Amtrak FY 2020 Budget

[keelhauled]

MODERATOR NOTE:  The discussion specific to the 2020 Budget (formerly in the LD train thread) has been split into a separate thread.  Discussions pertaining to the budge should be posted in this thread.  Thank you.

The Trump administration's 2020 budget contains the following language regarding Amtrak:

Amtrak’s network has not been significantly modified since Amtrak’s inception over 40 years ago, and long distance routes continually underperform, suffering from low ridership and large operating losses of roughly half a billion dollars annually. Simply put, Amtrak trains inadequately serve many rural markets while not serving many growing metropolitan areas at all. The Administration believes that restructuring the Amtrak system can result in better service (at a lower cost) by focusing trains on shorter distance (less than 750 miles) routes, while providing robust intercity bus service to currently underserved rural areas via a partnership between Amtrak and bus operators. To accomplish this transformation, the Budget provides $550 million in transitional grants as States and Amtrak begin the process to restructure the network and States prepare to incrementally take financial responsibility for the newly created State-supported routes. The Budget also provides $936 million in direct grants to Amtrak, to support investment on the Northeast Corridor and existing State-supported lines, and to assist Amtrak in this transition.

Obviously the chances of this language passing through Congress are slim, but it is the starting point.

 

[user 14106]

I don't think Trump really cares about this - a large amount of Trump's budget and most definitely the Amtrak stuff clearly comes from the Heritage Foundation who have targeted Amtrak for years. I frankly don't see how congress agrees to change the 750 mile rule nor do I see how Amtrak management gets a rubber stamp on this especially considering the recent Senate directive and simply I don't see how the politics of this work. Many of Amtrak's big supporters on the hill are not going to support this as they support the national network, and you aren't going to get anti Amtrak people either - I don't see the anti Amtrak folks voting to take the money currently being given to the national network routes and given to corridors that benefit certain metro areas. Those of that mindset including Heritage want Amtrak either privatized or for the states to take on an even bigger piece of the pie and even less federal funding (capital funding only.) They want the federally subsidized trains to move to the states or go away. I just don't see where the supporters of this are and I would imagine rail advocacy groups will challenge Amtrak management on this at hearings.

 

[user 14106]

Interestingly I did read trumps budget just out today. The guts of the proposal for the national network is exactly the same as all of their previous but it seems as they likely cooperated with Anderson on the language as it seems to go with what Anderson and Gardner have been saying. It could give a preview of what may be coming.

“Significantly Improves Amtrak and Rural Transportation Services. Amtrak’s network has not been significantly modified since Amtrak’s inception over 40 years ago, and long distance routes continually underperform, suffering from low ridership and large operating losses of roughly half a billion dollars  annually. Simply put, Amtrak trains inadequately serve many rural markets while not serving many growing metropolitan areas at all. The Administration believes that restructuring the Amtrak system can result in better service (at a lower cost) by focusing trains on shorter distance (less than 750 miles) routes, while providing robust intercity bus service to currently underserved rural areas via a partnership between Amtrak and bus operators. To accomplish this transformation, the Budget provides $550 million in transitional grants as States and Amtrak begin the process to restructure the network and States prepare to incrementally take financial responsibility for the newly created State-supported routes. The Budget also provides $936 million in direct grants to Amtrak, to support investment on the Northeast Corridor and existing State-supported lines, and to assist Amtrak in this transition.”

If this is a preview of Amtrak’s authorization request, this may indicate that they are going to recommend a complete elimination of federal funding for the national network and a network of bus service to replace it. This would allow Amtrak to redistribute it’s equipment to corridor services. Note that this is not a reallocation of the funding to corridors, the language seems to imply that federal involvement going forward would only be for the northeast corridor and they would provide “transitional funding” to help make the transition which presumably would eventually go away. Which means that any new corridors would still be state run. If this is really Anderson’s plan, this really just amounts simply to an elimination of the national network using different words saying it’s an “enhancement.”

This is an alarming revelation and I would think both those that support the national network and those that support reallocating the funding to corridors would oppose such a plan. This eliminates train service and replaces it with spare equipment for potential corridors that may never materialize if states don’t want to pay for them.

 

[cpotisch]

Interestingly I did read trumps budget just out today. The guts of the proposal for the national network is exactly the same as all of their previous but it seems as they likely cooperated with Anderson on the language as it seems to go with what Anderson and Gardner have been saying. It could give a preview of what may be coming. “Significantly Improves Amtrak and Rural

Transportation Services. Amtrak’s network has not

been significantly modified since Amtrak’s inception

over 40 years ago, and long distance routes continually

underperform, suffering from low ridership and large

operating losses of roughly half a billion dollars annual-

ly. Simply put, Amtrak trains inadequately serve many

rural markets while not serving many growing metro-

politan areas at all. The Administration believes that

restructuring the Amtrak system can result in better

service (at a lower cost) by focusing trains on shorter

distance (less than 750 miles) routes, while providing

robust intercity bus service to currently underserved ru-

ral areas via a partnership between Amtrak and bus op-

erators. To accomplish this transformation, the Budget

provides $550 million in transitional grants as States

and Amtrak begin the process to restructure the net-

work and States prepare to incrementally take financial

responsibility for the newly created State-supported

routes. The Budget also provides $936 million in direct

grants to Amtrak, to support investment on the Northeast Corridor and existing State-supported lines, and to assist Amtrak in this transition.”

If this is a preview of Amtrak’s authorization request, this may indicate that they are going to recommend a complete elimination of federal funding for the national network and a network of bus service to replace it. This would allow Amtrak to redistribute it’s equipment to corridor services. Note that this is not a reallocation of the funding to corridors, the language seems to imply that federal involvement going forward would only be for the northeast corridor and they would provide “transitional funding” to help make the transition which presumably would eventually go away. Which means that any new corridors would still be state run. If this is really Anderson’s plan, this really just amounts simply to an elimination of the national network using different words saying it’s an “enhancement.”

This is an alarming revelation and I would think both those that support the national network and those that support reallocating the funding to corridors would oppose such a plan. This eliminates train service and replaces it with spare equipment for potential corridors that may never materialize if states don’t want to pay for them.

Wow, that’s terrifying. This is the first time I’ve seen an official document explicitly stating that the plan is to eliminate LD rail service. I really hope this isn’t the end of the Amtrak I know.

 

[GBNorman]

We must consider Lordsigma's immediate thoughts as reflecting that Amtrak is approaching "the point of no return" regarding the 400 some pieces of Superliner equipment.

The decision must soon be made if these LD services that provide some "transport of last resort" weigh continuing as at present  or to look for more economical means (Busteetoot) to replace such.

The President's budget request, I think. addresses this upcoming dilemma.

 

[NSC1109]

https://www.progressiverailroading.com/federal_legislation_regulation/news/Trump-budget-slashes-funding-for-Amtrak-long-distance-service--57073

Found this on LinkedIn...short version is that the Trump administration wants to slash the Amtrak budget by $455 million (23%) and replace trains in rural areas with a “robust intercity bus service” and focus on corridors <750 miles. 

 

[cpotisch]

https://www.progressiverailroading.com/federal_legislation_regulation/news/Trump-budget-slashes-funding-for-Amtrak-long-distance-service--57073

Found this on LinkedIn...short version is that the Trump administration wants to slash the Amtrak budget by $455 million (23%) and replace trains in rural areas with a “robust intercity bus service” and focus on corridors <750 miles. 

The Trump administration's 2020 budgetcontains the following language regarding Amtrak:

Amtrak’s network has not been significantly modified since Amtrak’s inception over 40 years ago, and long distance routes continually underperform, suffering from low ridership and large operating losses of roughly half a billion dollars annually. Simply put, Amtrak trains inadequately serve many rural markets while not serving many growing metropolitan areas at all. The Administration believes that restructuring the Amtrak system can result in better service (at a lower cost) by focusing trains on shorter distance (less than 750 miles) routes, while providing robust intercity bus service to currently underserved rural areas via a partnership between Amtrak and bus operators. To accomplish this transformation, the Budget provides $550 million in transitional grants as States and Amtrak begin the process to restructure the network and States prepare to incrementally take financial responsibility for the newly created State-supported routes. The Budget also provides $936 million in direct grants to Amtrak, to support investment on the Northeast Corridor and existing State-supported lines, and to assist Amtrak in this transition.

Obviously the chances of this language passing through Congress are slim, but it is the starting point.

 

[jis]

At least the number is not $0 for all of Amtrak. We have seen those in the past too. [emoji57] Usually the Presidential budget is just for laughs anyway, even more so when the House is held by a different party.

 

[user 14106]

At least the number is not $0 for all of Amtrak. We have seen those in the past too.

Usually the Presidential budget is just for laughs anyway, even more so when the House is held by a different party.

For sure the president's budget will be dead on arrival in Congress and this cut has been in there the last two years too. However with the different way they worded the cut this year and the similarities the language has to sentiments by Mr. Gardner in his recent interview could provide a preview of future battles at the re authorization if indeed Gardner or Anderson (or both) are in bed with the administration on this.

 

[jis]

I believe both are driven by Heritage Foundation, since this has been their agenda for a while.

 

[user 14106]

I believe both are driven by Heritage Foundation, since this has been their agenda for a while.

If this is the way they come into the re authorization I expect they will be thrashed. Maybe with what happened with the SWC the approach will be a little bit more moderate from what is described in the budget. They have both said "there is still a market for long distance experiential travel" so maybe they will pick a few routes to keep as is that they feel have the most "experiential" travelers and propose cutting up the rest.

 

[jis]

If long distance trains are truly for experiential travel alone then there is little justification for funding it through the Transportation Department. That sort of funding should belong to the Department that handles things like National Parks etc.

But I believe that Long Distance trains serve a core transportation function and the "experiential" part is incidental. One of the reasons to characterize them as "experiential" alone is to justify defunding them. For that reason it is very concerning to see some folks actually agreeing that it is for experiential travel, instead of articulating their core travel purpose. Are fancy Diners so important as to lose sight of the big picture and lose LD trains altogether? If it is agreed to cut LD trains, all of them will be gone eventually. In a tight budgetary situation they will very quickly forget all the experiential stuff.

 

[user 14106]

If long distance trains are truly for experiential travel alone then there is little justification for funding it through the Transportation Department. That sort of funding should belong to the Department that handles things like National Parks etc.

But I believe that Long Distance trains serve a core transportation function and the "experiential" part is incidental. One of the reasons to characterize them as "experiential" alone is to justify defunding them. For that reason it is very concerning to see some folks actually agreeing that it is for experiential travel, instead of articulating their core travel purpose. Are fancy Diners so important as to lose sight of the big picture and lose LD trains altogether? If it is agreed to cut LD trains, all of them will be gone eventually. In a tight budgetary situation they will very quickly forget all the experiential stuff.

I don't disagree with you - the core transportation is the only reason why they should get federal funding. But the experiential factor drives part of the ridership and they have cited it a number of times. If one looks at the ridership of each long distance train, certain ones see more true long distance passengers than others (where others are overwhelmingly shorter distance travellers) and certain ones have unique sights that attract experiential travellers. I wouldn't be surprised to see a proposal that would hold on to those that have the most market for experience and longer distance passengers, and do something different for the rest (ala a Southwest Chief like approach) with the idea being that where there is less of a market for longer distance passengers, a bare bones approach is sufficient for the core transportation. Essentially an argument that it only makes sense to provide services like diners and sleepers and end to end travel on routes that have more passengers traveling significant portions of the route. I don't support a proposal like that but based on what I've seen and heard I just have a gut feeling that something like that could be in the pipeline. I'm just trying to step into their shoes and guessing what they might be thinking.

 

[Amtrakfflyer]

The odd thing is the SWC is one of the most viable actual travel options, especially  if there was a marketing department. The train makes great time Chicago to LAX and for the most part isn’t delay ridden. Just seems like a horrible poster child for what’s wrong with the LDT network.

Yes I get the tracking issues but there can be and is a solution.

LDT’s and corridors is the logical solution.

 

[Seaboard92]

Well here is what I think and know that I have a bias against Anderson, Gardner, among others listed in this thread. Why should I who lives in a state that is wholly served by national network trains lose my trains to a cut. That still uses my tax dollars to fund the North East Corridor. The NEC and its branches are of no use to me and never have been.

So why should I fund them if I lose the service in my state. Arguably my state has better service than most because I have the Palmetto, Silver Meteor, Silver Star, and Crescent.

 

[user 14106]

Well here is what I think and know that I have a bias against Anderson, Gardner, among others listed in this thread. Why should I who lives in a state that is wholly served by national network trains lose my trains to a cut. That still uses my tax dollars to fund the North East Corridor. The NEC and its branches are of no use to me and never have been.
So why should I fund them if I lose the service in my state. Arguably my state has better service than most because I have the Palmetto, Silver Meteor, Silver Star, and Crescent.

Very true I agree.

 

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

Well here is what I think and know that I have a bias against Anderson, Gardner, among others listed in this thread. Why should I who lives in a state that is wholly served by national network trains lose my trains to a cut. That still uses my tax dollars to fund the North East Corridor. The NEC and its branches are of no use to me and never have been.

So why should I fund them if I lose the service in my state. Arguably my state has better service than most because I have the Palmetto, Silver Meteor, Silver Star, and Crescent.

But we can (and have) made this argument about every route that is (or isn't) funded nationally. There are a lot of people in this country who are paying for Amtrak service and don't have any within 100 or more miles of where they live, is that fair? Other people get more trains, other people get trains at better hours, is that fair? Who makes the decisions? 

I certainly believe there should be a "national" rail system and one should be able to travel from coast to coast, east to west, and north to south. I don't agree that every LD train currently running is necessary and feel some routes would be better replacements as well as more "corridor service". Could we add more trains and keep everything we have now? Do we have the money and equipment to do so? If the answer is yes, go for it. If the answer is no, I'd rather have other trains than some of the trains we have now and I think Anderson and Gardner think the same way. We don't share the exact same ideas as to which specific trains to get rid of. I would never want to get rid of the SWC, I certainly don't want to get rid of all of the LD trains, and I'm guessing Anderson/Gardner think a Philly to Chicago train is useless. But to me the Amtrak "national network" status quo is unacceptable, changes have to be made. The Amtrak map has to grow and if cuts have to be in some areas to grow in others and the gains outweigh the cuts, so be it.

 

[cpotisch]

But we can (and have) made this argument about every route that is (or isn't) funded nationally. There are a lot of people in this country who are paying for Amtrak service and don't have any within 100 or more miles of where they live, is that fair? Other people get more trains, other people get trains at better hours, is that fair? Who makes the decisions? 

A lot of things aren’t fair, but slashing the network in the manner that is being suggested makes things even less fair.

And on the subject of things not being fair, wouldn’t you say that it’s not fair for someone who lives in a town served by 108 daily Amtrak trains to advocate for the death of the one train that West Virginia is served by almost exclusively?  :hi:

 

[dlagrua]

Maybe I am too much of an optimist about Amtrak LD service but consider that every time a proposal was put before congress that involved a cut of service, it was voted down. They just got chintzey with the amenities. Even the Senate (that many consider unfriendly to Amtrak) when faced with a proposal to slice up the SW chief route voted it down 94-6. When it comes to a politicians future they don't get re-elected by removing Amtrak or any other national service from their state. IMO, it would be an act of political suicide and that is why it probably won't happen.

 

[sttom]

This...blatant political shenanigans is why we also need to be pushing for a rational national rail policy on par with what we do for the highways. There really isn't much of a reason to have fights over what is essentially less than a rounding error for rail when highways basically get a blank check. The federal government pays for 75%-90% of the cost to build new highways and according to some reports covers 40%-60% of highway spending in general. How good would rail be if the feds paid for 75% of the capital costs for new commuter and intercity lines and paid at least 40% of the operating costs? At some point rail advocates like us need to push for more than just keeping around our quite frankly crap rail network and push for something better.

 

[Inlander]

Thats it in a nutshell. What is needed is a true national integrated transport approach. Run major long distance rail spines connected to each other by regional rail and buses. Sweeten the deal with the big class ones by offering funding for selected rail capacity upgrades i.e signalling, bi directional passing rail lanes 10-15 mile length etc

 

[Anderson]

I'm going to be a hair more charitable than many towards Amtrak's management, but I think we should consider that on some level the decision for Amtrak to fight very loudly for NEC/Corridor expansion and expect that the LD trains will have constituencies which "take care of themselves" has plenty of historical precedent. IIRC such was the underlying logic behind the allocation of overhead to the LD aspect of the system back in "the day".

At least the administration is pushing corridors, which is a hell of a lot better than zeroing out the budget (again). I might be mistaken, but this request may be better than we ever got under Dubya or Reagan (since IIRC one or both of them zeroed out Amtrak's budget every year). No, it isn't where we'd like it to be, but it definitely is an improvement and it gives us room to keep nudging.

 

[neroden]

Perhaps understandably, I care most about the critical linkages between the NEC and the Midwest. They *don't* have constinuencies which take care of themselves because of weird hostility from Indiana and Ohio, and because the states on either end (Illinois, Michigan, New York, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Maryland) all have other priorities.

Yet from a system network point of view, they are critical, and cuts to them are probably the most damaging cuts possible to the entire network. And yes, they've been cut repeatedly.

The demographics and politics of Ohio have unfortunately been getting worse for passenger rail over time, and Indiana was never good. We need national support to keep the Midwest connected to the Northeast. (And maybe that's the way to pitch it to our Representatives and Senators.)

 

[Anderson]

Ohio has also been screwed by the lack of meaningful daylight service for close to two decades. I know there's a chicken-and-egg problem here, but I can't blame them for being exasperated. 3Cs was bungled in certain ways as well, but that's an aside.

Part of the problem in many of these places is that while Anderson may be talking a game on corridors, it isn't like we're seeing viable plans being produced to sell to anyone. Even a rough conceptual idea being tossed out there for creating/expanding a route or set of routes (with price tags for various options) would be nice to see once in a while.

 

[NSC1109]

https://www.railpassengers.org/happening-now/news/hotline/hotline-1-109/

Related to the 2020 budget...

How does the restoration of DET-TOR service sound?