Amtrak: fixing a broken system: a guide

[jis]

Beware though, that the more you cook the number of percentage of riders placing arbitrary restrictions on the people who are eligible to be counted as potential riders, the less seriously the number will be taken by detractors and even by well wishers beyond a point. For example any number that assumes that people like the traveler as not a potential Amtrak riders in considering percentage of potential riders that actually ride Amtrak, would be completely ignored and perhaps actively dissed even by me, who is an ardent supporter of Amtrak and passenger rail.

Using some metric like Amtrak available within 50 miles or 100 miles or some such to match the reality faced by air passengers would make sense I think. Unless of course you want to artificially reduce the number of potential air passengers too to make an apples to apples comparison. And then Amtrak will lose big again.

Also counting just Amtrak as rail passenger service in the US ignoring every other rail passenger service is also foolish I think. But then again this is the Amtrak cheering section, so we can let that pass. Though i believe that works against the overall agenda of capturing the overall passenger rail usage in the US.

 

[AlanB]

Actually, I believe the percentage of the population riding Amtrak is 1-2%....pretty low penetration; however it would be interesting if someone on this forum who is a "numbers person", could calculate just how much each taxpayer contributes to the Amtrak subsidy. I would think it would be quite small in comparison to other line items in the total budget.

According to the Taxpayer's receipt for 2009, a married couple with 2 kids and $80K in income watched $3.83 of their Federal income tax dollars go to Amtrak. That was item 44 in terms of the top 50 most expensive items in the Federal budget. For a bit of contrast, that same couple saw $13.30 of their tax dollars go to airline security. And they watched $110.06 go into highways, and of course paid many more dollars via the Federal fuel taxes. Highways was #14 on the list.

A retired couple with $100K contributed $3.11 to Amtrak, $10.80 to airport security, and $89.38 to the highways.

 

[Bob Dylan]

Actually, I believe the percentage of the population riding Amtrak is 1-2%....pretty low penetration; however it would be interesting if someone on this forum who is a "numbers person", could calculate just how much each taxpayer contributes to the Amtrak subsidy. I would think it would be quite small in comparison to other line items in the total budget.

According to the Taxpayer's receipt for 2009, a married couple with 2 kids and $80K in income watched $3.83 of their Federal income tax dollars go to Amtrak. That was item 44 in terms of the top 50 most expensive items in the Federal budget. For a bit of contrast, that same couple saw $13.30 of their tax dollars go to airline security. And they watched $110.06 go into highways, and of course paid many more dollars via the Federal fuel taxes. Highways was #14 on the list.

A retired couple with $100K contributed $3.11 to Amtrak, $10.80 to airport security, and $89.38 to the highways.

WOW! No wonder Rich People Don't want to help Support Amtrak with Huge Amounts like that coming out of their Meager Income!! <_<

 

[jis]

How did you jump to the conclusion about what rich people want or not from those statistics? Inquiring minds want to know just for the heck of it.

 

[cirdan]

The 1-2% sounds about right. 300,000,000 people in the US and 30,000,000 Amtrak passengers every year. That in and of itself means that, assuming everyone at least rides round trip, that 5% ride Amtrak. Whittle it down and take out the duplication of daily commuters and the 1%-2% seems close to fair.

Note: Ridership on just the one busiest passenger rail system in Japan (JR East) has an annual ridership equal to the population of the entire planet (around 6.1 BILLION).

Is the 1-2% figure a share of US citizens in a year? Or is over a longer baseline a more valid metric? If it a 3 or 5 year baseline for the occasional traveler who takes Amtrak, the percent share of the US population will be obviously higher. I expect outside of the NEC, there is a higher proportion of passengers who take Amtrak only every every couple of years or longer intervals. The percent of the population share, whatever that share is, is obviously going to be higher in the Northeast, than for example in Wyoming.
If we want large annual numbers, the NYC subway had 1.65 billion passengers in 2012. (http://www.mta.info/nyct/facts/ridership/).

Furthermore, we should not assume that all those people who don't ever use Amtrak don't think it should be supported. Not everybody who doesn't have kids believes education is a waste of tax money either, for example.

 

[Bob Dylan]

How did you jump to the conclusion about what rich people want or not from those statistics? Inquiring minds want to know just for the heck of it.

Generally they are Opposed to ANY Spending of Tax Money that Doesnt Involve Corporate Welfare or Lower Taxes for Themselves! And Republican Presidents and Politicians (and Jimmy Carter!) have been Trying to Kill Amtrak since St. Ronnie's Time! (See Bush, W!!!) It's Become the Republican and T-Party's (Most of Whom are Not Rich! ) #1 Platform Goal: Cut Taxes and Spending Except on the War Machine and the Spy Industry!! It's Been in the News for Awhile, You Can Look it Up!

 

[user 1215]

Jim - I hope you know that I think you're a terrific guy. But I think your comment is pure political drivel. Did you ever know a guy in Dallas named Dan Monaghan? I digress...

I am about at Tea Party as they come - I feel way over taxed and I'm hardly rich. I may barely qualify to read middle middle income. I'm sure that rich people want to keep as much of what they've earned as everyone else in this country does. If you want to talk about what the rich contribute, the top 5% of income earners (not corporate or wealthy folks that don't actually earn anything year after year) pay 1/2 the personal income tax collected by the Feds. On the other hand, a good chunk of folks that don't pay ANY personal income tax continues to get free money.

Whereas I feel very strongly that a solid transporation system is necessary to keep the economy flowing in the US, I support Amtrak to that end until a suitable private enterprise can find it profitable to take it over. Obviously that isn't the case right now and may never be. Who knows?

There are just about as many far left libs as there are far right conservatives that are wealthy beyond all imagination. But with the exception of a couple of weirdos who make the news, NONE of them volunteer to pay more taxes than they can get away with. BOTH sides play every loophole imaginable. Big Corp, Big Education, Big Moneypants - If they feel like redistribution is the key for compassion, let them give it all away like Bill and Melinda Gates and their Billionaires club do. I'm really sick of the government confiscating what I work hard for. And that's what the T.E.A. party stands for: Taxed Enough Already!

And if this is too political for these forums, please, mods, delete it before it becomes too hot.

 

[AlanB]

And if this is too political for these forums, please, mods, delete it before it becomes too hot.

It comes close; but I also think that it needed to be said, so I'm going to let it stand. All too often we get into stereotyping simply because it is easier. So again, I think that your post is appropriate in this case.

I do however want to warn everyone to be careful with further posts on this angle of things.

 

[andersone]

Although I prefer not to provide the details, I spend a lot of money in taxes each year and I am proud of it. Without that there would be diminished services - air rail, health, welfare ad infiinitum. We have this discussion at work all the time. The problem people have is that some taxes go to things they don't like or support (welfare, abortion, Amtrak - add your own here) so they object. This is, to me at least, the marvel of democracy. I like roads and planes and trains and healthy babies even if they come with welfare moms and nuclear weapons. Like the poor, we shall always have waste. Get Pepto for it or accept it.

We will always have a debate over what we spend the common good on - and thank god for it.

And think me sick, i vote FOR every tax levy and have never NOTvoted for a politician because they raised taxes. Lying and stealing carry a lot more ethical clout for me than digging a ditch to nowhere.

And isn't a tea party what little children have when they aren't old enough to have real tea?

 

[Devil's Advocate]

Jim - I hope you know that I think you're a terrific guy. But I think your comment is pure political drivel. Did you ever know a guy in Dallas named Dan Monaghan? I digress...

I am about at Tea Party as they come - I feel way over taxed and I'm hardly rich. I may barely qualify to read middle middle income. I'm sure that rich people want to keep as much of what they've earned as everyone else in this country does. If you want to talk about what the rich contribute, the top 5% of income earners (not corporate or wealthy folks that don't actually earn anything year after year) pay 1/2 the personal income tax collected by the Feds. On the other hand, a good chunk of folks that don't pay ANY personal income tax continues to get free money.

Whereas I feel very strongly that a solid transporation system is necessary to keep the economy flowing in the US, I support Amtrak to that end until a suitable private enterprise can find it profitable to take it over. Obviously that isn't the case right now and may never be. Who knows?

There are just about as many far left libs as there are far right conservatives that are wealthy beyond all imagination. But with the exception of a couple of weirdos who make the news, NONE of them volunteer to pay more taxes than they can get away with. BOTH sides play every loophole imaginable. Big Corp, Big Education, Big Moneypants - If they feel like redistribution is the key for compassion, let them give it all away like Bill and Melinda Gates and their Billionaires club do. I'm really sick of the government confiscating what I work hard for. And that's what the T.E.A. party stands for: Taxed Enough Already!

And if this is too political for these forums, please, mods, delete it before it becomes too hot.

Maybe it's just my personal biases clouding my vision, but I'm finding this rather hard to follow. Do you have an example of a Tea Party politician who shares your pro public transit views?

 

[Ryan]

Whereas I feel very strongly that a solid transporation system is necessary to keep the economy flowing in the US,

That makes you not really tea party at all.

 

[MikefromCrete]

Most Tea Party types don't want the government to spend money on anything, except maybe more firepower to crush our enemies (whoever they may be). Far right types are almost always opposed to any kind of public transportation funded by the government.

 

[Anderson]

I'll say that it's hard to peg anyone as "tea party" or not in many regards, but I can at least list some politicians on that end of the spectrum who haven't come across as anti-rail. Ken Cuccinelli, in particular, went to pains not to go off in that direction. That said, it's often a function of geography...you're not going to find many folks, regardless of affiliation, running for office on Long Island calling for cuts to the LIRR.

 

[trainaddict]

I think these blog posts have gotten way off topic. In my guide I provided specific points that should be followed to fix a failed system (for example highly speedy rail between Texas and the Dakotas, proven to double ridership over 10 years), and now this has turned into political fodder for leftist anarchists and tea partiers. This isn't a joke. It's about riders and rails. China is building new lines every weeknight and the USA is being left in the dust. I am what they call apolitical. That means I don't believe in party labels and the big money that goes with it. If I can build just one more foot of track and see one more kid develop a love for railroading then my mission will be accomplished.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

I'll say that it's hard to peg anyone as "tea party" or not in many regards, but I can at least list some politicians on that end of the spectrum who haven't come across as anti-rail. Ken Cuccinelli, in particular, went to pains not to go off in that direction. That said, it's often a function of geography...you're not going to find many folks, regardless of affiliation, running for office on Long Island calling for cuts to the LIRR.

Most Tea Party types openly self-identify as such. It's a badge they wear with pride and not a scarlet letter they try to hide. I'm no expert but I thought Ken's "big idea" was to split up the VDOT budget into much smaller pieces and hand out each sliver to local politicians to spend as they saw fit. If that's the case then I fail to see how dividing the state budget into a series of relatively tiny local budgets would serve to promote any major public transit initiatives. Handing out micro budgets may not rule out eventual cooperation, but it certainly wouldn't do anything to promote such projects. Am I missing something obvious or are we scraping the bottom of the barrel here?

 

[cirdan]

"big idea" was to split up the VDOT budget into much smaller pieces and hand out each sliver to local politicians to spend as they saw fit. If that's the case then I fail to see how dividing the state budget into a series of relatively tiny local budgets would serve to promote any major public transit initiatives. Handing out micro budgets may not rule out eventual cooperation, but it certainly wouldn't do anything to promote such projects. Am I missing something obvious or are we scraping the bottom of the barrel here?

I don't want to comment on this particular case here as I don't know anything about it.

However, in general, giving lower authorities the power and budget to do things on a local level is not a bad idea.

I am thinking of the example of Spain, where over the last 30 years or so, the central government has given transportation budgets and powers to those local (provinicial level) authorities who asked for it. Places like Catalonia and Valencia province have built commuter rail systems that have little in common with what these systems looked like when the central government ran them. The central government tries to please everybody equally and spread money around fairly and apply a common set of rules (which generally meant that the little cash that finally filters through all the levels of burocracy is barely enough to make do and mend groaning and failing legacy infrastructure). On a local level priorities and needs are different from place to place and local initiative has led to far much more money and investment happening where it is seen as a priority, and indeed less happening in places where nobody cares.

 

[Dan O]

I think these blog posts have gotten way off topic. In my guide I provided specific points that should be followed to fix a failed system (for example highly speedy rail between Texas and the Dakotas, proven to double ridership over 10 years),

How many people in Texas are interested in going to the Dakotas? I realize maybe everyone in the Dakotas may want to get out, even if it means going to Texas, but how many people is that? Not sure there are all that many folks in between those states that would want to go north either.

Dan

 

[user 1215]

I think these blog posts have gotten way off topic. In my guide I provided specific points that should be followed to fix a failed system (for example highly speedy rail between Texas and the Dakotas, proven to double ridership over 10 years), and now this has turned into political fodder for leftist anarchists and tea partiers. This isn't a joke. It's about riders and rails. China is building new lines every weeknight and the USA is being left in the dust. I am what they call apolitical. That means I don't believe in party labels and the big money that goes with it. If I can build just one more foot of track and see one more kid develop a love for railroading then my mission will be accomplished.

As much as anyone may disdain the conversations around the politics, it's absolutely necessary. Unless you personally have the money and resources to complete such an ambitious project, it has to be handled by government at some level. Even if you DO have all the money, you STILL need politics to get the approval to construct.

Here's a bit about China. China has a population which is about 3 times larger than the United States. They have about 20% more land than the Lower 48. As a communist country, there are no particular individual human rights. As a result, labor is cheap and the government can pretty much build wherever they want to with very little or no compensation to property dwellers (private ownership of anything, including land, was just recently added to the constitution). China's indifference to the ecology and environment are also noteworthy. And sometimes they build stuff so fast that the quality is very poor.

It's interesting - I saw a photo of the "cockpit" of the Shanghai Maglev train. In it was a portable plug in fan for the operator. No A/C for the crew?

So, perhaps here in the USA, "If you build it, they will come." But quite frankly if a private corporation can't justify a demand to supply a particular service or product, then it probably shouldn't be the task of the government to do it.

I find it very interesting that in the last 10 years or so, many local businesses have closed because of the internet. FedEx and UPS have grown like crazy - and made huge profits. Yet the USPS, which has seen just as much of an increase in business and still holds a majority of the market share, continues to drown in debt. If the USPS shut down, then everything would have to go by UPS or FedEx (or a number of smaller similar companies). But the cost would be high enough for people to perhaps go back to buying things from their corner store.

 

[Jackson Whole]

The United States is not China, our population density is too low to make public rail transportation economically viable. Amtrak is typical of most public transportation services in this country. It loses money but serves enough political purposes to stay on life support, limping along with serious issues like aging equipment, over-paid, protected employees, and cronied management. I suspect the rail fans here see a different picture than your average Joe or Jane when the time comes to make travel arrangements. An honest assessment of Amtrak is not a pretty picture, and maybe, just maybe, that explains why there is little support for expansion of heavy rail transport.

 

[afigg]

The United States is not China, our population density is too low to make public rail transportation economically viable.

Honestly I get tired of these the US has low population density arguments. The current estimate for US population is 316.1 million as of July 1, 2013. What lowers the total US population density numbers are Alaska and the Rocky Mtn and northern plain states. East of and along I-35 (which is a useful dividing line between denser populated areas and the western plains) and along the west coast, the US is more than dense enough to support an extensive higher speed intercity passenger rail system.
Besides, the population of the US was 123 million in 1930. Somehow back then, the US supported an extensive intercity passenger rail system, With a population now over 2.5x times larger, maybe we can support both air travel, an interstate highway system and a respectable intercity passenger rail system. If I may add, IMO, the end of the age of cheap oil and the transition to ever more expensive oil (over several decades), will continue to shrink commercial air travel to the smaller and more remote medium sized markets along with people less able to afford to drive long distances in their own car.

When we discuss the future of intercity passenger rail in the US, I think it helps to take both the long view and consider the bigger picture.

 

[Ispolkom]

"big idea" was to split up the VDOT budget into much smaller pieces and hand out each sliver to local politicians to spend as they saw fit. If that's the case then I fail to see how dividing the state budget into a series of relatively tiny local budgets would serve to promote any major public transit initiatives. Handing out micro budgets may not rule out eventual cooperation, but it certainly wouldn't do anything to promote such projects. Am I missing something obvious or are we scraping the bottom of the barrel here?

I don't want to comment on this particular case here as I don't know anything about it.

However, in general, giving lower authorities the power and budget to do things on a local level is not a bad idea.

I am thinking of the example of Spain, where over the last 30 years or so, the central government has given transportation budgets and powers to those local (provinicial level) authorities who asked for it. Places like Catalonia and Valencia province have built commuter rail systems that have little in common with what these systems looked like when the central government ran them. The central government tries to please everybody equally and spread money around fairly and apply a common set of rules (which generally meant that the little cash that finally filters through all the levels of burocracy is barely enough to make do and mend groaning and failing legacy infrastructure). On a local level priorities and needs are different from place to place and local initiative has led to far much more money and investment happening where it is seen as a priority, and indeed less happening in places where nobody cares.

But hasn't this policy also led to crony-capitalism boondoggles like the Castellon Airport in Valencia?

 

[leemell]

I think these blog posts have gotten way off topic. In my guide I provided specific points that should be followed to fix a failed system (for example highly speedy rail between Texas and the Dakotas, proven to double ridership over 10 years), and now this has turned into political fodder for leftist anarchists and tea partiers. This isn't a joke. It's about riders and rails. China is building new lines every weeknight and the USA is being left in the dust. I am what they call apolitical. That means I don't believe in party labels and the big money that goes with it. If I can build just one more foot of track and see one more kid develop a love for railroading then my mission will be accomplished.

Many of these ideas are either financial, operational, or politically infeasible. Or two or all three. As a previous poster said, how many potential passengers are there for a Texas to North Dakota line. Think about it this way: what if you built a route and nobody rode it?

 

[nferr]

A huge unfeasible wish list is not a guide. A guide tells you how to get something done.

 

[AlanB]

So, perhaps here in the USA, "If you build it, they will come." But quite frankly if a private corporation can't justify a demand to supply a particular service or product, then it probably shouldn't be the task of the government to do it.

While in some sense I don't totally disagree with you on this point, I think it important to note that one of the bigger reasons that few private companies are interested in trying is because it is too hard for them to compete against the other forms of transportation that are receiving subsidies.

While I'm not saying that doing so would be a good idea, especially cold turkey, but if you remove the subsidies from flying & driving you might see more private companies jump back into passenger RR service.

 

[7deuceman]

It is known that getting funding for Amtrak is a Catch 22. However, given the fact that the carrier has reached the 30,000,000 rider mark in 2013, perhaps looking at a new service on a highly-populated route is worth discussing for future considerations. Of course there once was service on this sector.

I am sure that Amtrak has looked into this run again in the recent years, but this is a sector that should be seriously considered for a potential three-times-weekly Superliner round-trip:

Chicago-Indy-Louisville-Nashville-Birmingham-Atlanta-Macon-Waycross-Jacksonville-St Augustine and FEC cities to Miami.

This would fit into the new resurgence in train travel in the Midwest and with some solid marketing could prove to be a winner. In fact there is great potential all along the route. And like every service, it has to be marketed and finessed to develop and maintain business.

Apart from the major stops mentioned, there are formidable population centers along the way to draw riders for both the north and southbound trips. Included are the Milwaukee/southern Wisconsin, Des Moines/eastern Iowa, Cincinnati, St Louis and Memphis areas and more.

One more point: my post is also meant to convey a thought that part of "fixing a system" is to build and develop business to generate revenue. In Amtrak's case this route (having a large population nearby and along the route) has the potential to produce a major and growing revenue contribution to the system.