Legislation to Provide Permanent Funding for Amtrak

[jiml]

The Crescent does not have First Class. It has coaches and sleepers. Amtrak does not call sleeper passengers First Class.

Any more. They definitely used to.

 

[Cal]

Where is the bar in the Philadelphia Metropolitan Lounge? I didn’t even see a closed bar there.

I visited the ClubAcelas a few times pre-COVID. Soft drinks, wrapped pastries and bags of snack food were all that I ever saw.

No bar, no counters with a range of hot and cold foods, nobody making avocado toast to order, etc. Not comparable.

Brightline’s lounges had unlimited wine. Now that was nice!

I think Amtrak should make their lounges better, with more food options and possibly more seating. Especially those along the NEC (Which I think only DC could use an upgrade).

And Amtrak needs a lounge in Seattle and NOL. An upgrade to the LA lounge would be nice as well.

 

[TheCrescent]

The Crescent does not have First Class. It has coaches and sleepers. Amtrak does not call sleeper passengers First Class.

Sleepers are the highest class of service on the train. They were called first class for a long time before.

If cruddy amenities on the Crescent can't be counted in any discussion of first class travel because the Crescent doesn't use the term "first class", then, fine. Let's remove any discussion of premium cabins on airplanes from the discussion of "first class" if they aren't called "first class". Let's compare service on Amtrak vs. airlines, using the class with the same name on each.

By that measure, airlines are still ritzier.

United: "Polaris". It isn't first class, but United refers to it as "business class": https://www.united.com/ual/en/us/fly/travel/inflight/polaris.html

Compare it to Amtrak business class: Amtrak Business Class Seating

Same for Delta One: Delta One® | Delta Air Lines

Compare it to Amtrak business class: Amtrak Business Class Seating

Comparison after comparison, premium class on privately-owned airlines is fancier than on Amtrak.

The only equivalent level of service is first class on the Acela vs. first class on airplanes on domestic routes, and even then, airline lounges have more amenities (bar, more hot/cold foods, food made to order, etc.) than Amtrak.

And Brightline beats them all in terms of luxury per dollar spent. For about a $40 Brightline ticket, I got lounge access, unlimited wine, free food in the lounge and on board, etc.

 

[IndyLions]

And Brightline beats them all in terms of luxury per dollar spent. For about a $40 Brightline ticket, I got lounge access, unlimited wine, free food in the lounge and on board, etc.

...and the American Orient Express beat all that you cited and then some in terms of luxury and experience. But they are not around at all any more, are they?

And last time I checked, Brightline hasn’t run a train in months (> 1year?) either.

Not much value or luxury in products that don’t currently exist.

I also believe Amtrak needs to up their game significantly and improve their product quality and their value.

However - as they do that it needs to be consistent and sustainable. There are plenty of unsustainable business models out there to be wary of.

 

[Exvalley]

It seems to me that Amtrak should do what is right for train travel and train passengers. These constant comparisons to air travel get old.

 

[joelkfla]

Sleepers are the highest class of service on the train. They were called first class for a long time before.

If cruddy amenities on the Crescent can't be counted in any discussion of first class travel because the Crescent doesn't use the term "first class", then, fine. Let's remove any discussion of premium cabins on airplanes from the discussion of "first class" if they aren't called "first class". Let's compare service on Amtrak vs. airlines, using the class with the same name on each.

By that measure, airlines are still ritzier.

United: "Polaris". It isn't first class, but United refers to it as "business class": https://www.united.com/ual/en/us/fly/travel/inflight/polaris.html

Compare it to Amtrak business class: Amtrak Business Class Seating

Same for Delta One: Delta One® | Delta Air Lines

Compare it to Amtrak business class: Amtrak Business Class Seating

Comparison after comparison, premium class on privately-owned airlines is fancier than on Amtrak.

The only equivalent level of service is first class on the Acela vs. first class on airplanes on domestic routes, and even then, airline lounges have more amenities (bar, more hot/cold foods, food made to order, etc.) than Amtrak.

And Brightline beats them all in terms of luxury per dollar spent. For about a $40 Brightline ticket, I got lounge access, unlimited wine, free food in the lounge and on board, etc.

I bought the top level ticket on a midday Brightline, and all I found in the lounge at West Palm was fruit, granola bars, chips, and drinks. I've heard they have pastries, but limited to breakfast hours. IIRC, the coffee wasn't so great; tasted like it hadn't been refreshed in a while, or just weak. Wine doesn't interest me. I think there was a meat and cheese pack offered on board; other than that, just basic snacks.

OTOH, Chicago Union had a very nice veggie buffet. From the pictures I've seen, looks like the new Moynihan Hall has a similar setup ready to go. Washington had the pre-packaged muffins, but better than nothing.

 

[MARC Rider]

Here's a thread about dedicated funding for Amtrak so they don't have to sweat bullets every year during appropriation time, and it gets hijacked and becomes a gripe-fest about the food service and first class lounges. The political stewards of our taxpayers money don't really care about spending it on amenities that most passengers don't use -- the ones who support Amtrak do it to provide a desirable mobility alternative. Complaining about the quality of premium service is making the job of the Amtrak-supporting politicians harder. I personally hope any extra money goes into new equipment, and maintaining state of good repair of rolling stock, stations, and whatever track Amtrak owns ands/or maintains. The most important thing is to ensure that the trains run on time and aren't always breaking down. Giving Amtrak some more weapons to deal with freight interference would also be good. Yes, the food can be improved, but Amtrak is running a railroad, not a restaurant.

 

[MARC Rider]

Here's a thread about dedicated funding for Amtrak so they don't have to sweat bullets every year during appropriation time, and it gets hijacked and becomes a gripe-fest about the food service and first class lounges. The political stewards of our taxpayers money don't really care about spending it on amenities that most passengers don't use -- the ones who support Amtrak do it to provide a desirable mobility alternative. Complaining about the quality of premium service is making the job of the Amtrak-supporting politicians harder. I personally hope any extra money goes into new equipment, and maintaining state of good repair of rolling stock, stations, and whatever track Amtrak owns ands/or maintains. The most important thing is to ensure that the trains run on time and aren't always breaking down. Giving Amtrak some more weapons to deal with freight interference would also be good. Yes, the food can be improved, but Amtrak is running a railroad, not a restaurant.

Another thing that having properly funding Amtrak would entail is to right-size the staffing levels. I think that most of the problems in customer service we see are because trains, stations, calling centers and such are understaffed. I'm not sure exactly how many extra people you need, but I'm sure that each long-distance train could used a couple more LSAs and I've heard that some sleeping car attendants are now responsible for 2 cars. Even the cafe cars on the Northeast Regional could benefit from an extra attendant on some of the trains that run during busy periods.

For all I know, this is also a problem on the operational side, too. If you're short of engineers and conductors, and the train starts slipping schedule, they start to exceed hours of service rules, and if fresh crew isn't available, the train is stuck until they can find some. This was really the cause of a massive 10-hour delay on the Capitol Limited I once endured.

 

[TrackWalker]

Here's a thread about dedicated funding for Amtrak so they don't have to sweat bullets every year during appropriation time, and it gets hijacked and becomes a gripe-fest about the food service and first class lounges...

I expect a little drift in threads. But many, including this one get blown way off course.

I'm sure Amtrak (both upper and lower management) has a wish list like all of us on how to spend the potential money. But between wanting and needing, priorities always need come first.

Move trains. Keep them moving. Keep them on the track.

 

[sttom]

Dedicated funding is nice and I do support it, but *approximately* $5.4 billion is not enough to fully make Amtrak independent from Congress. Replacing the Superliners could easily eat up half of that in one year. And since this is funding for grants, I will question how the money is allotted and will assume the worst until more details on how this works come out. Its another the devil is in the details problem. Dedicated funding will help with a lot of issues, but what happens when a bill comes due that there isn't money available for? Then the morons in Congress with have leverage and probably more than they would have otherwise because Republicans can say something to the effect of "This big government SOCIALIST enterprise needs your hard earned tax money to spend on (insert culture war issue here). We need to privatize Amtrak and balance the budget!" Its one thing if funding is needed on an annual basis and railing against Amtrak and public transit in general is just something that they have to go through the motions for the sake of going through the motions. Having access to a pot of money that may or may not be growing with inflation and a big bill comes up or more demand from the states comes up (this is me being optimistic), then asking for any more money will be framed as waste and the Amtrak is mismanaging money and they will latch onto I don't know, something stupid and pedantic like what kind of napkins they use, as a justification for micromanagement in exchange for needed funding to either expand state or regional networks or buy new equipment or otherwise pay for Amtrak choking on its own success or funds not keeping up with inflation. So dedicated funds are a good thing, but the are not the panacea that we might think they would be.

 

[Cal]

I've heard that some sleeping car attendants are now responsible for 2 cars.

Me too, how does that work? Is it on all trains?

 

[crescent-zephyr]

Another thing that having properly funding Amtrak would entail is to right-size the staffing levels. I think that most of the problems in customer service we see are because trains, stations, calling centers and such are understaffed.

All of the dining car issues are really about staffing.

 

[TheCrescent]

Yes, the food can be improved, but Amtrak is running a railroad, not a restaurant.

Amtrak also exists in a competitive marketplace. Plenty of people can choose to fly or take the train, and plenty of people can pay for first-class travel. Amtrak needs to offer a level of service that is competitive with other modes of transportation in order to generate revenues from customers, particularly high-dollar ones. Premium-class customers do (or at least they should) pay for a disproportionately large costs of running trains, which helps (or would help) everyone.

The Acela is fully competitive with airlines, and look how much cash it brings into Amtrak: by Amtrak's own accounting (however dubious it is), the Acela is "profitable", which might help pay for Amtrak's overhead, which helps all Amtrak users.

I couldn't see recommending the Crescent and Flexible Dining to someone who is used to flying paid first class. Not up to snuff.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

But if someone is going to burn cash on something, I'd rather have a private-sector investor do it with the investor's own money than letting a member of Congress do it with my tax dollars. And for every rail project that fails, there are plenty of other rich guys who love passenger trains who want to throw more money at the industry.

&

We've seen how privatization has played out. As long as sufficient funding is obtained, it has often resulted in lower costs in providing rail service and higher ridership. Both in the UK and around Europe. And same for freight railroads, airlines and anything else that's been unshackled to operate freely.

The widespread and accelerating abandonment of passenger rail services was the impetus to create Amtrak in the first place. Amtrak was created for the purpose of saving what was left of the private passenger rail system before it was gone forever. Your hypothetical "rich guys" who want to "throw money" at passenger rail are free to do so today.

 

[me_little_me]

I bought the top level ticket on a midday Brightline, and all I found in the lounge at West Palm was fruit, granola bars, chips, and drinks. I've heard they have pastries, but limited to breakfast hours. IIRC, the coffee wasn't so great; tasted like it hadn't been refreshed in a while, or just weak. Wine doesn't interest me. I think there was a meat and cheese pack offered on board; other than that, just basic snacks.

OTOH, Chicago Union had a very nice veggie buffet. From the pictures I've seen, looks like the new Moynihan Hall has a similar setup ready to go. Washington had the pre-packaged muffins, but better than nothing.

Well, I've never seen that in Chicago. What they had in Washington is more typical - a limited amount of pre-packaged snacks.

And this does relate to permanent funding as it will never last beyond the next two years if the current party loses the next congressional elections and becomes a minority in one or more houses. But by that time, Amtrak may start losing its premium customers who are subsidizing the train and start losing their support - and that's support from the more influential riders whether one likes that idea or not.

 

[TheCrescent]

&

The widespread and accelerating abandonment of passenger rail services was the impetus to create Amtrak in the first place. Amtrak was created for the purpose of saving what was left of the private passenger rail system before it was gone forever. Your hypothetical "rich guys" who want to "throw money" at passenger rail are free to do so today.

The "rich guys" who "throw money" at passenger rail are not hypothetical. They do today. Fortress Investments is run by such people and it is funding Brightline, both in Florida and in the West. Same for Texas HSR and other projects.

And to be clear (again): my point is that Amtrak should ALSO seek funds from the private sector so that it is not dependent on the micromanaging idiotic ideologues in Congress for funds.

The "rich guys" who "throw money" at passenger rail (some of whom I know) would tell anyone that any business with any sense generally tries to "broaden its investor base", meaning that any business generally tries to get funding from a wide range of investors so that it isn't reliant on just one source of funds. If any business depends on one funding source (like Amtrak largely does), it's at the whim of that one funding source, no matter how loony that one funding source is (like Congress and its crazies). Seeking to have multiple sources of funding is basic business sense. We've seen how Amtrak has benefited from getting funds from various states and not just Congress; Amtrak would benefit from going further and seeking funds from various governments and private-sector investors.

 

[tricia]

The "rich guys" who "throw money" at passenger rail are not hypothetical. They do today. Fortress Investments is run by such people and it is funding Brightline, both in Florida and in the West. Same for Texas HSR and other projects.

And to be clear (again): my point is that Amtrak should ALSO seek funds from the private sector so that it is not dependent on the micromanaging idiotic ideologues in Congress for funds.

The "rich guys" who "throw money" at passenger rail (some of whom I know) would tell anyone that any business with any sense generally tries to "broaden its investor base", meaning that any business generally tries to get funding from a wide range of investors so that it isn't reliant on just one source of funds. If any business depends on one funding source (like Amtrak largely does), it's at the whim of that one funding source, no matter how loony that one funding source is (like Congress and its crazies). Seeking to have multiple sources of funding is basic business sense. We've seen how Amtrak has benefited from getting funds from various states and not just Congress; Amtrak would benefit from going further and seeking funds from various governments and private-sector investors.

I think what you either don't or won't get, TheCrescent, is that Amtrak is a public service, not a business. Which, IMHO, is mainly why your posts are running into cross-currents here.

 

[TheCrescent]

I think what you either don't or won't get, TheCrescent, is that Amtrak is a public service, not a business. Which, IMHO, is mainly why your posts are running into cross-currents here.

Actually, Amtrak is, by the terms of its charter, a for-profit business, and it is partially owned by private railroads.

You tell me: why shouldn't Amtrak ADD to its sources of funding by seeking additional sources of funding? Even if Amtrak were just a public service, there are plenty of public services that seek private-sector dollars so that they can improve their offerings. Public schools certainly do, for example.

Well, I've never seen that in Chicago. What they had in Washington is more typical - a limited amount of pre-packaged snacks.

And this does relate to permanent funding as it will never last beyond the next two years if the current party loses the next congressional elections and becomes a minority in one or more houses. But by that time, Amtrak may start losing its premium customers who are subsidizing the train and start losing their support - and that's support from the more influential riders whether one likes that idea or not.

Exactly. If Amtrak keeps trying to just bare-bones transportation, the it will lose ridership (and profitable riders) and revenues. Sometimes it's necessary to spend more on providing a quality product to generate even higher revenues. Private-sector companies can do that; Amtrak can't (in its food and beverage services) due to Congressional micro-managing, which is a loss for everyone, coach or first class.

 

[railiner]

and it is partially owned by private railroads.

The four private railroads that owned Amtrak common stock, no longer do. It is entirely government owned, for a long time.

 

[TheCrescent]

The four private railroads that owned Amtrak common stock, no longer do. It is entirely government owned, for a long time.

If that's the case, then Amtrak's 2020 annual report contains material misstatements. It says that the four private railroads still own common stock:

https://www.amtrak.com/content/dam/...nal-Control-Over-Financial-Reporting-FY20.pdf

 

[jis]

And the original charter has been superseded by later legislation making Amtrak no longer a for profit business.

 

[TheCrescent]

And the original charter has been superseded by later legislation making Amtrak no longer a for profit business.

Doesn't work that way. A charter can be superseded by an amendment to the charter.

 

[jis]

Doesn't work that way. A charter can be superseded by an amendment to the charter.

Suggest you take a peek at the relevant section of CFR49

 

[TheCrescent]

Suggest you take a peek at the relevant section of CFR49

That's the Code of Federal Regulations. That's not even legislation. And it doesn't override a charter.

But, just because you asked, I did, and CFR 49 states:

The Act requires that Amtrak be operated and managed as a for-profit corporation

I suggest you read the New York Times, which describes the history of Amtrak's "for-profit" requirements. It's been toyed with, but the requirement is still there:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/01/us/amtrak-coronavirus-profit-public-transportation.html

 

[Bob Dylan]

The "rich guys" who "throw money" at passenger rail are not hypothetical. They do today. Fortress Investments is run by such people and it is funding Brightline, both in Florida and in the West. Same for Texas HSR and other projects.

And to be clear (again): my point is that Amtrak should ALSO seek funds from the private sector so that it is not dependent on the micromanaging idiotic ideologues in Congress for funds.

The "rich guys" who "throw money" at passenger rail (some of whom I know) would tell anyone that any business with any sense generally tries to "broaden its investor base", meaning that any business generally tries to get funding from a wide range of investors so that it isn't reliant on just one source of funds. If any business depends on one funding source (like Amtrak largely does), it's at the whim of that one funding source, no matter how loony that one funding source is (like Congress and its crazies). Seeking to have multiple sources of funding is basic business sense. We've seen how Amtrak has benefited from getting funds from various states and not just Congress; Amtrak would benefit from going further and seeking funds from various governments and private-sector investors.

They should re-think their PV,Package Express, and Specials Policies, as well as the Food and Drink Fiasco, which were sources of Revenue in the past.