$66 billion for Amtrak

[zetharion]

$700 million for LD but $7 billion for NEC.

 

[danasgoodstuff]

$700 million for LD but $7 billion for NEC.

They own tracks and right of way in the NEC and there's tons of work to do there. And many LD trains will make use of that work on NEC tunnels, etc.

 

[zephyr17]

They own tracks and right of way in the NEC and there's tons of work to do there. And many LD trains will make use of that work on NEC tunnels, etc.

There are three daily overnight trains and one triweekly one that use the NEC. I don't really consider that "many".

Money is money and ten times the amount for the "profitable" NEC still strikes me as disproportionate. Maybe they could use the "profits" to fund some of the capital expenses? Oh wait, there really aren't any...

Nothing Else Counts.

 

[Tlcooper44]

There are three daily overnight trains and one triweekly one that use the NEC. I don't really consider that "many".

Money is money and ten times the amount for the "profitable" NEC still strikes me as disproportionate.

Nothing Else Counts.

Considering the number of passengers served on the NEC (not only by Amtrak) versus everywhere else in the country, the 10-1 ratio makes sense.

 

[zephyr17]

Considering the number of passengers served on the NEC (not only by Amtrak) versus everywhere else in the country, the 10-1 ratio makes sense.

I don't think the passenger ratio is the same as the taxpayer ratio between the NEC and the rest of the country. That is perhaps a better one to use, since we all pay for it.

Perhaps if there were more fully subsidized service like the NEC available to other parts of the country with high populations of those taxpayers that ratio would not be quite so disproportionate.

 

[user 14106]

There are three daily overnight trains and one triweekly one that use the NEC. I don't really consider that "many".

Money is money and ten times the amount for the "profitable" NEC still strikes me as disproportionate. Maybe they could use the "profits" to fund some of the capital expenses? Oh wait, there really aren't any...

Nothing Else Counts.

I find it interesting that various people have pounced on what are both positive announcements attempting to frame them as somehow negative or part of the mythical “conspiracy to end all long distance service.” Sorry but the NEC is important and Amtrak is fully responsible for it and these NEC projects are critical. Amtrak is not responsible for maintaining the infrastructure of the class 1s where the long distance routes mostly run. This is a good first step for long distance improvements announced even before the long distance study announced its conclusions.

Also there are plenty of other non NEC national network projects that states are pursuing through the NN portion of the grants. Long distance is only going to get so much - but there are also shorter and medium distance routes that any state in the union can apply for.

 

[Tlcooper44]

I don't think the passenger ratio is the same as the taxpayer ratio between the NEC and the rest of the country. That is perhaps a better one to use, since we all pay for it.

Perhaps if there were more fully subsidized service like the NEC available to other parts of the country with high populations of those taxpayers that ratio would not be quite so disproportionate.

Look, you make a valid point. If we lived in a different world, the world would be different.

But this isn’t the case. The NEC is one of the most critical infrastructure points in the country, and it’s mostly Amtrak’s responsibility to maintain, so it should get the lion’s share of funding.

 

[Bonser]

$700 million for LD but $7 billion for NEC.

I understand where you're coming from but the NEC carries more than 10 times the passengers than LD routes. It serves more people.

 

[zetharion]

And it will stay that way as long as the LD routes are only ever given table scraps. I am glad though that LD at least got SOMETHING this time around. Not everyone has the privilege of living in the area Amtrak puts most of its focus and investment in. Most states West of the Mississippi have a train come through ONE time a day MAYBE two and associations are having to fight tooth and nail just to get a single train per day more than three times per week.

 

[PaTrainFan]

Realistically, what more can be made available for the national network through these grants? Separately, new equipment is already underway, admittedly in the very early stages, but what additional infrastructure can be invested in the long distance network? I'm still curious to see the details and what else is on the list and besides the "examples" in the news release.

 

[BlackDiamond]

Moving away from the perennial "NEC vs rest of system" debate ...

These all sound like worthwhile projects. My only concern is the backlog of unrepaired cars and the current shortage such that we are constantly hearing of sleepers, diners, and SSL cars being dropped sometimes at short notice. Will any of these funds be used to address that backlog so that additional service such as a daily Sunset can actually happen?

 

[PaTrainFan]

Moving away from the perennial "NEC vs rest of system" debate ...

These all sound like worthwhile projects. My only concern is the backlog of unrepaired cars and the current shortage such that we are constantly hearing of sleepers, diners, and SSL cars being dropped sometimes at short notice. Will any of these funds be used to address that backlog so that additional service such as a daily Sunset can actually happen?

You would hope this is the case, but the realistic answer unfortunately is may be no given how long it will take for the government red tape to review and approve the grant requests. Bet we're talking years.

 

[jis]

Moving away from the perennial "NEC vs rest of system" debate ...

These all sound like worthwhile projects. My only concern is the backlog of unrepaired cars and the current shortage such that we are constantly hearing of sleepers, diners, and SSL cars being dropped sometimes at short notice. Will any of these funds be used to address that backlog so that additional service such as a daily Sunset can actually happen?

If car repairs is not listed in the projects list then probably not explicitly. But new /additional train/frequency project will typically contain items within the project budget for procuring adequate equipment to run the service, and that may drive some additional repairs. Any additional funds for such would be hidden in the funding of individual projects and not be called out separately.

 

[George Harris]

Generally I stay out of the NEC vs everywhere else discussions. I realize the population density is there, but how about sometime asking, how many people would ride trains in the NEC if there was one train a day in each direction as is the case for most of the other lines?

Realistically there should be a look at the total travel by all methods of transportation along each given route segment and train service modified accordingly. With this little monkey wrench thrown into the discussion I will now sit back and see what others have to say.

 

[user 14106]

Realistically there should be a look at the total travel by all methods of transportation along each given route segment and train service modified accordingly. With this little monkey wrench thrown into the discussion I will now sit back and see what others have to say.

But this comparison really isn’t NEC vs everything else it’s specifically NEC vs long distance. That $757 million shouldn’t be considered “everywhere else” it’s improvements in areas where only long distance trains run specifically for long distance trains. The corridor ID program is also accepting applications from many places for service improvements and added services outside the NEC that would fall under the state supported umbrella. There are certainly areas along the long distance network that justify additional service - but in most cases will take the form of day running trains running a shorter distance than a second long haul running between the same end points with states taking the lead. A great example is the Great River service that’s coming between Chicago and St. Paul which will add additional service along a key stretch of the Empire Builder route. If one really wants to look at NEC vs everywhere else one would need to add this Amtrak request to the non NEC grants being requested by states as well to really see NEC vs everywhere else and the numbers will be closer together. Additionally the long distance study isn’t even done - which could lead to even more long distance grant requests - these are things Amtrak has already decided to pursue without waiting for the results of that study so it’s only the beginning of this process.

 

[PVD]

The tunnel and bridge projects are very expensive, and on the NEC are Amtrak's responsibility. Very different than most of the rest of the country.

 

[JWM]

I fully understand the NEC priorities, but we have to take into account the political makeup of the Congress and especially the House. The NEC states are "Blue" and I would not be amazed that, especially in the House, it is a "red flag in front of a bull". I hope not, but Amtrak has to be prepared as does Secretary Pete with a strong defense of not only the NEC, but Amtrak as a whole.

 

[MARC Rider]

Generally I stay out of the NEC vs everywhere else discussions. I realize the population density is there, but how about sometime asking, how many people would ride trains in the NEC if there was one train a day in each direction as is the case for most of the other lines?

Realistically there should be a look at the total travel by all methods of transportation along each given route segment and train service modified accordingly. With this little monkey wrench thrown into the discussion I will now sit back and see what others have to say.

The only problem with this is that the northeast is about the only part of the country where anyone even thinks of taking the train as a viable transportation alternative, and Amtrak actually has significant market share in the public transportation sector and is even competitive with driving. Maybe the California corridors are approaching that tipping point, too. The corridor services out of Chicago certainly have the potential to provide that kind of service, but I don't think they're going to have significant market share unless they get a least hourly service and at least 60 mph end-to-end average speeds. It would also help to have a rich public transportation infrastructure to feed the trains in as many cities as possible along the route. Putting all that together in most of the country outside of the NEC, even in places where there's potential for it, is going to coast a LOT of money and will require significant political will and commitment from state and local governments, in addition to the Feds. As far as I can see, only California, and maybe Illinois and Washington/Oregon are even approaching that kind of support, and they could all do a lot more.

 

[NES28]

Congress limited spending IIJA (BIL) funding in NEC to 40%.

 

[Tlcooper44]

The only problem with this is that the northeast is about the only part of the country where anyone even thinks of taking the train as a viable transportation alternative, and Amtrak actually has significant market share in the public transportation sector and is even competitive with driving. Maybe the California corridors are approaching that tipping point, too. The corridor services out of Chicago certainly have the potential to provide that kind of service, but I don't think they're going to have significant market share unless they get a least hourly service and at least 60 mph end-to-end average speeds. It would also help to have a rich public transportation infrastructure to feed the trains in as many cities as possible along the route. Putting all that together in most of the country outside of the NEC, even in places where there's potential for it, is going to coast a LOT of money and will require significant political will and commitment from state and local governments, in addition to the Feds. As far as I can see, only California, and maybe Illinois and Washington/Oregon are even approaching that kind of support, and they could all do a lot more.

The biggest thing in the way of trains/public transit succeeding in other parts of the country isn’t financial investment (California is the best example of this).

It’s the style of urban and suburban development that has been favored the last 5 decades. It’s extremely hostile to anything that isn’t a car, and ultimately will prevent a train for succeeding. If you have to drive a significant distance to a train, you wont take the train - you’ll just drive to your final destination.

The NEC works because the style of development (mostly) wasn’t bulldozed in the 60’s. The development pattern was grandfathered in. Trains thrive in walkable and bikable environments to help with that last mile question - and there’s plenty of transit in every major city stop.

It’s why CAHSR, in my opinion, has to be super fast to compete with airlines because people are going to drive to take the train there - it’ll struggle to be viable any other way

If a train’s primary comparable mode and competitor is a plane, it won’t work very well. The NEC isn’t that, and it’s why it works so well, among other things, and why it’s so worthy of continued investment.

 

[user 29398]

Interesting article in today's Wall Street Journal. "Railroad sees station upgrades as key to doubling ridership by 2040."

The below link should get you past the paywall; lmk if it isn't working.

https://www.wsj.com/us-news/amtrak-...=q1abqqz3wvk5btp&reflink=share_mobilewebshare

 

[west point]

The state of Va ay not need to wait till 2040 to double its passengers. Last FY that ended June 30 its passenger total increased 25% from the year before. That was from only 1 new round trip and extending several south of Richmond. But total new train mileage up ~~ 10%. So, Va is proving that smart marketing and good passenger fares can work. Also, enough equipment to almost prevent any sell outs.

Now there is no reason that with enough operational equipment and somewhat reasonable fares Amtrak LD trains could show similar results.

Here is a thought. Management does not want very quick growth because it would show how wrong its policies have been these last few years.

Unfortunately the present schedules especially northbound of the Crescent will not improve that much until schedule is return to past schedule especially northbound #20.

 

[Siegmund]

So, Va is proving that smart marketing and good passenger fares can work. Also, enough equipment to almost prevent any sell outs.

Now there is no reason that with enough operational equipment and somewhat reasonable fares Amtrak LD trains could show similar results.

Amtrak LD trains did indeed show similar results, on those few occasions (all more than 40 years ago now) when the marketing, reasonable fares, and sufficient equipment were there.
Just about every time there was an increase in service, the increase in ridership exceeded the increase in frequency: whether increasing western LD trains to daily from triweekly, or splitting the Broadway and Cardinal into separate trains, or splitting the Palmetto and Carolinian into separate trains, or....

Lack of sufficient equipment has been a frequent problem since the beginning, and a continuous and dire problem since about the time they started retiring Heritage sleepers.

 

[BlackDiamond]

Interesting article in today's Wall Street Journal. "Railroad sees station upgrades as key to doubling ridership by 2040."

The below link should get you past the paywall; lmk if it isn't working.

https://www.wsj.com/us-news/amtrak-...=q1abqqz3wvk5btp&reflink=share_mobilewebshare

While upgrading stations is important, I don't think it is the most important thing to increase ridership. More important would be:
1. Getting LD trains to run on time by working with freight RRs and improving motive power reliability (replacement of Genesis by Chargers)
2. Expanding consists by attacking the backlog of out of service equipment. This may require prioritizing the recruiting of more repair personnel.
3. Improve the consistency of the Amtrak experience by better crew training and better supervision so that there is less "make up rules as you go along".

 

[frequentflyer]

Amtrak LD trains did indeed show similar results, on those few occasions (all more than 40 years ago now) when the marketing, reasonable fares, and sufficient equipment were there.
Just about every time there was an increase in service, the increase in ridership exceeded the increase in frequency: whether increasing western LD trains to daily from triweekly, or splitting the Broadway and Cardinal into separate trains, or splitting the Palmetto and Carolinian into separate trains, or....

Lack of sufficient equipment has been a frequent problem since the beginning, and a continuous and dire problem since about the time they started retiring Heritage sleepers.

Good points, I remember the days of 18 car long Broadway/Captial limiteds, and Silver trains. Would love to compare the cost recovery and revenues from that time to today. Especially with the Texas Eagle. Two Genesis were pulling 10 cars vs two Genesis pulling 4. Lets compare revenues and costs between those two periods.

But I digress, too much common sense is being applied here. Good to see the NEC get some needed improvements. Hopefully whatever is left over for the LD operation is spent wisely.
Man, I miss Graham Claytor.