testimony Action News heard in Washington DC before the US House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee.

The executive director of San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority, Stacey Mortensen, told the House Transportation committee that Amtrak charges three times as much per passenger to run the San Joaquin trains, compared to the Altamont Corridor Express or ACE.


Mortensen is the leader of both the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority and the San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission, which manages the operators of both routes.

It also gives her a unique perspective into train operations.

In what she called, "_A Tale of the Two Services_," she was critical towards Amtrak's lack of transparency, especially when compared to the way contractor Herzog Transit handles the ACE commuter rail."


----------



## Anthony V (Nov 15, 2019)

Does this mean the San Joaquin trains are at risk of discontinuance?


----------



## MikefromCrete (Nov 15, 2019)

Anthony V said:


> Does this mean the San Joaquin trains are at risk of discontinuance?


No, it means the service could be turned over to another operator. All services run by Amtrak for the states or other local authorities could be turned over to private or public operators.


----------



## seat38a (Nov 15, 2019)

Anthony V said:


> Does this mean the San Joaquin trains are at risk of discontinuance?


Nope, just means someone else other than Amtrak will operate the trains. Amtrak doesn't own any of the equipment. Its all California State property.


----------



## seat38a (Nov 15, 2019)

Since I've never ridden on ACE, I'm going by my experience riding on Metrolink.
Amtrak has 3 conductors and a LSA in the Cafe Car, while commuter rail has 1 conductor. Seems like lots more staff to pay for vs a commuter rail service. Also, I think some of the Amtrak crew have to overnight in Bakersfield. San Joaquin has also been trying to eliminate the Merced crew change for a while now. ACE takes 2+ hours from Stockton to San Jose while San Joaquin takes 6+ hours between Bakersfield and Oakland. Oh and let's not forget the checked luggage and staffed ticket counters. Those Truway buses aren't free either. Sounds pretty expensive to me.


----------



## sttom (Nov 15, 2019)

ACE runs 4 trips per day, week days only and has no direct connections or staffed stations. Amtrak needs more transparency, but going to Herzog for the San Joaquins would lead to a decline in service probably for not a justifiable cost savings. Or this is a local politicians grandstanding for a promotion to the state legislature. Never takw California and it's "locally controlled" state services administrators at face value.


----------



## Seaboard92 (Nov 15, 2019)

There’s nothing to say Herzog Transit Services couldn’t learn how to handle station services, and food service. 

Amtrak is losing a lot of intellectual knowledge with the new administration there. But they could re learn it just like someone else could learn it by reading railroad history. And trying. The resources are out there. 

I’m rooting for Herzog not because I have a friend who works there. But because I would like to see someone force Amtrak to to be more transparent. And losing a contract might cause that.


----------



## sttom (Nov 16, 2019)

Seaboard92 said:


> There’s nothing to say Herzog Transit Services couldn’t learn how to handle station services, and food service.



That doesn't mean that Herzog or anyone else for that matter would actually be cheaper or take away from the prospect that we have a local politician grandstanding on some issue when we are heading into a major election year.

If this was happening anywhere other than California, I would have a less than cynical view of this. JPAs are run by local politicians that don't necessarily need to be qualified to run whatever it is they are running. Looking and the SJJPA Board, it looks like a roster of people who will probably be running for a promotion....er I means serving the public, at some point and making a fuss about something is a sure way to get eyes on you even if nothing comes of it (which I will assume for the time being will be the outcome)

I have mentioned before, but this is one of the reasons I don't particularly like JPAs. Having ambivalent state officials running the Amtrak is starting to look even more preferable than local politicians looking to add to their resume at the expense of whatever it is they are running. How outrageous is it that local politicians can even threaten to end an Amtrak line, even when the state is at least in theory against it?


----------



## rickycourtney (Nov 16, 2019)

sttom said:


> ACE runs 4 trips per day, week days only and has no direct connections or staffed stations. Amtrak needs more transparency, but going to Herzog for the San Joaquins would lead to a decline in service probably for not a justifiable cost savings. Or this is a local politicians grandstanding for a promotion to the state legislature. Never takw California and it's "locally controlled" state services administrators at face value.


Stacey Mortensen is not an elected politician, she’s a railroad professional with 20+ years of experience. She’s the woman who the politicians on the SJJPA board have hired to do the important day to day work of running a train.

While the points raised about the staffing and operational differences are true... does that still justify paying three times as much? We don’t know, because Amtrak “focuses on protecting its proprietary data, solely determines resource allocations and planning decisions, and has no shared performance objectives. Costs cannot be rationally tied to actual service.”

Amtrak’s steadfast refusal to embrace the principles of “transparency, collaboration, and fairness” has angered its customer (SJJPA). 

Best case scenario for Amtrak... this testimony inspires them to become a better contract operator for states.

Worst case scenario for Amtrak... they don’t change, SJJPA leaves for a new operator, thereby creating a blueprint for other state-funded services to do the same.


----------



## Palmetto (Nov 16, 2019)

Back to the MBTA for a moment. Amtrak lost that contract several years ago. Didn't seem to bother them one bit. Is there anything in the wind now that would cause Amtrak to react differently if they lose the San Joaquins contract.


----------



## Trogdor (Nov 16, 2019)

I’m actually curious about the comment of Amtrak costing 3x as much per passenger as ACE.

What’s the relative total ridership, per train, of each service, and what are the average distances traveled?

A heavily-loaded commuter train on a short-distance trip certainly ought to cost quite a bit less on a per-passenger basis than a medium-distance intercity train running several times the distance.


----------



## jiml (Nov 16, 2019)

I believe there are several commuter services in both the US and Canada operated by Bombardier under contract, including SunRail, MARC and Coaster. Albuquerque was I think, but now Herzog.


----------



## jis (Nov 16, 2019)

Trogdor said:


> I’m actually curious about the comment of Amtrak costing 3x as much per passenger as ACE.
> 
> What’s the relative total ridership, per train, of each service, and what are the average distances traveled?
> 
> A heavily-loaded commuter train on a short-distance trip certainly ought to cost quite a bit less on a per-passenger basis than a medium-distance intercity train running several times the distance.


I watched that entire segment. Her main complaint appeared to be lack of transparency and the fact that they cannot figure out why Amtrak is charging what it is charging. That appears to have been an ongoing gripe about Amtrak form virtually everyone that has ever contracted with Amtrak to run any train service for them, as far as I can tell. 

She did acknowledge that Amtrak may be hamstrung by the one size fits all approach for pricing that the know it all geniuses placed in PRIIA 209, but guess who wrote most of that without much consulting with any of the victims of it? It is kinda neat to be able to write a law and then point to the thing you wrote to claim that your hands are tied. Also, the law does not say that "no details of the reason for the pricing the way it is shall be provided", as far as I can gather from reading the law.


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Nov 16, 2019)

jis said:


> I watched that entire segment. Her main complaint appeared to be lack of transparency and the fact that they cannot figure out why Amtrak is charging what it is charging. That appears to have been an ongoing gripe about Amtrak form virtually everyone that has ever contracted with Amtrak to run any train service for them, as far as I can tell.



This doesn't make a lot of sense to me unless there are unexplained cost overruns. The methodology of PRIIA will identify the costs. They aren't usually made public but there was one  made public in the Amtrak no longer allowing standing passengers on unreserved trains? thread. It explains the costs, assignments, fees, manpower requirements, depreciation, costs etc, so unless they don't understand the methodology, which should result in consistent costs for the operators, it seems the problem may be with PRIIA.




jis said:


> She did acknowledge that Amtrak may be hamstrung by the one size fits all approach for pricing that the know it all geniuses placed in PRIIA 209, but guess who wrote most of that without much consulting with any of the victims of it



Would that be Stephan Gardner? I look much deeper into this. I think she is making waves at this time to undermine PRIIA. After all, if Amtrak is going to dip its toes into more corridor services (which is exactly what Gardner and Anderson purportedly want,) PRIIA would have to change.

To have her testifying before Congress that costs are 3 times as much(which isn't that surprising when you're operating a lot more trains,3 times as much difference and the operation ise governed by short-distance intercity rules versus commuter rules) is an effective way to do their bidding.


----------



## jis (Nov 16, 2019)

I suspect she is complaining about depreciation of equipment owned by Amtrak that is not used by them being foisted on them due to requirements of PRIIA, or something like that. As far as I could figure out that is part of the kerfuffle. She pretty much clearly stated that PRIIA is the root cause of the problem.

Also 3x cost/passenger seems a bit high even taking everything into consideration. But without seeing the actual numbers it is hard to tell. It is also not clear to me why the numbers are such secrets when people's money is being transferred from one government run out fit to another.

From a State's perspective getting rid of PRIIA 209, or at least seriously modifying it to take better account of the unique needs of specific systems, is generally a high priority, since they do not want to be placed in a straght-jacket about funding formulas. I have yet to find a State DOT person who thinks otherwise. So that will inevitably happen sooner or later. The question is what will be the modified version that they will shoot for, or even whether there is anything remotely approaching a consensus on that. Very fluid situation right now, and Anderson isn't exactly helping with his antics. 

Frankly, AFAICT, the main reason that States put up with all this is because the laws have been set up to give Amtrak almost exclusive preference on track access. Wherever states have been able to break free of that, in many cases they have tended to not deal with Amtrak, if they have managed to set up a sufficiently competent DOT department to handle the necessary foot work. Not that their experience has been uniformly good mind you, but in many cases it has been better than with Amtrak in control, and others it has been questionable.


----------



## sttom (Nov 16, 2019)

rickycourtney said:


> While the points raised about the staffing and operational differences are true... does that still justify paying three times as much? We don’t know, because Amtrak “focuses on protecting its proprietary data, solely determines resource allocations and planning decisions, and has no shared performance objectives. Costs cannot be rationally tied to actual service.”
> 
> Amtrak’s steadfast refusal to embrace the principles of “transparency, collaboration, and fairness” has angered its customer (SJJPA).
> 
> ...



And there in lies the issue, the customer is not the State of California, but a local agency it created to pass the buck off onto. The cost structure of an intercity service is different. ACE doesn't have to pay for connecting services like the SJJPA Amtrak contract probably includes or station staff or food service which is historically operated at a loss. As pointed out above, there could be up to double the people working each train vs a commuter train, not including crew changes and station staff. This is also assuming that Amtrak doesn't charge the local agencies more than it used to charge the state, which I probably would if I were Amtrak, since the contract could be smaller than running 3 trains and a bunch of buses under 1 contract. 

Also, what would be the start up costs to switch to Herzog or anyone else assuming they even try to keep the same level of service? What is the cost of hiring and training more train crews, station staff and train operators? What would happen to the equipment? Would the State be as willing to let them keep using state equipment? 

As for her not being a politician, she works for them. Working with them means you need to be one on some level. There is likely more to the story than what is being reported.


----------



## me_little_me (Nov 16, 2019)

Palmetto said:


> Back to the MBTA for a moment. Amtrak lost that contract several years ago. Didn't seem to bother them one bit. Is there anything in the wind now that would cause Amtrak to react differently if they lose the San Joaquins contract.


They'll probably just allocate those costs to the long distance trains and give themselves a bonus.


----------



## nti1094 (Nov 16, 2019)

seat38a said:


> Since I've never ridden on ACE, I'm going by my experience riding on Metrolink.
> Amtrak has 3 conductors and a LSA in the Cafe Car, while commuter rail has 1 conductor. Seems like lots more staff to pay for vs a commuter rail service. Also, I think some of the Amtrak crew have to overnight in Bakersfield. San Joaquin has also been trying to eliminate the Merced crew change for a while now. ACE takes 2+ hours from Stockton to San Jose while San Joaquin takes 6+ hours between Bakersfield and Oakland. Oh and let's not forget the checked luggage and staffed ticket counters. Those Truway buses aren't free either. Sounds pretty expensive to me.



On my San Joaquin ride last month from Hanford to Sacramento for Winter Rail, there was only one conductor and an engineer working the entire run to Sacramento. I got the impression that was not normal, but still he seemed to have no problem working the train.


----------



## nti1094 (Nov 16, 2019)

Trogdor said:


> I’m actually curious about the comment of Amtrak costing 3x as much per passenger as ACE.
> 
> What’s the relative total ridership, per train, of each service, and what are the average distances traveled?
> 
> A heavily-loaded commuter train on a short-distance trip certainly ought to cost quite a bit less on a per-passenger basis than a medium-distance intercity train running several times the distance.



ACE is on the far extreme of commuter railroad and more like a short corridor run.


----------



## nti1094 (Nov 16, 2019)

sttom said:


> And there in lies the issue, the customer is not the State of California, but a local agency it created to pass the buck off onto. The cost structure of an intercity service is different. ACE doesn't have to pay for connecting services like the SJJPA Amtrak contract probably includes or station staff or food service which is historically operated at a loss. As pointed out above, there could be up to double the people working each train vs a commuter train, not including crew changes and station staff. This is also assuming that Amtrak doesn't charge the local agencies more than it used to charge the state, which I probably would if I were Amtrak, since the contract could be smaller than running 3 trains and a bunch of buses under 1 contract.
> 
> Also, what would be the start up costs to switch to Herzog or anyone else assuming they even try to keep the same level of service? What is the cost of hiring and training more train crews, station staff and train operators? What would happen to the equipment? Would the State be as willing to let them keep using state equipment?
> 
> As for her not being a politician, she works for them. Working with them means you need to be one on some level. There is likely more to the story than what is being reported.



I saw her testimony and one of her main points is that Amtrak has not once come in on or under budget, but Herzog has for years come in under budget based on beginning of year estimates. That makes planning and fare policy much easier and allowed for a cushion in an economic downturn. She was frustrated that Amtrak, despite being a railroad, can’t seem to get a handle on true costs. Also, she said that they don’t explain things that defy logic, like cutting service yet charging more for the service.


----------



## TiBike (Nov 16, 2019)

The SJJPA's "Valley Rail" project is below. It includes two more daily round trips for the San Joaquins. The environmental work (the toughest part of any project in California) is underway. The SJJPA board and staff are planning and managing accordingly. Right now, only the two roundtrips between Sacramento and Bakersfield share a station with ACE. They barely touch. But if Valley Rail happens, it's going to be an integrated system. Having a single operator could be very advantageous, perhaps even necessary.

Interoperability and a seamless passenger experience within the system is far more important to SJJPA, and the State of California, than any benefit connectivity to long distance trains might offer. Even now, the San Joaquins and the extensive network of thruways (which aren't legally restricted any more to only serving passengers with train connections) offer better transportation service between northern California and LA/Las Vegas than Amtrak long distance trains.

Amtrak needs the San Joaquins far more than the San Joaquins need Amtrak.


----------



## sttom (Nov 17, 2019)

TiBike said:


> Interoperability and a seamless passenger experience within the system is far more important to SJJPA, and the State of California, than any benefit connectivity to long distance trains might offer. Even now, the San Joaquins and the extensive network of thruways (which aren't legally restricted any more to only serving passengers with train connections) offer better transportation service between northern California and LA/Las Vegas than Amtrak long distance trains.



Having used trains in Europe and having talked with Europeans, having suburban and provincial trains (the equivalent of ACE) be separate from the national rail operator (in our case Amtrak) never seemed to even be an issue for them. There is such a notion as being a specialist in one area and not a jack of all trades. This is also an argument for not letting commuter agencies run intercity services. 

As I haven mentioned before, what about the costs to transition? Or train the train and station staff should they switch? Also where is Herzog going to get people that know how intercity trains work vs commuters? Would the transition lead to a downgrade in service? It would stand to reason that switching operators might end up costing more than its worth.


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Nov 17, 2019)

The costs would be the new operators responsibility.


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Nov 17, 2019)

TiBike said:


> Even now, the San Joaquins and the extensive network of thruways (which aren't legally restricted any more to only serving passengers with train connections) offer better transportation service between northern California and LA/Las Vegas than Amtrak long distance trains.



I would hope that what basically translates into an intrastate short distance service offers better transportation than a long-distance train that operates once a day.



TiBike said:


> Amtrak needs the San Joaquins far more than the San Joaquins need Amtrak.



People made the same foolish statements about MARC, MBTA, VRE and MetroLink.

Yet, Amtrak still seems to hang in there. I doubt Amtrak "needs" the San Joaquins any more than the San Joaquins "needs" Amtrak.


----------



## sttom (Nov 17, 2019)

crescent-zephyr said:


> The costs would be the new operators responsibility.



Who would really take on the start up costs with no guarantee of either a multi year contract or the state footing the bill for the transition? The original reporting shows that contract with Amtrak is an annual contract.


----------



## TiBike (Nov 17, 2019)

Thirdrail7 said:


> I would hope that what basically translates into an intrastate short distance service offers better transportation than a long-distance train that operates once a day.



Fair point, I was stating the obvious. That said, it's certainly intrastate and not long distance by federal standards, but it's not all that short. The San Joaquins service spans from Redding to LA, and Oakland to Las Vegas. Those are 500+ mile routes. It feeds, and sometimes directly supplements, four long distance Amtrak trains. It also adds a bit to Amtrak's operational economies of scale, although I'd guess nowhere near what the Capitol Corridor and Surfliner add. OTOH, if the Valley Rail plan moves ahead, economies of scale and network connectivity argue for a single SJJPA operator.



Thirdrail7 said:


> People made the same foolish statements about MARC, MBTA, VRE and MetroLink.



I can't speak to what goes on out east, except to assume it's way different, particularly given Amtrak's ownership of the NEC. But we will see what happens with Metrolink. Bids closed last month on the new operating and maintenance contract(s).


----------



## neroden (Nov 18, 2019)

The problem is, as many of us have been saying for years, and as I have personally told people in Amtrak's government relations department, that Amtrak's "allocated costs" are bogus. Rail Passengers Association's White Paper goes into some detail on this. If Amtrak published avoidable costs (which they are required by law to do and refuse to do), and made the details of overhead allocation clear, then states and agencies would be more willing to work with them. As it is, states and agencies believe they are being overcharged. Advocates believe the long-distance trains are being overcharged too. The NEC is probably being undercharged, but there is no way to be sure without honest, transparent accounting, which Amtrak keeps refusing to do.


----------



## ehbowen (Nov 18, 2019)

Palmetto said:


> Back to the MBTA for a moment. Amtrak lost that contract several years ago. Didn't seem to bother them one bit. Is there anything in the wind now that would cause Amtrak to react differently if they lose the San Joaquins contract.



Yeah. What are they going to do now when the _Coast Starlight_ misses a connection?


----------



## MARC Rider (Nov 18, 2019)

crescent-zephyr said:


> The costs would be the new operators responsibility.


Which, of course, they will pass on to their customers.


----------



## jis (Nov 18, 2019)

MARC Rider said:


> Which, of course, they will pass on to their customers.



That depends on how well or poorly the contract is written.


----------



## Trogdor (Nov 18, 2019)

jis said:


> That depends on how well or poorly the contract is written.



Maybe Ed Ellis will bid, and offer up some dome cars and 40-year-old locomotives to supplement the fleet.


----------



## MikefromCrete (Nov 18, 2019)

Trogdor said:


> Maybe Ed Ellis will bid, and offer up some dome cars and 40-year-old locomotives to supplement the fleet.



Count on that effort to fail like everything else Ellis has put his hands on.


----------



## Palmetto (Nov 19, 2019)

MikefromCrete said:


> Count on that effort to fail like everything else Ellis has put his hands on.



Somehow, though, the Hood River Railroad is still running trains. For how long, I do not know


----------



## Anderson (Nov 19, 2019)

So, Amtrak has had a real problem with non-competitive overhead rates. It is part of why, despite presumably being well-positioned to run various commuter routes, they have pretty consistently lost the contracts to do so wherever states _could_ dump them (often in contentious fights...VA had to go through a lawsuit over access to Union Station in DC while Connecticut got into a back-room showdown with Amtrak over the Hartford Line...Amtrak didn't want to host a third-party operator NHV-SPG, but Connecticut prevailed when they pointed out that Amtrak needed to use MNRR's tracks NHV-NRO).

The San Joaquins are, IIRC, coach-only (something of a rarity in the system) and they're _relatively_ simple to manage. Were I in Amtrak's shoes, however, I'd be _very_ wary: "Successfully" losing the _San Joaquin_ contract could easily lead to a domino effect, and there have been rumbles of discontent.

Realistically, with Amtrak now (probably) turning a profit I think they need to consider reducing/reworking the overhead adders on the state-supported trains to get closer to an actual "cost plus" basis. Those are a real bone of contention (e.g. Amtrak billing states for marketing/advertising on a generic basis even if the state is doing all of their marketing on their own), and that's before you get to the lack of transparency involved (which compounds complaints about "just" being overbilled).


----------



## jis (Nov 19, 2019)

In the same vein, NYSDOT threatened to fire Amtrak and shut down Empire Service before Amtrak came to heel with NY Empire Service related issues. I am not aware of any additional threats regarding usage of MNRR tracks in that case, but it did get really testy for a few days back then.

As a wag jokingly said Amtrak's billing for services is like the Medical Bill that you get charging $108 for two crackers and a thimble full of coffee, all in the garb of some impressive sounding item like "recovery sustenance" in the post procedure recovery room. Nobody can explain what the $106 over cost is used for by whom. 

That is the reason no one except Amtrak like PRIIA Section 209. It just perpetuates the opaque nonsense in the name of uniformity, even though every state with current or past state funded services, except Indiana has signed off on the various formulae.


----------



## Anderson (Nov 20, 2019)

jis said:


> In the same vein, NYSDOT threatened to fire Amtrak and shut down Empire Service before Amtrak came to heel with NY Empire Service related issues. I am not aware of any additional threats regarding usage of MNRR tracks in that case, but it did get really testy for a few days back then.
> 
> As a wag jokingly said Amtrak's billing for services is like the Medical Bill that you get charging $108 for two crackers and a thimble full of coffee, all in the garb of some impressive sounding item like "recovery sustenance" in the post procedure recovery room. Nobody can explain what the $106 over cost is used for by whom.
> 
> That is the reason no one except Amtrak like PRIIA Section 209. It just perpetuates the opaque nonsense in the name of uniformity, even though every state with current or past state funded services, except Indiana has signed off on the various formulae.


I admit that I'm a bit surprised that a few of the bigger states (New York, California, Illinois, and Michigan come to mind) didn't publicly push on the formulas. Instead, "a miracle occurs" and everyone signs onto a proposed formula.


----------



## neroden (Nov 21, 2019)

The formula was changed at least once before the states agreed to it... To charge them less. IIRC, PA led the complaints. It remains opaque. NY, MI, and IL had somewhat distracted governments at the time, so I am not surprised they accepted the half measures. I am a bit surprised that MA and CA, which are usually very on the ball about the details of rail service, did not make a bigger fuss.


----------



## Anderson (Nov 21, 2019)

neroden said:


> The formula was changed at least once before the states agreed to it... To charge them less. IIRC, PA led the complaints. It remains opaque. NY, MI, and IL had somewhat distracted governments at the time, so I am not surprised they accepted the half measures. I am a bit surprised that MA and CA, which are usually very on the ball about the details of rail service, did not make a bigger fuss.


MA only had the _Downeaster _and, sort-of, the _Shuttles_ and _Vermonter_. All of those involve other states (the Northern New England folks for the _Downeaster_, Vermont for...er...the _Vermonter_, and CT for both the _Vermonter_ and the _Shuttles_). So their non-objection doesn't shock me.

California is more confusing, but given the general trend of their equipment situation my best guess is that they were part of the initial pushback but also decided that in a pinch they could throw Amtrak overboard.


----------



## rickycourtney (Nov 21, 2019)

The San Joaquin (and Capitol Corridor) is uniquely positioned amongst the state-supported routes to ditch Amtrak:

The state of California owns all of the locomotives, nearly all of the railcars (except for some non-critical cars, namely three Horizon dinettes, three NPCUs, and four Superliners).
The state of California owns the Oakland Maintenance Facility and ACE/Herzog has already pitched taking over some of the maintenance contract from Amtrak at their new Stockton facility.
The stations are not owned by Amtrak, but instead by the state, local governments, or the railroad.
California has an existing ecosystem of contract railroad operators. Herzog runs ACE and Caltrain, while Bombardier runs Coaster and Sprinter.
That would allow for a pretty clean break from Amtrak without having to build a lot of new infrastructure or purchase new equipment.


----------



## Willbridge (Nov 21, 2019)

neroden said:


> The formula was changed at least once before the states agreed to it... To charge them less. IIRC, PA led the complaints. It remains opaque. NY, MI, and IL had somewhat distracted governments at the time, so I am not surprised they accepted the half measures. I am a bit surprised that MA and CA, which are usually very on the ball about the details of rail service, did not make a bigger fuss.


In the 1970's not only did Amtrak have to match state funding, but it also had to report finances on the ICC form. We (state people) knew some of the fallacies then, but didn't know that things would get so muddied. In 1975 Amtrak even agreed to credit us with the new PDX-SEA revenue generated from the Willamette Valley extension.


----------



## daybeers (Nov 21, 2019)

While it may be benefitial to the overall service, the state, and may even cost less, I'm afraid of the affects it will have on Amtrak. California is its second largest market. We're looking at tens of millions, right?


----------



## seat38a (Nov 21, 2019)

daybeers said:


> While it may be benefitial to the overall service, the state, and may even cost less, I'm afraid of the affects it will have on Amtrak. California is its second largest market. We're looking at tens of millions, right?



Loosing any of the State Supported services will most definitely hurt Amtrak LD and probably make Amtrak LD riders life a lot worse. If you'r complaining about loosing checked luggage now, just wait until Amtrak stops operating all of California State Supported Trains and see how miserable it can be. Based on signage in the Metropolitan Lounge at LAUS, even the lounge has California money in it. No Amtrak California, no checked luggage, no lounges, no seamless connection to A LOT of destinations for Amtrak LD passengers.


----------



## MikefromCrete (Nov 22, 2019)

I think you're overstating the impact of one or all of the California routes being turned over to another operator. The greatest danger to the LD trains is Amtrak itself.


----------



## jamess (Nov 22, 2019)

If the San Joaquin service leaves Amtrak, why wouldnt Capitol Corridor follow? The trains also interline with SJ and Ace, and many of the riders are commuters. 

Honestly, having Caltrain+ACE+San Joaquin+Capitols+HSR under one "Calrail" umbrella would make more sense for the passenger facing operation. One website, one fare card, one set of standards. 

This can all be tied into the idea of making San Jose into a "grand central station" of the west.


----------



## seat38a (Nov 22, 2019)

MikefromCrete said:


> I think you're overstating the impact of one or all of the California routes being turned over to another operator. The greatest danger to the LD trains is Amtrak itself.





> Amtrak stops operating all of California State Supported Trains


I'm not talking about San Joaquin alone. I'm taking about loosing ALL of Amtrak California (San Joaquin, Capitol Corridor, and Pacific Surfliner) to another operator. So for example, without the Surfliner, do you think it would be easy for Amtrak LD passengers to get to anywhere south of LA in Orange County and San Diego? Why would any of the JPA keep checked luggage at that point?


----------



## jis (Nov 22, 2019)

I think it is jumping the gun to believe that just because there is another operator it would be impossible to incorporate some sort of through ticketing. It might have to wait for Amtrak to finish throwing a tantrum. Afterall Amtrak has already entered into such an agreement with Texas Central.

As for checked luggage, if the JPA does not want it then they could pull that facility even today, since those services are funded by the JPA on Amtrak California trains. And if the JPA wants it, why would they stop doing it just because there is a different operator? Who knows? (Idle speculation) Maybe Virgin Trains might enter into that business. They run a fine checked baggage service in Florida.

But again, one also needs to remember that JPA would not be funding stuff that is only for Amtrak LD passengers, who are even today a minority of passengers using Amtrak California service. They would fund a facility because their main customer body wants or needs it.


----------



## TiBike (Nov 22, 2019)

What you might lose is station agents and Amtrak-style checked baggage – i.e. hand it to a station agent and forget about it until you get where you're going, even if it involves a transfer to a long distance train. There's no need for station agents if the California trains dropped Amtrak's ticketing system and switched to something fully modern, and handled checked baggage like they handle bikes on the San Joaquins – walk into the baggage section of the coach/bag, hang your bike or shelve your luggage, and walk into the coach section. When you get to your destination, get off the train and walk back to the baggage section and pick up your stuff, and transfer it or carry it yourself. No different than a thruway bus.

Amtrak's work rules, procedures and IT limitations wouldn't apply either. Tickets could be bought for cash onboard, for example.

It's not just the three trains. Amtrak would also lose the extensive network of California buses. How long would a station like Salinas stay staffed if all it served was two Starlights a day? What would Amtrak do when the Starlight is 4 hours late, which is completely common? Now, they transfer passengers to a thruway/Surfliner route. Would they still do that if they weren't keeping the revenue?

Losing Amtrak's organisational load – the cost and the limitations it imposes – could lead to better service in California. Amtrak would either have to shed that load or pay the full cost itself. Which option, do you think, Amtrak would pick?


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Nov 22, 2019)

TiBike said:


> Losing Amtrak's organisational load – the cost and the limitations it imposes – could lead to better service in California. Amtrak would either have to shed that load or pay the full cost itself. Which option, do you think, Amtrak would pick?





TiBike said:


> It's not just the three trains. Amtrak would also lose the extensive network of California buses. How long would a station like Salinas stay staffed if all it served was two Starlights a day? What would Amtrak do when the Starlight is 4 hours late, which is completely common? Now, they transfer passengers to a thruway/Surfliner route. Would they still do that if they weren't keeping the revenue?



And considering the current CEO isn't a fan of the long-distance network, the Coast Starlate could go right along with it. 

Then, the costs for everything in California would be be the state's responsibility....which is what PRIIA was designed to do...and what Anderson wants to do, and the many other people want..for Amtrak to reduce their presence and have the states pay for more.

Meanwhile, California will STILL pay for the NEC.

It sounds like a win-win that plays right into the plan. Way to embrace it.


----------



## TiBike (Nov 22, 2019)

California is a net exporter of cash to the federal government. That's not going to change, and it doesn't really matter where the money goes. We're shifting more tax dollars towards mass transit (and bike infrastructure, BTW), and that won't change either. If the Starlight goes away, it'll be California's choice whether or not to replace it, perhaps with a Coast Daylight and an extended Cap Corridor or SJ run to Redding or beyond. Both of which would be scheduled to maximise service to people along those specific routes and would have a better chance of running on time. If we don't do that, we only have ourselves to blame.

Sign me up.


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Nov 22, 2019)

TiBike said:


> California is a net exporter of cash to the federal government. That's not going to change, and it doesn't really matter where the money goes



If it doesn't matter where the money goes, then it shouldn't really matter to you who operates your trains or how much it costs.

Ummm...thanks for chiming in though.


PS: Keep exporting money to the NEC please. I'd prefer not to pay anymore than I have to, particularly if you're so willing to export money since you don't believe it will change.

PRIIA was made with your types in mind: the indifferent. I guess that is how they will attempt to get away with it.


----------



## TiBike (Nov 22, 2019)

Thirdrail7 said:


> PRIIA was made with your types in mind: the indifferent. I guess that is how they will attempt to get away with it.



If I were indifferent, I'd be happy with the late trains, inconvenient schedules, shabby cars, inconsistent customer service, lousy food, weak beer and bicycle phobia that Amtrak offers in California when the state isn't picking up the tab. I'm not. Amtrak is capable of doing better in every one of those categories – California trains are proof of that – but I don't assume that's the best we can get for our money.


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Nov 23, 2019)

TiBike said:


> If I were indifferent, I'd be happy with the late trains, inconvenient schedules, shabby cars, inconsistent customer service, lousy food, weak beer and bicycle phobia that Amtrak offers in California when the state isn't picking up the tab. I'm not. Amtrak is capable of doing better in every one of those categories – California trains are proof of that – but I don't assume that's the best we can get for our money.



According to you, it might not be the best you can get for your money. However, you are at least getting something for your money (whether you like it or not)...which you're willing to give away....and still pay:



TiBike said:


> California is a net exporter of cash to the federal government. That's not going to change, and it doesn't really matter where the money goes. We're shifting more tax dollars towards mass transit (and bike infrastructure, BTW), and that won't change either.* If the Starlight goes away, it'll be California's choice whether or not to replace it, perhaps with a Coast Daylight and an extended Cap Corridor or SJ run to Redding or beyond. Both of which would be scheduled to maximise service to people along those specific routes and would have a better chance of running on time. If we don't do that, we only have ourselves to blame.
> 
> Sign me up*.



Clearly you recognize that if Amtrak California, The Star Late or other things go away, you're still paying for the North East corridor and the various other services that are provided to other states, so it is as I stated: If you're willing to be "signed up," to lose your train, I'm all for it. I'm sure other states won't mind as long as you keep exporting cash to preserve their trains.

As Amtrak gradually reduces competing for state services, the outcome is what PRIIA is designed for. States run their trains and the Feds run the expensive services no one really wants to tackle. As I stated, the San Joaquins are probably not much different than the MBTA (which Amtrak had and didn't go after), VRE (which they did go after) Metrolink (which Amtrak held, went after and lost, then got it back after the Chatsworth collision since the provider of services was hoping to shield themselves under the same cap that Amtrak uses and it didn't work) or MARC (which Amtrak operates one side and didn't bid on the CSX side).

When that happens, the employees generally go to the new operator, (and with a grand total of 4 trains, ACE will need the help), Amtrak's payroll drops, their headcount drops and they look like cost-cutters. 

Again, win-win for those with the interest. Of course, she's testifying! 

SING LOUDER!!!


----------



## sttom (Nov 23, 2019)

As I've mentioned in past posts, I wouldn't necessarily call California's model a good one. It led to a situation where a commuter agency has say in how Intercity trains run because the state didn't want to be the one holding the bag. Which brings up the question, what does Caltrans actually think about this? Will they let this happen or will they lean on the legislature to take the Intercity services back? Time will tell, but since this is California, I'm betting the legislature will let the locals make a dumb decision just cause, with less of an explanation than Amtrak will give.


----------



## jis (Nov 23, 2019)

So in the limit when Amtrak sheds everything in this grand scheme of things, their payroll will be zero and expenditures will be zero.... win win... GRIN! Juust kidding


----------



## TiBike (Nov 23, 2019)

Thirdrail7 said:


> Again, win-win for those with the interest. Of course, she's testifying!
> 
> SING LOUDER!!!



As you say, it could be win-win. It makes little difference whether Californians' federal tax dollars go to the NEC or a farmer in Kansas or a sinkhole in Florida. It's all part of the congressional appropriations game, and we do all right by it. Even if you just consider rail transportation – the federal government is kicking in a few billion to pretty up the San Joaquins route, and give us wicked fast trains between Merced and Bakersfield .

The priority is to make California's transportation system as efficient and useful as possible. Long term, the goal is to reduce carbon emissions, but the immediate objective is to unclog our streets and freeways. And, maybe, in the process improve our standard of living. Commutes that are two hours or more each way are not urban legend, they're a fact of life here. When people are driving from Modesto to San Jose everyday, there's little distinction between intercity and commuter service.

The more control we have over our own rail systems, the better able we are to achieve our goals. One item that's high on transportation planners' wish lists here is consolidation of transportation agencies and, consequently, integration of the networks they manage. Among other things, that means contracting with O&M vendors who will conform to our standards and requirements. If it comes to it, losing land cruise service is a small price to pay.


----------



## TiBike (Nov 23, 2019)

sttom said:


> What does Caltrans actually think about this? Will they let this happen or will they lean on the legislature to take the Intercity services back? Time will tell, but since this is California, I'm betting the legislature will let the locals make a dumb decision just cause, with less of an explanation than Amtrak will give.



Most of the major decisions that Caltrans implements are made by regional agencies in California. That's true of highways and rail. It's the result of legislation, but also ballot measures and the California constitution. Whether it's the best system, or even a good system, is debatable, but on the whole it works.

SJJPA's rail system serves 13 counties with 10 million people and a land area of 32,000 square miles. On its own, the region would be the tenth largest state by population and the 37th largest by land area. That's not "local". As for explanations, take a look at the publicly available board meeting minutes, and the supporting documents and budget information that decisions are based on. Or sit in on a board meeting yourself. Or run for an office that could get you on the board. For better or worse, you can't do that with Amtrak.


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Nov 23, 2019)

Here's the problem I have. I agree with your sentiments up until you make this statement:



TiBike said:


> If it comes to it, losing land cruise service is a small price to pay.


 
That's your opinion and you're entitled to it. However, there are people that may not only appreciate what you call a "land cruise" but they may depend on it. A person that may want to heads toward Eugene probably would say the same thing about your San Joaquins. They would probably question the billions to shave a few minutes off that route while they may want additional service, and therein lies the sacrifice.

Why give up something when you should add to it? 

There should be ADDITIONAL service that can add to the route. The route should be fed and nourished...not starved and isolated. However, the short term gains are embraced while long term vision is sacrificed. I look at Pennsylvanian, who had the same short term vision as you (we'll give up our LD train and feed the Keystones) and now realize they will have to spend Millions on top of Millions to restore what was already there....and their bills didn't even drop!

Again, if you wish for this to happen, more power to you. I only wish Amtrak could grab equipment. Hell, we're starting to use our "land cruise" trains to carry local passengers (despite the tardiness) because our area invested, fed and nurtured the area.....on your dime of course since PRIIA said you'll pay for it as if you utilize it....which is my problem. 

It is wrong. If you have to take care of your state, NJ should have to take care of itself. If the federal government is going to assist in the costs of rail travel, then they should assist in the cost of rail travel just like they do with highway travel and air travel. 

You should have the Coast Starlate and it should be on the dime that you pay. There should be no sacrifice. It shouldn't be a competition between the services. Yet, that is the dialogue. 
Fine by me, but once you lose something, it is difficult to get it back. 

Just ask PA, AL,MS and various other states that are struggling to restore service.


----------



## jis (Nov 23, 2019)

Part of the confusion is of the creation of Amtrak and PRIIA I think.

Ostensibly, because NEC is profitable above the rails NJ pays nothing for the existence of Amtrak service on the NEC because nothing is due from them, just like very minimal amount if any, is due from Virginia. This is a happy convergence of facts as they evolved since PRIIA by itself does not require NEC states to cover the losses on the NEC spine. 

At issue on the NEC is the infrastructure, and for that there is endless bickering about what formula to use for federal vs. state share, like there is for similar things elsewhere too. So California has to make a local contribution to get the feddybucks for its infrastructure, just like NJ or NY has to make local contributions to get the feddybucks for NEC infrastructure that benefits them. 

In addition NJ, just like California pays fees determined by various statutory bodies or individual contracts for facilities that their own trains use whether it be on Amtrak the host or UP the host.

Anyhow, on the NEC the NEC Commission decides what bill is due to each state, beyond what the feds contribute for the NEC infrastructure maintenance and upkeep. Large projects are handled separately again with some cost sharing between the feds and states.

So all that remains then is to determine who pays for LD trains. There at present appears to be a pretty broad consensus that the federal government will contribute about a billion dollars a year to run them. This is separate from what California, or any other state, chooses to do with service that they are required to fund per PRIIA. 

Just because some individuals in California have some extreme views does not mean that the consensus does not exist broadly. They may try to change the consensus and they may succeed at some point, but right now we are far away from such a point. As long as the consensus exists that is how the LD trains are funded irrespective of whether they run in California or NJ. I think it is quite likely that the consensus will outlast Anderson and his ilk at this point. But we'll of course see, won't we?


----------



## TiBike (Nov 23, 2019)

Thirdrail7 said:


> Why give up something when you should add to it?...
> 
> Again, if you wish for this to happen, more power to you.



We're not Alabama. We spend our own money on transportation infrastructure and service, including, thankfully, rail.

I don't wish to lose long distance trains. But from a transportation planning perspective, they're a very small tail on a big dog. If LD trains could improve to the point that they function as reliably as bus routes do, that would be a win for California. I'd rather ride the Zephyr from Reno to Sacramento, but I have to give up a day to do it. On the other hand, I can, and recently did, take a morning thruway to Sacramento, spend the afternoon in meetings, then take the Capitol Corridor to San Jose, and get home that night.

If it's about eventually getting to Eugene, though, that's a problem California should, and does, leave to the federal government. We need to move ahead and improve infrastructure and service that addresses our biggest problems. Support and accomodate LD trains? Sure. Compromise on the effectiveness of regional and intrastate rail service to do it? No.


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Nov 23, 2019)

TiBike said:


> If it's about eventually getting to Eugene, though, that's a problem California should, and does, leave to the federal government. We need to move ahead and improve infrastructure and service that addresses our biggest problems. Support and accomodate LD trains? Sure. Compromise on the effectiveness of regional and intrastate rail service to do it? No.



Splendid. Thank you for the clarification. As you can tell, I think (and what do I know) PRIIA was improperly crafted to favor the Northeast. I think the spin they put on the costs of the NEC is thin and for once, we seem to have leadership that embraces this farce. 

Maybe if someone invested the BILLIONS that went into the NEC into other parts of the network, your long-distance trains would have more benefit. The NEC is on its second high-speed train benched an electric locomotive after a scant 15 years of service.

What did your route get in that time frame? Hell, have you ever gotten a refresh?

All right! Enough tirading on my part. Thanks for playing tibike and NEVER give up your train. As you said, demand they do better.


----------



## seat38a (Nov 23, 2019)

Thirdrail7 said:


> Splendid. Thank you for the clarification. As you can tell, I think (and what do I know) PRIIA was improperly crafted to favor the Northeast. I think the spin they put on the costs of the NEC is thin and for once, we seem to have leadership that embraces this farce.
> 
> Maybe if someone invested the BILLIONS that went into the NEC into other parts of the network, your long-distance trains would have more benefit. The NEC is on its second high-speed train benched an electric locomotive after a scant 15 years of service.
> 
> ...



Man, I tried to make a point that Amtrak California is important to Amtrak LD and somehow Alabama and NEC got mixed in and I thought @Thirdrail7 and @TiBike were going to start WW 3 on here. Good to see an entente has been reached.


----------



## sttom (Nov 24, 2019)

TiBike said:


> Most of the major decisions that Caltrans implements are made by regional agencies in California. That's true of highways and rail. It's the result of legislation, but also ballot measures and the California constitution. Whether it's the best system, or even a good system, is debatable, but on the whole it works.
> 
> SJJPA's rail system serves 13 counties with 10 million people and a land area of 32,000 square miles. On its own, the region would be the tenth largest state by population and the 37th largest by land area. That's not "local". As for explanations, take a look at the publicly available board meeting minutes, and the supporting documents and budget information that decisions are based on. Or sit in on a board meeting yourself. Or run for an office that could get you on the board. For better or worse, you can't do that with Amtrak.



Good system? No we have a commuter agency running an Intercity line, that's not a smart idea. As for their existence, JPAs are created by statute in California, they could be defunded like the redevelopment agencies were. They weren't created at the same time either. So it's not like it's 100% mandatory that they exist.

Also this is a great time to bring up California and it's lack of a regional level of government. This state really needs one. And it should be the one dealing commuter service and Intercity service should be on the state. And I would class the JPAs as local since it's a collection of local governments. From my digging into it, there have been more issues than good. 

As for running for office, if I was going to spend the next 10 years in California politics, I'd do what a politician would do, get into the legislature. There is no point to me in reforming an institution that I don't think should exist. If I were to get my way with rail in this state, your precious JPAs wouldn't exist, but we'd be on the road to 200+ Intercity trips per day and a lot more commuter trains.


----------



## rickycourtney (Nov 25, 2019)

Just to be clear here, while the SJJPA *could* drop Amtrak as an operator within the next 12 months, I doubt they would be on such an aggressive timeline.

The biggest issue facing the San Joaquins and the Capitol Corridor at the moment is a lack of equipment.

The SJJPA is putting up with (and not without a fair amount of grumbling) with the old Comet cars on the route, because they allowed them to add another round-trip and increase capacity on all trips. The California-owned Comet cars are used with NPCUs and Horizon dinettes they leased from Amtrak.

If SJJPA dropped Amtrak, I could see angry Amtrak managers ending the lease immediately to spite the SJJPA, if the contract allows it.

Now, it would be possible to run a Comet car San Joaquin without a NPCU and Horizon dinette (we have extra locomotives, and the new Siemens cars are going to have vending machines), it would be an unnecessary pain, and the SJJPA knows that.


----------



## jis (Nov 25, 2019)

Aren't the new Siemens cars primarily targeted for San Joaquins. So their long term food service plan is basically vending machines. Loss of Horizon Dinettes is a given for them. It is just a matter of how soon, no?


----------



## rickycourtney (Nov 25, 2019)

jis said:


> Aren't the new Siemens cars primarily targeted for San Joaquins. So their long term food service plan is basically vending machines. Loss of Horizon Dinettes is a given for them. It is just a matter of how soon, no?


Yeah, California isn’t purchasing café cars for the Siemens trainsets. 

It’s not an ideal plan IMHO to put no café car on a train with a long travel time (especially compared to the Capitol Corridor).


----------



## TiBike (Nov 25, 2019)

The last plans I saw on the Siemens thread were dated February 2019 and had Caltrans buying 7 lounge cars, which seems to correspond with the number of train sets. There was also a vending machine concept graphic posted on the thread about the same time, but nothing that said Caltrans was buying that instead of lounge cars. Illinois seems to be making a distinction between lounge and cafe cars, so I assume there's a difference, but that doesn't mean that food/beverages won't be available in both. Doesn't mean it will, though.

Is there some other information available that says Caltrans and/or SJJPA is moving toward vending machines instead of continuing something like the current service?


----------



## rickycourtney (Nov 25, 2019)

TiBike said:


> Is there some other information available that says Caltrans and/or SJJPA is moving toward vending machines instead of continuing something like the current service?



Caltrans made a presentation to the SJJPA on May 31, 2019 about the Siemens equipment, in which it showed off it plans for the "Café - Vending Concept."

https://sjjpa.com/wp-content/uploads/SJJPA-Board-Meeting-May-31-2019-Presentation-2.pdf


----------



## TiBike (Nov 26, 2019)

That's an interesting presentation -- good info, thanks. The section on future plans for ACE and integration with the San Joaquins tells a lot. It sure looks like SJJPA wants to create an integrated, one seat ride network.

The section on the new cars doesn't mention lounges, though, and it shows the "concept" vending machine coaches as scheduled to appear in mid 2022, two years after the first consist arrives. It might be that it doesn't mention lounges because those have been removed from the order, or it could be that the presentation is just about coaches, as also might be inferred. Not saying one way or the other – it's ambiguous. It'll be interesting to see what they actually do.

The lack of beer aside, there's nothing wrong with vending machines as such. What matters is what's put in them and how often and diligently they're restocked. Modern vending machines are pretty capable – there's not a significant difference between getting a pre-packaged sandwich or salad from a machine versus from a person. The important thing is to get from point A to point B conveniently, safely and on time.


----------



## jis (Nov 26, 2019)

I was on the Piedmonts in North Carolina Raleigh - Salisbury - Raleigh a week back. Vending machines work just fine on those trains. Their total run is about three hours. So yes, vending machines can be made to work on short to medium run regional trains. The proportion of people who were expecting excellent, or for that matter any cuisine, on those trains was probably minuscule anyway.


----------



## TheTuck (Nov 26, 2019)

While I agree that the SJJPA's complaints about Amtrak's high costs and low transparency are noteworthy, let's not forget how much money was wasted on the Fresno-Sacramento commuter train. The SJJPA was behind this idea, which failed miserably, and Amtrak played along as good partner would. Is there any accountability for their ridership studies which obviously missed the mark pretty bad here? Now they're trying to compare the ACE commuter trains to the San Joaquins. Apples and oranges, which is obvious to any professional passenger railroader. The proposals for vending machines further illustrate how little they understand about the trains they manage. They are only looking at dollars and cents, and trying to do more with less. Dare I say protecting their jobs?


----------



## jis (Nov 26, 2019)

> They are only looking at dollars and cents, and trying to do more with less. Dare I say protecting their jobs?


Sounds like Amtrak, doesn't it?  Well almost, as Amtrak appears to be trying to do less with more, since their federal subsidy has been increasing marginally while they are busy hacking away.


----------



## rickycourtney (Nov 26, 2019)

TheTuck said:


> ...let's not forget how much money was wasted on the Fresno-Sacramento commuter train. The SJJPA was behind this idea, which failed miserably, and Amtrak played along as good partner would. Is there any accountability for their ridership studies which obviously missed the mark pretty bad here?


They had an idea, tried it, when it didn't work they admitted it and fixed it. That's how progress is made.

However, I do get a bit frustrated that there seems to be a bias towards improving Central Valley-Sacramento services, and not Central Valley-Southern California services. 

I put that blame on the fact that the SJJPA has been told to avoid investing too much in infrastructure that would duplicate CAHSR, the state is investing in ACE's Valley Rail project that will add capacity for Central Valley-Sacramento services, and most of the board members are lawmakers who regularly travel to Sacramento (and overestimate how many normal business people do the same).


----------



## DSS&A (Nov 27, 2019)

In the mid-1990s, I understand that the State of Illinois received more than one price quote when one of their contracts was up for renewal. The State eventually stayed with Amtrak. Competing proposals are always a good idea.


----------



## jamess (Nov 27, 2019)

SJJPA is definitely biased towards Sacramento travel. 

In the long-term, their plans make sense, once HSR is running. But right now it doesnt. Of course, theres nothing they can really do to improve connections to LA. Im of the opinion that they should think less about Sacramento and think more about the Bay Area. IE, right now the last "train" out is 5:30pm. Many people in the CV would rather go home at 8pm after enjoying a full day. 

CC is a business train, the SJ is a leisure train. The schedules should reflect that. 



TheTuck said:


> and Amtrak played along as good partner would.



Did they have a choice? Is Amtrak a partner or a contractor? 



> The proposals for vending machines further illustrate how little they understand about the trains they manage. They are only looking at dollars and cents, and trying to do more with less. Dare I say protecting their jobs?



The goal is hourly service. Thats more similar to a commuter rail service than an Amtrak land cruise. 


One question I have for them is what happened to all the 2008-2010 money earmarked to speed up the SJ. Lots of Obama and HSR prop money was earmarked for 90mph travel on the SJ. Where did the money go?


----------



## TheTuck (Nov 27, 2019)

jamess said:


> SJJPA is definitely biased towards Sacramento travel.
> 
> Did they have a choice? Is Amtrak a partner or a contractor?



The arrangement has elements of both, and is rather unique for sure. It's in Amtrak's best interest to accommodate the requests of the JPA's, even if it means charging them more. This is where the frustration of the SJJPA started, as costs quoted by Amtrak ended up being too low. While Amtrak seems content just being a contractor and not having to made big decisions, they need to start acting more like partners, by actually knowing what it costs to run their trains. They should be able, and willing to provide data on virtually anything related to their services.


----------



## MARC Rider (Nov 27, 2019)

jamess said:


> The goal is hourly service. Thats more similar to a commuter rail service than an Amtrak land cruise.



The Northeast Regionals, Acelas, Pacific Surfliners, Empire Service, Keystones, etc. have hourly or close to hourly service. Are they commuter rail service, too? 

And, please, none of the Amtrak California service can be considered a "land cruise," whatever that is. In fact, the use of the term for Amtrak long-distance service is misleading, and I think it's just a slur used by opponents of Amtrak or long-distance train service in general. 

While it's true that most people traveling long distances aren't going to take the train due to available cheap airline fares, there's a significant minority of the population who can't (for medical reasons) or won't fly. Then there's the population of people who can't or won't drive. Then there are people who appreciate being able to have a one-seat ride from their rural town into a major metropolitan area without having to deal with the horrible traffic in the major metropolitan area (hi, Chicago!  ) In short, most of the people riding the long-distance trains are using it for real transportation and not as a "land cruise." The relatively few riders who do ride the LD trains as "land cruises" are just gravy to Amtrak, and simply add to the market for the service.

Although long-distance train service may not have the largest market share or be the most profitable enterprise, it's certainly a legitimate use of taxpayer dollars to provide a social benefit, and certainly more so than the taxpayer dollars spent on providing 9-seat puddle-jumper flights from small towns that are an easy drive from a major airport. (hi, Hagerstown!  ) Or, for that matter, four lane limited-access highways that traverse unpopulated expanses, which is a lot of the Interstate Highway System out west.


----------



## rickycourtney (Nov 27, 2019)

jamess said:


> SJJPA is definitely biased towards Sacramento travel.
> 
> In the long-term, their plans make sense, once HSR is running. But right now it doesnt. Of course, theres nothing they can really do to improve connections to LA. Im of the opinion that they should think less about Sacramento and think more about the Bay Area. IE, right now the last "train" out is 5:30pm. Many people in the CV would rather go home at 8pm after enjoying a full day.


My personal complaint is the Valley - Southern California service. It's frustrating that the first southbound train of the day doesn't leave Fresno until nearly 10 am and doesn't get you to SoCal destinations until around 2:30pm. 

But again, in 2013, when the SJJPA was formed, the CAHSR project seemed a lot stronger. At the time, the plan was to build a system to connect SoCal, the Central Valley, and the Bay Area. Spending money to improve the system would have been called wasteful. But now in 2019, when the project is years behind schedule, has been scaled back to Merced-Bakersfield (and possibly hosting San Joaquin trains on the HSR tracks), it would've been nice to invest in the South Valley and Bay Area segments.



TheTuck said:


> The arrangement has elements of both, and is rather unique for sure. It's in Amtrak's best interest to accommodate the requests of the JPA's, even if it means charging them more. This is where the frustration of the SJJPA started, as costs quoted by Amtrak ended up being too low. While Amtrak seems content just being a contractor and not having to made big decisions, they need to start acting more like partners, by actually knowing what it costs to run their trains. They should be able, and willing to provide data on virtually anything related to their services.


Right, which was the whole genesis of this discussion. Amtrak should be financially transparent and share data with its customers (in this case the SJJPA and the state of California).


----------



## me_little_me (Nov 27, 2019)

jis said:


> I was on the Piedmonts in North Carolina Raleigh - Salisbury - Raleigh a week back. Vending machines work just fine on those trains. Their total run is about three hours. So yes, vending machines can be made to work on short to medium run regional trains. The proportion of people who were expecting excellent, or for that matter any cuisine, on those trains was probably minuscule anyway.


Didn't work for the handicapped man (I believe he was blind) that used to sell fresh BBQ sandwiches on the Piedmonts before they decided to replace him with vending machines.


----------



## TiBike (Nov 27, 2019)

rickycourtney said:


> My personal complaint is the Valley - Southern California service. It's frustrating that the first southbound train of the day doesn't leave Fresno until nearly 10 am and doesn't get you to SoCal destinations until around 2:30pm.



You're lucky . The first Salinas to LA service leaves at 7:30am and arrives 3:30 pm, including a 5 hour bus ride to Santa Barbara. I agree, though. Connecting the San Joaquin Valley to Southern California should have highest priority for upgrades. Connectivity to the Bay Area and Sacramento is excellent by comparison. If a reasonable rail solution to the Bakersfield-LA segment ever comes about, I could see the case for shifting resources from the coast route. Wouldn't suit me personally, but it would provide faster service to a lot more people. I think that segment should be the next priority for HSR money, however it's used.


----------



## seat38a (Nov 27, 2019)

TiBike said:


> You're lucky . The first Salinas to LA service leaves at 7:30am and arrives 3:30 pm, including a 5 hour bus ride to Santa Barbara. I agree, though. Connecting the San Joaquin Valley to Southern California should have highest priority for upgrades. Connectivity to the Bay Area and Sacramento is excellent by comparison. If a reasonable rail solution to the Bakersfield-LA segment ever comes about, I could see the case for shifting resources from the coast route. Wouldn't suit me personally, but it would provide faster service to a lot more people. I think that segment should be the next priority for HSR money, however it's used.


It's all about those tunnels. Part of the whole fiasco with HSR has been the result of keep kicking the tunnel problem down the road. I personally think we need a multi modal tunnel to get from SoCal to Central Valley which allows both freight and HSR. Charge a toll to use the tunnel and the one that pays gets to use it.

Now having said that, can anyone chime in if a base tunnel would be more benneficial for freight than Tehachapi?

Not 100% sure how it would be financed and built but I strongly believe the State should have ZERO management role in its construction.


----------



## neroden (Nov 30, 2019)

If we had a different sort of freight rail operator in this country, a base tunnel would be highly beneficial. Switzerland's two giant base tunnels were specifically part of a deal with the EU under which Switzerland could restrict truck traffic, and instead send the trucks piggyback through the base tunnels. It works.

The incompetent and backward-looking freight rail operators we *do* have in the US wouldn't know what to do with a base tunnel. They've been focusing on chasing away customers and increasing unreliability with Imprecision Unscheduled Railroading.


----------



## neroden (Nov 30, 2019)

seat38a said:


> Not 100% sure how it would be financed and built but I strongly believe the State should have ZERO management role in its construction.



The actual issue is that the State doesn't have in-house expertise regarding construction of this sort, which means that the state doesn't have a way to spot when they're being cheated by contractors, or a way to crack down. CHSRA is mostly subcontracting the oversight of the construction contractors, which turns out to be a really bad business model if you want to avoid cost overruns. It's actually essential to have permanent, in-house, salaried employees who are capable of sanity-checking the bids you get.

This is, in my opinion, one of the largest problems with infrastructure construction costs in the US.


----------



## jiml (Nov 30, 2019)

How would a tunnel of that length and scope reconcile with California's physical "instability", fault lines, etc.? Would the risk outweigh the benefits?


----------



## Steve4031 (Nov 30, 2019)

jiml said:


> How would a tunnel of that length and scope reconcile with California's physical "instability", fault lines, etc.? Would the risk outweigh the benefits?




They have long tunnels all over Japan. There is a system that detects seismic activity and stops the Shinkansen trains whenever there is significant seismic activity.


----------



## rickycourtney (Dec 1, 2019)

neroden said:


> The actual issue is that the State doesn't have in-house expertise regarding construction of this sort, which means that the state doesn't have a way to spot when they're being cheated by contractors, or a way to crack down. CHSRA is mostly subcontracting the oversight of the construction contractors, which turns out to be a really bad business model if you want to avoid cost overruns. It's actually essential to have permanent, in-house, salaried employees who are capable of sanity-checking the bids you get.
> 
> This is, in my opinion, one of the largest problems with infrastructure construction costs in the US.


Wholeheartedly agree, but dishonest bidding is problem across the world. Marketplace had a fantastic story about the problems facing the Crossrail project the other day. The best quote in the piece: “The trouble is, when contractors bid for a large and complex (project), they almost always understate the costs and the difficulty. If they tell the truth, they won’t get the job because they’ll be more expensive than their competitors."

The quote is very applicable to CAHSR and most infrastructure construction projects here in the US.


jiml said:


> How would a tunnel of that length and scope reconcile with California's physical "instability", fault lines, etc.? Would the risk outweigh the benefits?


LA Metro and BART have successfully built subway tunnels that have rode out California earthquakes. A Caltech professor says "Structures which are underground are less vulnerable to shaking than structures at the surface." Curbed LA has a pretty good primer on the subject.


----------



## seat38a (Dec 1, 2019)

rickycourtney said:


> Wholeheartedly agree, but dishonest bidding is problem across the world. Marketplace had a fantastic story about the problems facing the Crossrail project the other day. The best quote in the piece: “The trouble is, when contractors bid for a large and complex (project), they almost always understate the costs and the difficulty. If they tell the truth, they won’t get the job because they’ll be more expensive than their competitors."
> 
> The quote is very applicable to CAHSR and most infrastructure construction projects here in the US.
> 
> LA Metro and BART have successfully built subway tunnels that have rode out California earthquakes. A Caltech professor says "Structures which are underground are less vulnerable to shaking than structures at the surface." Curbed LA has a pretty good primer on the subject.


During the Loma Prieta quake in 1989, the BART tunnels survived, the Bay Bridge and much of the freeways not so much,


----------



## jamess (Dec 3, 2019)

MARC Rider said:


> The Northeast Regionals, Acelas, Pacific Surfliners, Empire Service, Keystones, etc. have hourly or close to hourly service. Are they commuter rail service, too?



In many ways, yes. Demand, as shown by ticket prices, is heavily tilted towards trains that arrive at a major CBD at 9am and leave at 5pm. You can also buy a monthly pass, and many of the passengers are regulars. 

Unlike Ohio, theres not much activity at the train stations at 3am. 



MARC Rider said:


> And, please, none of the Amtrak California service can be considered a "land cruise,"



Correct. Amtrak California service is more commuter-focused in nature than all the national Amtrak trains that serve California. 



rickycourtney said:


> My personal complaint is the Valley - Southern California service. It's frustrating that the first southbound train of the day doesn't leave Fresno until nearly 10 am and doesn't get you to SoCal destinations until around 2:30pm.



The good news is that in January, you will be able to buy a ticket on the 7am bus from Fresno to LA without a connecting rail segment.


----------



## rickycourtney (Dec 3, 2019)

jamess said:


> The good news is that in January, you will be able to buy a ticket on the 7am bus from Fresno to LA without a connecting rail segment.


I'm crossing my fingers that SJJPA adds a southbound stop at Santa Clarita/Newhall on the early morning bus once "bus only" tickets sales start!


----------



## gswager (Dec 3, 2019)

Can you give me a source about buying a ticket to ride Ambus without using rail ticket? I've been using a loophole for a while- buy bus on first segment and then rail on second segment to avoid cancellation.


----------



## jamess (Dec 4, 2019)

gswager said:


> Can you give me a source about buying a ticket to ride Ambus without using rail ticket? I've been using a loophole for a while- buy bus on first segment and then rail on second segment to avoid cancellation.



The law was changed 2 months ago to allow it.

Amtrak California says they will start allowing unlinked purchases in January, on some routes, and expanding over time.


----------



## jis (Dec 4, 2019)

jamess said:


> Unlike Ohio, theres not much activity at the train stations at 3am.


Interestingly, around 3am there is probably more action at many Amtrak stations on the NEC than there is at stations in Ohio, specially if one takes into account MNRR, LIRR and NJT actions in addition to Amtrak ones.


----------



## rickycourtney (Dec 4, 2019)

gswager said:


> Can you give me a source about buying a ticket to ride Ambus without using rail ticket? I've been using a loophole for a while- buy bus on first segment and then rail on second segment to avoid cancellation.


I am always happy to cite my sources!

Here you go: California State Senate Bill No. 742 Intercity passenger rail services: motor carrier transportation of passengers. (2019-2020)


----------



## seat38a (Dec 4, 2019)

rickycourtney said:


> I am always happy to cite my sources!
> 
> Here you go: California State Senate Bill No. 742 Intercity passenger rail services: motor carrier transportation of passengers. (2019-2020)



This is great news since really outside of major markets like LA -> Bay Area and LA -> Las Vegas etc, there really isn't that many viable bus options for visiting smaller cities. Amtrak California Thruways have much better bus services in state. It won't be cheap, relative to the private bus operators, but I'd rather have the option to go from Fullerton to Palm Springs without having to purposely book from Anaheim just so I meet the train requirement.


----------



## rickycourtney (Dec 4, 2019)

It's a win-win-win: the train services will generate additional revenue by selling seats on these buses that would've otherwise gone unsold, it expands travel options in the state, and it comes at virtually no extra cost.

There is a catch and SJJPA has already recognized it: they need to be careful to not oversell seats on the buses. For example, the SJJPA doesn't want to deny a seat to someone looking to travel between Fresno and Palm Springs because someone purchased the last remaining seat to travel between Riverside and Palm Springs.


----------



## seat38a (Dec 5, 2019)

rickycourtney said:


> It's a win-win-win: the train services will generate additional revenue by selling seats on these buses that would've otherwise gone unsold, it expands travel options in the state, and it comes at virtually no extra cost.
> 
> There is a catch and SJJPA has already recognized it: they need to be careful to not oversell seats on the buses. For example, the SJJPA doesn't want to deny a seat to someone looking to travel between Fresno and Palm Springs because someone purchased the last remaining seat to travel between Riverside and Palm Springs.



Personally as a California Taxpayer, I'm ok with expanding Thruway Bus service with or without train service. Even add more frequencies to current routes. I'd like to be able to arrive at my local station, park in the free parking structure and jump on a train or a bus and get to where I want to go. Private bus companies have lobbied against this in the past but frankly outside of LA -> Bay Area, private bus services do not exist intra state direct or connecting.

Like yourself, I'm from Santa Clarita and I would love better options to get up there or other places.


----------



## TiBike (Dec 7, 2019)

It could solve some problems on the Central Coast, too, particularly morning service northbound to the Bay Area and evening service southbound. Big gaps there. Success with buses could help make the case for extending the Capitol Corridor to Salinas.

Managing seat availability is a problem, but it's not unique and it's been solved before. Allowing standees can deal with glitches.


----------

