Fire Richard Anderson Campaign?

[cpotisch]

The important long-distance trains ARE high-density service.  Or would be if they ran on time.

I'm going to challenge you here because you made a really bad assumption here. You just used the Downeaster extension to Brunswick -- a *corridor* train -- as an example of a low-ridership, low-density service to a low-density place.  And you're right!  But then you made the illogical, irrational, incorrect leap to attacking long-distance trains.

New York-Albany-Utica-Syracuse-Rochester-Buffalo-Cleveland-Toledo-Elkhart-South Bend-Chicago is a service which - - if running on time -- attracts a large number of passengers and can support multiple *long* trains per day.  That's a "long distance" train.  When the LSL has managed to run close to on time for enough months, with decent on-board services, it has been *stuffed* at *high ticket prices* and has been *profitable before fixed costs*.  (Amtrak's terrible, no-good, very bad accounting has disguised these facts.)  Ever watched the LSL boarding at Syracuse?  It takes a while because there are so many people getting on and off, even with all the doors opened...

Similar results can be found on the NY-Florida trains (also "long distance"), and NY-Charlotte-Atlanta (also "long distance"), and the LA-SF-Portland-Seattle train (also "long distance"), and the Chicago-Omaha-Denver-Ski Areas-Salt Lake City train, and so on.  These are all trains with high load factors, at least when they've been running on time. 

They aren't the Downeaster to Brunswick or the Vermonter to St. Albans or the proposed Regional to Bristol -- those are the actual low-density routes.  (Vermonter would probably be OK if they could get it back to Montreal.  The Adirondack is super low density except for going to Montreal.)

Interestingly, states seem to like to subsidize the low-density "geographic coverage" routes like the Adirondack and Vermonter. 

But the nation should make sure that the high-density "spine" routes like the Lake Shore Limited and Southwest Chief are retained (and start running on time).





2

Thank you! This is absolutely dead on. 

 

[keelhauled]

The important long-distance trains ARE high-density service.  Or would be if they ran on time.

...

I actually agree with in you in principle, at least generally.  I do think that some long distance trains work as a series of overlapping corridors, like the LSL or the Silver trains.  There are probably other examples, either that could exist or perhaps parts of existing routes.  I am less convinced that is true of the Western trains, although an argument could probably be made for the EB as essential transportation based on the limited Interstate highway access on its route.  But anyway, the idea of building, as you say, a reliable and timely network of long distance trains is tilting at windmills when there are more important and urgent concerns with the existing network.

In order to have reliable and frequent passenger service you need to own the infrastructure.  I know you have made that point before, and you're right.  But how do you do that?  Either you forcibly take over the existing freight trackage, or you build your own, and neither of those are realistic.  If you think there is political support to seize major freight corridors, you're out of your mind, and it's a horrible idea anyhow in terms of national infrastructure.  Intercity passengers can be, and by and large are, accommodated via highway and air travel, but there is no realistic way to transport the volume of freight that moves by rail if that track capacity is taken by passenger trains.

Building a parallel passenger route (actually logistically it would probably be better to build freight lines to preserve passenger access to downtown cores) is maybe marginally more politically feasible but far more costly and would almost certainly involve decades of legal wrangling over eminent domain cases at huge expense.  California's struggle with HSR is certainly not a model you would want to follow, but would probably look like a cakewalk compared to a similar project using exclusively federal funds across multiple state lines.

And in any case, the United States struggles mightily with even maintaining its existing publicly owned infrastructure, both road, rail, and in some areas aviation.  Why should we be spending precious time and money in building a brand new system when we can't even get the existing house in order?  Unfortunately there is not an unlimited pot of money to go around--and this is where I will complain again about the Downeaster, because both Brunswick projects I mentioned were primarily federally funded--and I think that the investments should be going to where there are identified problems with current infrastructure, such as any number of NEC projects, the NS mainline entering Chicago from the east, the painfully slow Chicago/St. Louis suburban running on the Lincoln Service, CSX chokepoints in Virginia, etc.

Perhaps you are more optimistic about the chances of the government suddenly managing to develop a bipartisan consensus to make a huge infrastructure push than I am, but I don't see that happening in any of our lifetimes.  Ironically, even as public support for public transportation will probably continue increasing gradually, the political support has likely peaked as the left/right urban/rural split continues.  I don't think that either party will ever control both houses of Congress and the presidency with a majority strong enough to push through effectively single-party legislation, which is really what would be needed to pass the kind of legislature required to build out some kind of national rail system that is significantly different than what we have now.  So most, if not all, major public transportation projects are going to come under the auspices of state or municipal governments, which pretty well precludes the idea of major interstate developments.

I guess what it comes down to is that at this point I think the balance of both the nation's existing transport network, and associated travel patterns, and the political support for public infrastructure investments has tipped so far towards the use of highways and aviation for long distance travel that it's a futile endeavor to advocate for a wholesale restoration of the national passenger rail network that existed up until the 1950s.  Expecting that to come back is going to be a long wait for a ship that won't come in.  Instead we should be directing what money is available towards projects that will support the continued operation of trains in the areas where they are already an important segment of the transportation network.  Expansion of the network is going to be led primarily on a regional basis, such as what we have seen in Virginia, some areas of the Midwest, and California.  If Indiana or Ohio or wherever doesn't choose to make the effort, well, that's a pity, but there's no point in spending political and monetary capital in trying to force trains upon them when there is so little of it to go around and so many other places to spend it.

 

[frequentflyer]

I have never really understood this argument. Until the recent debacle with Anderson, no one was saying that what we have now isn't working. Amtrak was and is achieving record ridership year after year in spite of itself, and besides that everyone seemed to be relatively content with the system that has been around for 47 years. Think back to maybe 2011 or 2012 - who was thinking this way? Even as late as 2016, I don't remember any of these candid discussions on whether or not Amtrak in its current form is necessary or viable. In fact, any pressing issues back then involved funding, which has somehow recently stopped being as much of an issue with the massive appropriations Amtrak has gotten in the past couple years. Why is any of this even necessary to debate outside of the BS that Anderson and the board have been on about?

So you and I imagine a sizable number want to keep Amtrak as is now. Right? Just update the equipment.

 

[Amtrakfflyer]

If your a Heritage group far right type all goverment anything (except military) is a failure, so of course Amtrak isn’t working. Thankfully I think those groups are on their last legs but they won’t go down without a fight.   The citizens of our country deserve better in all parameters of our lives. People are waking up and most importantly the younger generations won’t put up with the status quo. 

For those who say we don’t have the money we do. Military is vitally important but spending more on military then the rest of the world combined when we are only 4.3 percent of the worlds population is questionable. All we ever hear is the military needs more money. If it was going to the troops that would be one thing padding the pocket of contractors is another.  Then there’s the tax breaks and endless other sources/subjects that would actually make a dent in the deficit, Amtrak just isn’t one of them.

 

[Thirdrail7]

<snip>

And in any case, the United States struggles mightily with even maintaining its existing publicly owned infrastructure, both road, rail, and in some areas aviation.  Why should we be spending precious time and money in building a brand new system when we can't even get the existing house in order?  Unfortunately there is not an unlimited pot of money to go around--and this is where I will complain again about the Downeaster, because both Brunswick projects I mentioned were primarily federally funded--and I think that the investments should be going to where there are identified problems with current infrastructure, such as any number of NEC projects, the NS mainline entering Chicago from the east, the painfully slow Chicago/St. Louis suburban running on the Lincoln Service, CSX chokepoints in Virginia, etc.,,<snip>

I would have a lot to say about your previous post but I'll save it for another and I can (sort of) tie it in to this tidbit.

The problem  is this becomes the "your junk is my treasure" syndrome. How do you tell one group that their contribution isn't worthy of service while expecting them to fork over funds for others...that not only have service but a lot of it in in some cases? How do you tell someone in rural America that their funds will go to the NEC, which not only has a robust interstate system and airports, it has one of the most EXPENSIVE pieces of rail infrastructure in the United States with overlapping and/or competing services?

In other words, what is in it for me?

You may not like the Brunswick extension but someone does. Who are we to say it is any less important than something on the NEC or on the Chicago NS line, which has melted down since congestion has paralyzed it?  We don't live there.

Additionally, there is nothing wrong with an incremental approach for passengers and upgrades. The load factor at ends of the NEC aren't that robust either. However, you have to begin somewhere.  Do you think the trains were tooling around at 150 mph in 1910 or do you think the same incremental approach built the NEC? First, the majority of the corridor was turned over to Amtrak (from Conrail), which means they control the movements, maintenance and infrastructure. Slowly, but surely, the corridor has climbed from an 80mph operation, to 90, to 105, to 110 to 125, to 135, to 150 and soon, 160mph. It didn't happen overnight, and it wasn't cheap. Dare I say billions upon billions have poured into this 30+ year effort, with more money needed to maintain what is already here, let alone improve on it. The riders followed the improvements and investments.

This is why I always mention if you actually invested into the system in a consistent and proper manner, how many more overlapping corridors would have been completed? How many trains that are up and running right now (like the Florida service) would move at higher speeds? How do you think the NEC would favor it is was still under the control of a freight operator? I'd bet you a lot of money that if the tracks were under the control of a properly funded Amtrak, you'd see hours upon hours shaved off these routes. Trust me when I say you wouldn't plod along at 70mph on the cab signaled RF&P. Would they compete with airlines? Of course not! Would they compete with cars? That's a stretch too, but again, is that really the ultimate goal in everyone's mind?

No, the goal is to have a balanced transportation network that includes cars, planes, trains, subways as well as ferries. While the trains are point to point, the passengers...not so much.

The problem is everyone turns this into a competition, which I understand since all modes compete for scarce funds. However,  the message should be for consistent funding that will allow the private operators and states to work toward more service. Since Amtrak doesn't have the benefactors that bus and airline operators (you know that constantly contribute to the cost of their infratructure)  have, it will always stick out as a sore thumb.

 

[keelhauled]

The problem  is this becomes the "your junk is my treasure" syndrome. How do you tell one group that their contribution isn't worthy of service while expecting them to fork over funds for others...that not only have service but a lot of it in in some cases? How do you tell someone in rural America that their funds will go to the NEC, which not only has a robust interstate system and airports, it has one of the most EXPENSIVE pieces of rail infrastructure in the United States with overlapping and/or competing services?

How do you tell someone in urban America that their funds go to supporting rural Interstate exchanges they will never drive across or subsidies for crops that are exported and they will never eat? By and large, rural states are net recipients of federal funding already, and more urbanized states are the net donors, so why should even more money flow inland?  Part of living in the United States and having a federal government is accepting that tax money is going to flow where the needs of the nation demand it.  Someone in Kansas may never live near a port, yet some portion of their taxes supports the Coast Guard's authority over US waters, and so in return they have access to all the goods that flow through the ports.  They may never use a train on the NEC, but nevertheless their taxes that go to the route will help ensure the region's continued economic health, so that they can continue to use their Citibank credit card to buy products on Amazon (to take two companies with a significant/soon to be significant NYC presence).

Perhaps this is where I am hopelessly optimistic that our society will accept that their taxes are required to support parts of the country that they may never see.
 

No, the goal is to have a balanced transportation network that includes cars, planes, trains, subways as well as ferries. While the trains are point to point, the passengers...not so much.

You'll find no argument from me here.  I guess we just disagree as to the way the total transportation pie is divided up, so to speak.  Going back to the NEC example, yes it has well developed highways and airports, but it also has extremely dense urban cores with extremely high real estate costs, the most congested airspace in the country, and the only airports (LGA, JFK, and DCA) that are slot controlled in the country.  In light of that, rail transport can be an incredibly important piece of the transportation puzzle, providing high passenger capacity into city centers through relatively narrow corridors, and do so in a time competitive manner since major destinations are close together while preserving airspace capacity for long-haul traffic that cannot realistically be expected to travel via land or sea.  So the balance I see would be cars delivering passengers to major outlying points where land is cheap, trains transporting passengers into and between the urban areas, while planes provide continental and international connectivity.

The formula doesn't work in areas that don't have the high costs of personal vehicle transport, because trains will never be able to match the convenience factor of being able to arrive and depart from one's residence on their own schedule (and this will become even more true if/when autonomous vehicles become the norm), nor does it work across distances long enough that aircraft are significantly faster, even in downtown-to-downtown comparisons.

The problem is everyone turns this into a competition, which I understand since all modes compete for scarce funds. However,  the message should be for consistent funding that will allow the private operators and states to work toward more service. Since Amtrak doesn't have the benefactors that bus and airline operators (you know that constantly contribute to the cost of their infratructure)  have, it will always stick out as a sore thumb.

Yes, but I don't really see how that supports the idea of long distance trains.  A funding source that promotes development of trains by private operators and/or states?  Yes please, let's have more of it.  But I don't see any reason to expect that would lead to investments in long-haul trains, as opposed to corridors like what Brightline has or what Texas Central is working towards.  For all the reasons I have expounded on so far, the idea of dedicating significant federal funding to a national network doesn't really make sense to me.

On a completely unrelated note, I am happy to see your screen name again.

 

[jebr]

How do you tell someone in urban America that their funds go to supporting rural Interstate exchanges they will never drive across or subsidies for crops that are exported and they will never eat? By and large, rural states are net recipients of federal funding already, and more urbanized states are the net donors, so why should even more money flow inland?  Part of living in the United States and having a federal government is accepting that tax money is going to flow where the needs of the nation demand it.  Someone in Kansas may never live near a port, yet some portion of their taxes supports the Coast Guard's authority over US waters, and so in return they have access to all the goods that flow through the ports.  They may never use a train on the NEC, but nevertheless their taxes that go to the route will help ensure the region's continued economic health, so that they can continue to use their Citibank credit card to buy products on Amazon (to take two companies with a significant/soon to be significant NYC presence).

Perhaps this is where I am hopelessly optimistic that our society will accept that their taxes are required to support parts of the country that they may never see.

First, the states that are "net contributors" to the federal government is a lot more varied than the typical urban/rural divide in terms of states. There's a good Atlantic article about it here. Kansas and Nebraska, two states generally considered very rural, are net contributors to federal coffers. In fact, nine of the 14 states that are net contributors to the federal government are "inland," and as such I take issue with the claim that the coasts are funneling money inland. That's not to say that some of that money isn't well spent, or that there won't be ebbs and flows, but it's frankly false to boil down the net contributors to the federal tax coffers to "urbanized states" vs. "rural states," especially when that definition seems to be coastal vs. inland.

At any rate, if we want a system that even purports to be national, we're going to have to have a few long-distance trains, and I think it's hard to find the current long-distance network as much more than a skeletal, bare-bones system as it is. The Empire Builder has a few corridors on the ends (Spokane to Seattle and Portland, along with Minnesota to Chicago,) and the middle seems to do a fairly effective job at serving as essential transportation while building a link from Chicago to the Pacific Northwest via rail. The California Zephyr has enough overlapping corridors to pretty much serve as a single train serving as multiple corridor trains (Chicago - Denver, Denver - Salt Lake City, and Reno - Emeryville/San Francisco.) The only part not covered there, Salt Lake City - Reno, is legitimately essential transportation; even Greyhound doesn't run buses through there anymore and transfers passengers onto Amtrak! I'm less familiar with the SWC and TE/SL, but the SWC has Kansas City - Chicago and Albuquerque - Los Angeles for sure, and the middle part seems to have enough state support that will fund a fair amount of trackage costs.

I don't think there's a problem with using buses where they fit, but I think it's foolish for us to write off LD trains or trains through rural areas just because they seem to be too large to do the job; in the right corridors (which, based on ridership, the EB, CZ, and the SWC seem to be) they can even work well in the western, less-dense states. Feeder buses could make that even better; people may be more willing to overnight if needed on a train than a bus, and bus service running a few hours to different train stations could expand the reach of those trains significantly. At that point, the train is serving as the high-capacity corridor service, with feeder buses branching off serving smaller and off-route towns within a few hours of each train station.

 

[Amtrak706]

So you and I imagine a sizable number want to keep Amtrak as is now. Right? Just update the equipment.

Yes. And undo all the recent stuff like the loss of station agents and checked baggage, dining car stuff, PPCs, etc. Ideally also attempt to expand where possible, with new routes and longer trains.

 

[jis]

A sizable number also want to be at least multi-millionaires if not billionaires by winning lotteries too. [emoji57]

 

[cpotisch]

A sizable number also want to be at least multi-millionaires if not billionaires by winning lotteries too.

Hey, if I ever become a billionaire I'll happily pay for the return of station agents, checked baggage, hot meal service, and the PPCs.

 

[ehbowen]

Hey, if I ever become a billionaire I'll happily pay for the return of station agents, checked baggage, hot meal service, and the PPCs.

The secret to becoming a billionaire is finding ways to make someone else pay for all the stuff you want.

 

[Amtrak706]

A sizable number also want to be at least multi-millionaires if not billionaires by winning lotteries too.

I don’t think wanting all that stuff back constitutes some kind of lottery win or distant aspiration. We had it for 47 years of Amtrak, including through several arguably worse periods like the first “glide path to self sufficiency” in 1997-2002. It only went away because of the current inane cost cutting strategies that are based off of bad accounting.

 

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

I don’t think wanting all that stuff back constitutes some kind of lottery win or distant aspiration. We had it for 47 years of Amtrak, including through several arguably worse periods like the first “glide path to self sufficiency” in 1997-2002. It only went away because of the current inane cost cutting strategies that are based off of bad accounting.

"Cost cutting strategies" go way earlier than 1997. You can argue they've been cost cutting literally all 47 years. How many of the former railroad (PC, L&N, etc) routes were canceled on A-Day (not counting duplicate routes) alone?  There was also 1979. Now I wasn't born in 1971 and economic times were a lot different back in the 70's or in the 90's when more cuts were made but to me Amtrak has always been about "cost cutting" and trying to get away with a bare bones system. They've never been about thriving or growing. 

 

[Ryan]

They’ve never been funded at a level that would support thriving or growing. 

Pay for a barebones railroad, and you get a barebones railroad. 

 

[GBNorman]

Looks like the guy all too many around here woukd like to have fired is doing what he was hired to do:

Open Content:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-11-15/even-in-a-year-marred-by-accidents-amtrak-s-losses-shrink

But "just in case"; Fair Use:

Amtrak's operating losses narrowed to a new best in its 2018 fiscal year even while the railroad experienced a spate of high-profile accidents and rushed to install new safety equipment ahead of a federal deadline, according a preview of its annual results released by the company.

The financial improvements came against a backdrop of deadly accidents and a major push to improve safety throughout the fiscal year. Five people were killed and more than 160 injured in two major accidents last year, one last December in Washington State and another in February in South Carolina.


Anderson said Amtrak’s operating losses would have likely been less than $100 million if not for those two accidents.


All told, it was "the best performance in Amtrak’s history," Chief Executive Officer Richard Anderson said in an interview.

 

[jis]

I don’t think wanting all that stuff back constitutes some kind of lottery win or distant aspiration. We had it for 47 years of Amtrak, including through several arguably worse periods like the first “glide path to self sufficiency” in 1997-2002. It only went away because of the current inane cost cutting strategies that are based off of bad accounting.

I am sorry to say you are way disconnected from reality. See Philly’s post for a very brief intro to reality. [emoji57] you or anyone else did not have much of anything that you think you had. What do you suppose the Reagan/Stockman and the Carter cuts were all about? Growth? [emoji849]

 

[bretton88]

Looks like the guy all too many around here woukd like to have fired is doing what he was hired to do:
Open Content:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-11-15/even-in-a-year-marred-by-accidents-amtrak-s-losses-shrink
But "just in case"; Fair Use:

Amtrak's operating losses narrowed to a new best in its 2018 fiscal year even while the railroad experienced a spate of high-profile accidents and rushed to install new safety equipment ahead of a federal deadline, according a preview of its annual results released by the company.
The financial improvements came against a backdrop of deadly accidents and a major push to improve safety throughout the fiscal year. Five people were killed and more than 160 injured in two major accidents last year, one last December in Washington State and another in February in South Carolina.

Anderson said Amtrak’s operating losses would have likely been less than $100 million if not for those two accidents. All told, it was "the best performance in Amtrak’s history," Chief Executive Officer Richard Anderson said in an interview.

Despite the pubic grandstanding from Congress when push came to shove this is exactly what Congress wanted from Amtrak over the last couple decades. Cut losses above all else.

 

[GBNorman]

While my reaction to the Bloomberg report is that Mr. Anderson is doing his job and the results are beginning to show is obviously favorable, others evidently hold differing views - including this Railway Age columnist:

Open Content:

https://railwayage.com/passenger/intercity/amtrak-touts-performance-financial-records/

Fair Use:

Editor’s Notes (translating much of the euphemistic, corporate-speak nonsense language in Amtrak’s press release.

 

[jis]

It is Railway Age afterall [emoji51]

 

[Amtrakfflyer]

Let’s see what these numbers look like in 2 years when former repeat customers along with first time riders don’t return on the LD trains. 

Its great what he’s doing to the NEC, cleaning trains and such but he still deserves to be fired for his tantrums before congress and mishandling of the national network.

 

[cpotisch]

Let’s see what these numbers look like in 2 years when former repeat customers along with first time riders don’t return on the LD trains. 

Its great what he’s doing to the NEC, cleaning trains and such but he still deserves to be fired for his tantrums before congress and mishandling of the national network.

Tantrums before Congress? Huh?

 

[Amtrakfflyer]

You can google it but the Amtrak delegation led by Anderson started a shouting match with Senators in June. It was well publicized  at the time and since then he has sent his subordinates to all congressional meetings in his place.

https://www.google.com/amp/amp.kob.com/albuquerque-news/heinrich-balks-at-amtraks-plan-to-abandon-nm-route/4961142/

“In a meeting with Amtrak CEO Richard Anderson, U.S. Sen. Martin Heinrich, D-N.M., along with a bipartisan delegation of lawmakers from neighboring states, asked the railroad to follow through with funding that would supplement a federal grant. 

Heinrich said the meeting did not go well. 

“I think this was one of the most unproductive meetings with an agency level official that I’ve ever experienced,” he said. “To learn that not only are they planning to pull back their commitment to the TIGER grant, but that they're going to abandon the route I think is just outrageous.”

FROM RPA

Rail Passengers DC staff is already working with Congressional delegations in Kansas, Colorado and New Mexico and is in progress to add every other state along the Southwest Chief route. A recent meeting with a bi-partisan group of six U.S. Senators and Amtrak's CEO Richard Anderson and Executive Vice President / Chief Commercial Officer Stephen Gardner turned into a shouting match. You really don't want to get into a pissing contest with a Senator that controls your funding or can hold up appointments to the Amtrak board. Legislators are upset and are on our side on this issue. This issue will be won on Capitol Hill by our elected officials.

 

[Rover]

The secret to becoming a billionaire is finding ways to make someone else pay for all the stuff you want.

Most Billionaires know well how to profit from Government welfare. If the individual was as committed to getting all the business welfare available from governments, then they too would prosper at the expense of the taxpayer, who puts the money in the government coffers to then be given, awarded to businesses big and small.

 

[ehbowen]

Most Billionaires know well how to profit from Government welfare. If the individual was as committed to getting all the business welfare available from governments, then they too would prosper at the expense of the taxpayer, who puts the money in the government coffers to then be given, awarded to businesses big and small.

Oh, I agree. Believe me, my statement was intended as a condemnation, not a commendation.

 

[Mystic River Dragon]

Sign sighting update:

I came down to Philly on SEPTA today, and the "Save Amtrak" and "Fire Anderson" signs are completely visible--the coverings seem to have come off and are wrapped around the sign poles.

(Hey, nobody's fault if Mother Nature just happens to send some strong wind gusts, right? :giggle: )