Gardner's statement on House budget proposal

[Exvalley]

Outside of some very select corridors, our rail system is the only one left in the entire Western Hemisphere. The biggest advantage of Amtrak, at this point in time, is that it still exists despite endless calls to revamp it into a niche regional service with no grand bargain.

So because Europe and parts of Asia are beating us we should just give up? Interesting approach there...

I want to see long distance service as much as anyone else. But let's be honest, there is a very finite demand for such a service. 14,723 people used Amtrak in Fargo, ND in 2022. 455,512 used the airport - and many others drive to Minneapolis to use the aiport there. Theoretically, underserved communities benefit from rail service, but I have yet to see apocalyptical reports of people living in Redfield, South Dakota being stranded and withering away, screaming at the top of their lungs, "If only Amtrak served our town!"

In terms of getting butts in seats, development of corridor service is BY FAR the way to go. We need to be serious about reducing carbon emissions, and building out corridor service is very low hanging fruit - albeit an expensive fruit.

And it doesn't have to be binary. We can continue to run long distance service while we build out corridors. But if Amtrak isn't serious about meeting demand where it makes the most sense for both people and the planet, it's hard to argue that it should exist at all.

Unpopular opinion, I know, but don't complain when people don't take Amtrak seriously if Amtrak doesn't take itself seriously.

For example, what do you think the public enthusiasm would be for these two scenarios:
1) Amtrak is going to build an electrified corridor that will get you from Atlanta to Orlando in 4 hours and Miami in 6.5; or
2) Amtrak is going to add an overnight train between Chicago and Miami that will average 45 mph.

With the economic growth in Texas and the Southeast, there is some real opportunity here.

We are the richest country on the planet. We can do better.

 

[Amtrak25]

How do you know there is a finite demand when such trains can be booked months in advance and they run at best once a day ?

If Amtrak isn't serious about what Congress wants, then Amtrak Board and management need to be fired, being in violation of the law and their charter. Amtrak does not determine rail transporation policy. Amtrak services can also be put out for bid.

Global warming and carbon emissions doesn't sell in Red states or Red Counties in Blue states - Mobility does. That argument only get you a hybrid powered bus, and likely won't even then.

 

[lrh442]

And it doesn't have to be binary. We can continue to run long distance service while we build out corridors.

^^^ This.
Amtrak (and some supporters) lacks visions when it presents an either-or proposition.

"The false dilemma fallacy involves presenting a limited number of options as if they were the only options available. This forces people to choose between two extremes, even though there is a spectrum of possibilities in between. The fallacy is misleading and prevents honest debate."

 

[John Bredin]

With all the hoopla about the NEC centric board, the holds on nominations, demands for improvements to the National network, etc. Why would Coscia start up with this language that’s reminiscent of 2018? My bet is they (the BOD and Gardner) were hoping the House would agree and suggest some or all LD routes be cut or made broken in corridors. The writing has been on the wall for a year the House would not be generous to Amtrak and I think Coscia proactively was reaching out to them.

Honest question why would he say this when his own nomination was being held for this exact line of reasoning? He uses words like “redrawn” like they did in 2018 instead of more appropriate words like “expanded”.

I think we’re seeing a glimpse of how the 2018 mentally is still very much alive.

1. “Corsica on 6/21/2023: "We believe that the map for Amtrak needs to be redrawn to reflect what the population of the United States looks like in 2023, and not what it looked like in 1971 when Amtrak inherited assets from defunct railroads. So, we think there is an enormous amount of opportunity that is driven by demand. In order to achieve that level of service we will need a number of things to happen."

Maps being "redrawn" is a common linguistic or rhetorical device. More specifically, if Amtrak's initiatives to serve areas of the country with corridor service that doesn't exist now -- Southeast around Atlanta, Southwest between LA, Phoenix & Tucson, Front Range in Colorado, etc. -- succeed to any significant degree, it would be a redrawing of the Amtrak map. There would literally be lines of service on the map that don't exist now, serving places on the map not served now, or not to the same level of service.

I don't see anything in the corridor initiative -- which is clearly what Coscia is referring to -- that's directly anti-long-distance. From the first promotion of this on Amtrak's website, long before Congress authorized it in law, Amtrak's stance has been there are areas of the nation not well served by the legacy routes ("in 1971 when Amtrak inherited assets from defunct railroads") that are now major population centers ("what the population of the United States looks like in 2023"), and some planning & initiative should go into serving those areas. That stance seems utterly non-controversial to me, and indeed to anyone who's not anti-passenger-rail.

One can argue that funding the operating expenses as well as the capital for the first few years and then expecting the states to pick it up is less than ideal, but it's not a stupid plan. The biggest obstacle to new service other than $$ is that, politically, the cost of proposed service is concrete while its benefits are abstract. Getting service running -- building a ridership and other constituencies (tourism boards, etc.) who'll push for its continuance -- overcomes that obstacle. Inertia is against new routes now, getting something running for a few years makes inertia our ally. Moreover, I don't see how promoting new corridor service, especially outside the NEC, is some kind of stalking horse for being anti-long-distance.

In sum, I think you're hunting Kremlinology style (who clapped the longest? who sat during the parade?) for any scrap of language to find anti-LD plans or policies in Coscia's rather anodyne remark you quoted.

 

[Bembidion]

Let's face it, if you are a conservative legislator to look for things to cut there isn't much low hanging fruit that isn't protected by some strong lobby. Pretty much any social program is a 3rd rail that you touch at your own risk. Passenger rail has only the RPA and local pro passenger groups. Even the railroads are at best indifferent and would generally be happy if Amtrak just withered away. Such is the political reality.

Well, I wrote to my rep last night in support of passenger rail in general and Amtrak in particular.

 

[cirdan]

https://media.amtrak.com/2023/07/statement-from-amtrak-ceo-stephen-gardner/
https://democrats-appropriations.ho...on-housing-and-urban-development-funding-bill

• Guts rail infrastructure programs, including a 64 percent reduction to Amtrak, with a majority of the cut to the Northeast Corridor (NEC), which would result in the elimination of service on certain routes, delays to station improvements to comply with ADA, and furloughing its workforce;
  • Funding for the NEC has been cut by 92 percent, from $1.3 billion to $99 million.
  • Funding for the National Network has been cut by 35 percent, from $1.2 billion to $776 million.
  • Eliminates the Federal-state Partnership for Intercity Passenger Rail program and cuts the Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvement program in half, kicking the can down the road on major safety improvements for passenger and freight rail at a time when investments should be prioritized for strengthening our rail network and the safety of our rail workers.

maybe time to cross reference the other thread where somebody is saying how wonderful it would be if the government controlled all railroads ...

this is exactly what could happen.

 

[user 14106]

I think we’re seeing a glimpse of how the 2018 mentally is still very much alive.

If you mean whether they want to expand the network into new corridors then yes it probably is. But I think they took the message on the Southwest Chief thing. I try not to take the 2018 stuff personally - it was dumb and flawed but I think it’s best not to look at incompetent and flawed ideas as evil schemes. As flawed and stupid as it was I think it was simply their uninformed vision of how to build a more relevant network. Building a more relevant network is a worthwhile endeavor - but they were majorly flawed in the correct approach to doing so. There of course are also legitimate operational questions about how competently and effectively they are currently digging themselves out of the holes that began with the pandemic. But not everything needs to be a giant evil scheme or conspiracy or involve malice or ulterior motives. Just because people have been wrong or incorrect on certain things doesn’t mean they can’t be right about other things - as Gardner’s commentary is on this funding proposal. This is why it’s best not to think of this as a good and evil thing. Unfortunately these days the fear mongering media as well as many politicians present everything in that manner and presents everything that happens in Washington and elsewhere as some sort of conspiracy so I can understand why it can be tempting to look at things that way.

 

[cirdan]

If you mean whether they want to expand the network into new corridors then yes it probably is. But I think they took the message on the Southwest Chief thing. I try not to take the 2018 stuff personally - it was dumb and flawed but I think it’s best not to look at incompetent and flawed ideas as evil schemes. As flawed and stupid as it was I think it was simply their uninformed vision of how to build a more relevant network.

Call me a fundamentalist, but I feel that flawed and dumb ideas should not be coming out of the heads of highly payed executives, and if they do it should be time for them to face the consequences.

Amtrak has enough people attacking it from outside (and I agree with you, not all of these attacks are malicious, and we should not be treating them as such as we may be burning bridges to people who mean well and could under other conditions be helping), but you would expect at least the people on the inside to have sufficient grip on the facts that they do not float destructive ideas.

 

[jis]

The RPA Council Members got an update on what is going on in Congress. At present the thing to do is to see if a vote on this proposal on the floor can be scotched. They are short of time before the upcoming break, so if a vote on the floor happens that would be after that.

This bill has zero chance of passing in the Senate, so the horse trading between the two will begin at some point. The realities of the posturing etc. that is going on on every bill indicates that the likely outcome this year will likely be a Continuing Resolution kicking the can down the road a few months.

From a rail advocate's perspective the thing to do is to see if 5+ Congresspeople specilly on the R side to vote against it, or threaten to do so, and then if it comes on the floor be ready with a whole pile of amendments to offer.

 

[TransitTyrant]

So because Europe and parts of Asia are beating us we should just give up? Interesting approach there...

I want to see long distance service as much as anyone else. But let's be honest, there is a very finite demand for such a service. 14,723 people used Amtrak in Fargo, ND in 2022. 455,512 used the airport - and many others drive to Minneapolis to use the aiport there. Theoretically, underserved communities benefit from rail service, but I have yet to see apocalyptical reports of people living in Redfield, South Dakota being stranded and withering away, screaming at the top of their lungs, "If only Amtrak served our town!"

In terms of getting butts in seats, development of corridor service is BY FAR the way to go. We need to be serious about reducing carbon emissions, and building out corridor service is very low hanging fruit - albeit an expensive fruit.

And it doesn't have to be binary. We can continue to run long distance service while we build out corridors. But if Amtrak isn't serious about meeting demand where it makes the most sense for both people and the planet, it's hard to argue that it should exist at all.

Unpopular opinion, I know, but don't complain when people don't take Amtrak seriously if Amtrak doesn't take itself seriously.

For example, what do you think the public enthusiasm would be for these two scenarios:
1) Amtrak is going to build an electrified corridor that will get you from Atlanta to Orlando in 4 hours and Miami in 6.5; or
2) Amtrak is going to add an overnight train between Chicago and Miami that will average 45 mph.

With the economic growth in Texas and the Southeast, there is some real opportunity here.

We are the richest country on the planet. We can do better.

A certain type of commenter who frequents a certain train board would say the slow overnight train would be a better investment because of “passenger miles” despite serving a much smaller pool of potential riders.

 

[user 14106]

Call me a fundamentalist, but I feel that flawed and dumb ideas should not be coming out of the heads of highly payed executives, and if they do it should be time for them to face the consequences.

You aren’t wrong on that and that’s why the board adjustments are important and I of course fully support that. Though of course the top dog at that point in time is no longer in the building.

 

[Bembidion]

i ride Amtrak for three reasons.

first it is highly union

second it is a greener form of travel than air or car

third it is generally pleasurable.

i can’t afford lots of land cruises but when i do the carbon footprint is part of it. it should be for everyone.

I don't care much about greenness, carbon footprint or unions, but I can't stand air travel or long distance car travel. Not only that, most likely airline employees and highway workers are probably unionized also. For me the train is part of my vacation rather than a vehicle to get to my vacation destination or to my daughter's wedding in about a week. I would check your last box for sure.

 

[wxmeddler]

So because Europe and parts of Asia are beating us we should just give up? Interesting approach there...

I want to see long distance service as much as anyone else. But let's be honest, there is a very finite demand for such a service. 14,723 people used Amtrak in Fargo, ND in 2022. 455,512 used the airport - and many others drive to Minneapolis to use the aiport there. Theoretically, underserved communities benefit from rail service, but I have yet to see apocalyptical reports of people living in Redfield, South Dakota being stranded and withering away, screaming at the top of their lungs, "If only Amtrak served our town!"

Hi, live in Fargo, ND here. I think our town is representative of a lot of mid-sized (50k-250k) (Fargo is on the upper end at 250k) LD towns. People don't use LD service because of the reasons we all know about.

1. The LD lines on-time performance is horrible.
2. The frequency of service is poor and/or mis-timed. (Ie. The EB both E/W show up at 3AM/4AM respectively here in FAR.)
3. Speed is sub-par to both automobiles and air over all distance lengths.

Of course, this all points to the obvious solution. The need for dedicated corridor service. As you stated, this is the most expensive option. We're at the point right now, and arguably for the past 50 years, that the push needed to actually realize sustained funding requires a "if you build it, they will come" attitude. US Politicians historically, when it comes to infrastructure, are risk adverse. Hence where we are right now (*points to everything*). They will not take this necessary step in order to make meaningful change. It takes huge amounts of politically will, often seen as radical at the time, to push through these large scale changes.

Given the current political climate in this country right now, and the existing headwinds in lobbying from road/air based services. That's not happening. It's going to take radical project(s) and enough people riding it for that to change. I don't know if that thing is Brightline, or CA HSR, or (less likely) a complete revamp of NEC.

 

[user 14106]

Senate version of bill released which is more based in the real world. Amtrak funding restored.

 

[zephyr17]

Senate version of bill released which is more based in the real world. Amtrak funding restored.

Beat me to it.

Now it's just part of the upcoming, multi-cornered budget food fight between the Senate and the Administration versus the House, and Speaker McCarthy and GOP centrists against the Freedom Caucus. If history is any guide, Amtrak will get lost in the noise of the general uproar and get funding much, much closer to the Senate version than the House's.

The relatively easy Amtrak funding of the last couple with Democratic control of the House is over. Our regularly scheduled programming has resumed.

 

[user 14106]

Statement from Amtrak CEO Stephen Gardner on the Senate Bill - Amtrak Media Gardner statement on senate bill

 

[user 14106]

I think the House tends to be a bit more reactionary and ideological and is more influenced by the media talking heads and the senate a bit more experienced and grounded. Amtrak is an obvious choice for cuts in the house given the president’s Amtrak Joe nickname and how much of its service is in blue states. Additionally freshman reps who have less experience and may not have yet formed views on various issues often rely on partisan think tanks and Friendly media for talking points on both the democratic and republican side. The DC think tanks on the GOP side are notoriously anti Amtrak. Their traditional target was the long distance trains but as the red vs blue war has gotten more tribal and given Gateway and some of the other big projects becoming targets during the Trump years on the republican side and they seem to have refocused their attacks on the northeast corridor given it predominantly serves blue states and has a lot of capital needs that they can target for cuts. Either way such large cuts would hurt Amtrak system wide. Thankfully the senators tend (with some exceptions) to be a bit more restrained and have their own independent views which might not always go right along with the cable news host narrative and we of course have senators supportive of Amtrak on both sides. It’s always interesting though how many GOP reps are advocating for expanded Amtrak service in their states but are set to support their version of THUD.

 

[user 14106]

Relevant amendments to THUD that will come up later today -

12. Jackson Lee (TX): Increases and decreases by $1 million the Federal Rail Administration Safety and Operation's account to emphasize the need to provide dedicated funding to address community engagement on safety issues related railroad crossings in urban areas. (10 minutes)

13. Norton (DC): Increases/decreases by $1 million the Federal Railroad Administration’s safety and operations account to express the intent of Congress that Union Station Redevelopment Corporation is eligible for the Federal-State Partnership for Intercity Passenger Rail Grant Program. (10 minutes)

14. Gottheimer (NJ): Increases and decreases funding by $1 million for the Department of Transportation to expedite the environmental impact statement review process to expand the Hudson-Bergen Light Rail. (10 minutes)

15. Molinaro (NY), Lawler (NY), LaLota (NY): Increases and decreases to highlight the importance of the Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvements (CRISI) grant program for advancing railroad safety. (10 minutes)

16. Garbarino (NY), LaLota (NY): Increases/decreases Amtrak Northeast Corridor funding by $1,160,769,000 to highlight it's importance for the continued operation, maintenance, and economic success of the NEC. (10 minutes)

17. Lawler (NY): Increases and decreases funding for the Amtrak Northeast Corridor (NEC) with the intent of supporting the need for robust rail funding to modernize our passenger rail network. (10 minutes)

18. Lawler (NY): Increases and decreases funding for the Amtrak National Network with the intent of supporting the need for robust rail funding to modernize our passenger rail network. (10 minutes)

19. Molinaro (NY): Increases and decreases the Amtrak account to emphasis the importance of Amtrak to expeditiously advance ADA compliance at stations and on trains. (10 minutes)

20. Perry (PA): Strikes National Network Grants. (10 minutes)

21. Crockett (TX): Increases and decreases the funding for the Federal Transit Administration's Transit Infrastructure Grants to emphasize the importance of the FTA undertaking the efforts to protect the safety of transit workers that Congress required in Pub. L. 114-94, div. A, title III, § 3020, Dec. 4, 2015, 129 Stat. 1491 and § 3022, Dec. 4, 2015, 129 Stat. 1493. (10 minutes)

22. Perry (PA): Reduces Transit Infrastructure Grant funding to $0. (10 minutes)

23. Perry (PA): Eliminates funding for Capital Investment Grants. (10 minutes)

24. Ogles (TN): Increases and decreases to emphasize the importance of restoring public safety and rule of law on the DC Metro. (10 minutes)

25. Perry (PA): Eliminates funding for Grants to the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority. (10 minutes)

 

[John Bredin]

Relevant amendments to THUD that will come up later today -

12. Jackson Lee (TX): Increases and decreases by $1 million the Federal Rail Administration Safety and Operation's account to emphasize the need to provide dedicated funding to address community engagement on safety issues related railroad crossings in urban areas. (10 minutes)

13. Norton (DC): Increases/decreases by $1 million the Federal Railroad Administration’s safety and operations account to express the intent of Congress that Union Station Redevelopment Corporation is eligible for the Federal-State Partnership for Intercity Passenger Rail Grant Program. (10 minutes)

14. Gottheimer (NJ): Increases and decreases funding by $1 million for the Department of Transportation to expedite the environmental impact statement review process to expand the Hudson-Bergen Light Rail. (10 minutes)

15. Molinaro (NY), Lawler (NY), LaLota (NY): Increases and decreases to highlight the importance of the Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvements (CRISI) grant program for advancing railroad safety. (10 minutes)

16. Garbarino (NY), LaLota (NY): Increases/decreases Amtrak Northeast Corridor funding by $1,160,769,000 to highlight it's importance for the continued operation, maintenance, and economic success of the NEC. (10 minutes)

17. Lawler (NY): Increases and decreases funding for the Amtrak Northeast Corridor (NEC) with the intent of supporting the need for robust rail funding to modernize our passenger rail network. (10 minutes)

18. Lawler (NY): Increases and decreases funding for the Amtrak National Network with the intent of supporting the need for robust rail funding to modernize our passenger rail network. (10 minutes)

19. Molinaro (NY): Increases and decreases the Amtrak account to emphasis the importance of Amtrak to expeditiously advance ADA compliance at stations and on trains. (10 minutes)

20. Perry (PA): Strikes National Network Grants. (10 minutes)

21. Crockett (TX): Increases and decreases the funding for the Federal Transit Administration's Transit Infrastructure Grants to emphasize the importance of the FTA undertaking the efforts to protect the safety of transit workers that Congress required in Pub. L. 114-94, div. A, title III, § 3020, Dec. 4, 2015, 129 Stat. 1491 and § 3022, Dec. 4, 2015, 129 Stat. 1493. (10 minutes)

22. Perry (PA): Reduces Transit Infrastructure Grant funding to $0. (10 minutes)

23. Perry (PA): Eliminates funding for Capital Investment Grants. (10 minutes)

24. Ogles (TN): Increases and decreases to emphasize the importance of restoring public safety and rule of law on the DC Metro. (10 minutes)

25. Perry (PA): Eliminates funding for Grants to the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority. (10 minutes)

The district "represented" by Perry, sponsor of four amendments in that list to zero-out or cancel various aspects of rail and transit, includes Harrisburg, which has excellent Amtrak service at least eastward (Keystone service)! So much for "all politics is local."

 

[user 14106]

The RPA supported ones are the symbolic ones that would “increase and then decrease” funding. Idea probably being to indicate support for modifying this during the conference process (if indeed the senate moves with passing single subject spending bills rather than an omnibus.)

 

[Jdub]

The RPA supported ones are the symbolic ones that would “increase and then decrease” funding. Idea probably being to indicate support for modifying this during the conference process (if indeed the senate moves with passing single subject spending bills rather than an omnibus.)

Interesting..No FL 'adjustments'. Must be the service is a valuable addition to the state..Frequent(ish), convenient, useful for older demographic and travelers.

 

[user 14106]

In good news today - the house voted overwhelmingly against the Perry amendment to strike all national network funding.

 

[user 14106]

And it sounds like the House THUD bill is basically derailed so to speak. While this certainly had no chance of getting passed, this was still a good exercise and some good work by RPA and advocates in getting these GOP members on board enough to stop this bill in its tracks since one cannot always rely on a Democratic Senate and President to bail us out.

 

[jis]

And it sounds like the House THUD bill is basically derailed so to speak. While this certainly had no chance of getting passed, this was still a good exercise and some good work by RPA and advocates in getting these GOP members on board enough to stop this bill in its tracks since one cannot always rely on a Democratic Senate and President to bail us out.

Since last year's appropriations were not all that terrible, just doing CRs would not be too bad, until the House can figure out what it is supposed to do and how.

 

[user 29618]

People who want to cut funding often talk about AMTRAK as being a "land cruise".
Let's just for a moment assume it is.

Explain, please, how actual sea cruises - which have much higher expenses - can do it without government help, and make a profit, but AMTRAK can't.