New Beaumont station

[trainviews]

Vermont pop. 600k, Houston MSA 6,000k. Houston gets 1 tri-weekly train. That 1 train is not running empty.

Or, seen this way:

Vermont contribution to Amtrak: ~$4 million.

Texas contribution to Amtrak: $0

Or, this way:

Vermont contribution to Amtrak: ~$6.15 per person (assuming $4m in funding, 650,000 people in the state)

Equivalent Texas investment: $152m -> That could buy a decent amount of equipment and run a decent number of trains depending on where they went.

If Texas wants additional trains, I think Texas needs to pay for additional trains. Additional money for long distance trains is not forthcoming federally - at least anytime soon. Areas with federally provided trains should consider themselves lucky. I do see these trains as good investments, but I also think it's vital that states put up money for Amtrak if they want increased service beyond what they already have.

We in Vermont have used our votes and our voices to elect pro-rail politicians and we've invested our tax dollars to fund the trains that we want. Texas is always welcome to do the same.

Public transit (and Amtrak as an extension of this) isn't provided based on population - it's provided based on funding.

It's interesting how people in tiny little states think. Lets look at it like this. Texas is the second largest state in population. We pay more than our fair share of taxes. Amtrak is a government agency that lives on taxes. You have in your neighborhood the NEC and multiple long distance and commuter trains which drink far more in tax money than all the little states up there could ever think of contributing.

Actually no - the Amtrak trains on the NEC is operating at a surplus, the commuters are paid by the states. No federal tax money there, except for infrastructure investment, which is substantial, but can be directly compared to highway building, and the who-gets-most calculation should be made on general infrastructure investment (of which I have no data). The Amtrak operating subsidies all goes into the LD's, of which the Sunset is the worst or secondworst performer IIRC. And anyway the NEC goes nowhere near Vermont...

So when do we get our fair share of trains from our government railroad, Amtrak, down here? You want us to pay twice don't you, once for you and then again for us. lol.

Actually it is Vermont paying twice. First via federal taxes for the national LD network not reaching the state, and then via state taxes for the two state sponsored trains, that do go there... (and granted - connects Vermont to the NEC.)

Lets see how the South and Southwest are doing. We get a three times a week train through here in the fourth largest city in the country. Phoenix, which has 4 million people gets nothing.

Which both of them are a scandal. You are right in that.

Atlanta metro area has over 5 million and has one train a day. Dallas, Fort Worth, Austin, San Antonio and the I35 corridor add up to something like 12 million people.

... and really is the lowest hanging fruit in all of the US for a solid intercity service, like hourly trains. With high enough speed it would definately be operationally profitable. But as it is now short distance routes have to be sponsored by the states (which is a stupid policy to leave the most feasible train services entirely to the states but that is the way it is and another debate). And Texas has done nothing = no train.

The next thing is that local investment in transit and SD's builds up ridership for the LD's. In Texas only DFW is doing good on transit and even that is within the last few decades. A few others are coming along (especially if the Lone Star gets off). This actually makes a better case for better service, much more than screaming at the North East.

They get one train a day. No connection to Colorado, the most visited state by Texans, no connection to Florida, the second most visited state. So we fly, usually Southwest. It's cheap and fast and they have flights all day long. Which comes first, the trains or the demand for trains. I would venture to guess that most Texans don't even know we still have rail service here since it goes practically nowhere and is virtually invisible. I have been reading the postings on Amtrak privatization. I think it's a good idea starting with the NEC. If it's so profitable then there should be a waiting line to run it.

It's oprationally profitable, but nowhere near earning back the needed investments (a good part of the infrastructure has turned 100). That would be closing it down in a few years, as infrastructure crumbles totally. Another model would be to tender it to the highest bidder, but keeping the infrastructure federally owned. This model is how much of the British rail system is run and might get a more efficient service. The same for the LD routes going to the service provider asking the lowest subsidies. But it wouldn't mean anything like the end of public involvement or tax dollars.

And if the rest of Amtrak is such a looser then put it in the DOT with the interstate highways. We have really good highways down here. Amtrak as it is now is doing nothing for Texas. They wanted to shut down the Texas Eagle and leave us with only a three times a week train. Only KBH was able to save that one other wise we would have nothing now. So who needs Amtrak. Get rid of it. Let all those little northeast states pay for their own trains.

Generally your point that Texas and much of the south east and south west is underserved is right, but it won't get any better until the region starts electing rail-friendly politicians on both the federal and the local level. You need not just a KBH fighting for her own little train, but politicians fighting in Washington for rail. Thats where the dog is buried (as we say in Danish), and not som grand scheme conspiration from the North East (that does not hold a majority of seats in Congress you know).

And to transit54: Texas actually does put money into Amtrak, as it pays it's share of the Heartland Flyer (together with Oklahoma). Per capita it is of course still minuscule compared to like Vermont.

 

[trainviews]

I'd love to see what these "calculations" contain and how you determined "winners" and "losers", because your statement that the NEC "makes so much money" exposes the fact that your figures are disconnected from reality...

I use Amtrak's own performance reports which do indicate that the NEC makes money. Amtrak may be disconnected from reality, but I am not. If you wish I can send you the spread sheet I used. According to Amtrak the NEC's fully allocated contribution was 51.5 million. I split the losses according to the mileage in each state. The biggest loosers in the corridor market are the Keystone and Empire services and the Pacific Surfliners followed by the Wolverines. I don't make these numbers up. The SWC and EB are the biggest loosers in the LD market at 62.3 and 61.8 million, just unbelievable numbers for a single train. And right behind them are the CZ, the CS and the Florida trains. Immagine if the private freight railroads were still running these trains and having to absorb these astronomical losses.

Well acutally as a percentage of operating costs - and per passenger mile - the Sunset and the Cardinal are far the worst performers. Some of that is due to them being tri-weekly, which is no way to run a train, as a lot of costs are fixed.

Anyway, if these numbers are even close to correct I see no future for LD trains and very little for corridor trains.

Actually once or a few times a day is no way either, but that is what you've got and considering UP's price of making the Sunset daily, it will be like that in al lot of places for a long time to come. Large capacity investments are really only feasible in corridors with potential for frequent services.

What the FEDS need to do is disconnect the NEC from Amtrak and put the rest under the DOT mixed in with the Interstate and US highway systems. The DOT picks up something like 80 percent and the states put in the rest. Then you would get some decent rail service across the nation, run by the states of course, not Amtrak. Highways don't make money so why should trains. Finance it all with fuel taxes. Make the DOT self sufficient living on the fuel tax. Take the decision making away from Congress, period. Allow the DOT to raise or lower the fuel tax as needed just as the Post Office does stamps.

If any LD system is to be preserved this is a bad idea. Any state on a tea party rant would be able to block off a line (see Wisconsin...). It has to be entirely federal or be scrapped. As for the NEC it has an operating surplus (which is relatively small, not gushing money) but desperately needs investments to replace crucial parts of the ageing infrastructure and build out service. The surplus is nowhere near close to paying for that.

But in sense of the corridor services I think you are on the right track. Rail is much better suited for the shorter distances and I would swap the marginal (and inherently heavily lossmaking) LD services for good and efficient corridor service in all the obviouos places any time. It would benefit much more people, relieve much more congestion and have greater benefits to the environment.

But it needs federal encouragement to compete with the very high subsidies, that highways get. So leaving the whole tab to the states like it is now is disasterous.

 

[Ryan]

I'll settle for your data source, because I can't find the numbers you're claiming anywhere on Amtrak's website.

Come on Ryan, you know where to find them. Under News and Media, Reports and Documents, Monthly Performance Reports for September 2010, Page C-1, Financial Performance of Routes Fully Allocated, September 2010 YTD. It's all there.

http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer?c=Page&pagename=am%2FLayout&p=1237608345018&cid=1241245669222

You're looking at the "Preliminary and Unaudited" numbers. I was looking at the "Final Audited" numbers in the Appendix (page App-19), which is why nothing matched up.

You just can't ignore the "Capital Charge" column even if it is "n/a" at this point. You can only claim that the NEC is making money if you ignore the fact that Amtrak has to spend millions and millions of dollars for maintenance on the corridor, which they obviously do. Anything can be said to "make so much money" if you look at revenue but not all the costs. No sane business is going to take on the entire NEC because there isn't any money to be made in it, unless you're just going to let them take over operations and have the government provide the infrastructure. That'd make the situation from the government's perspective even worse - most of the costs and none of the revenue to offset it. Of course, that seems to be the "free market" thing to do - privatize the profits and subsidize all of the big costs on the taxpayers dime.

I also already pointed out (and you ignored) the fact that you can't just take Amtrak spending and divide it out by population to determine "winners" and "losers". The states that you're complaining about (outside of Texas) get FAR more than their fair share of federal spending in other areas and even Texas comes very close to breaking even on the money that they send to Washington.

 

[trainviews]

You can only claim that the NEC is making money if you ignore the fact that Amtrak has to spend millions and millions of dollars for maintenance on the corridor, which they obviously do. Anything can be said to "make so much money" if you look at revenue but not all the costs. No sane business is going to take on the entire NEC because there isn't any money to be made in it, unless you're just going to let them take over operations and have the government provide the infrastructure. That'd make the situation from the government's perspective even worse - most of the costs and none of the revenue to offset it. Of course, that seems to be the "free market" thing to do - privatize the profits and subsidize all of the big costs on the taxpayers dime.

Well instead of selling it actually is possible to auction the opration of the trains off to the highest bidder for a period of years, and then use the price to minimize the amount the taxpayers have to spend on renewing the infrastructure. That is the way it is done in several European countries (and likewise getting a bids to operate lossmaking routes at the lowest possible price).

This can sometimes give a better and/or cheaper service (I have not been impressed with the efficiency of Amtrak from the liltle I have seen), but there is a lot of other parts to the equation, that has to be taken into consideration, to determine if it is a good idea. In the case of the NEC it is a very complicated operation, with Acelas, regionals, LD's and commuter services on the same tracks, and you might get yourself into a nightmare if you get a private operator in too. Just imagine the quarrel about Amtrak selling tax payer subsidised tickets from NYP to WAS on the LD's competing with the new commercially run trains. Or who is going to have the windfall when investments enhances the profits of the operations in the corridor?

Another problem is, that it is the Acelas that make all the profit. The regionals just barely break even. So a private operator would want to scrap the regionals and run more Acelas, if you auction it all off, and that is not desireable from a transport (or local political) point of view. You could then auction off only the Acelas, but then you have one more entity competing for space on the crowded tracks or you could have a detailed service contract, which are causing quite a lot of disputes between operators and government entities on some of the European networks.

I would definately go and testrun it in another, less complicated corridor first....

 

[Ryan]

Well instead of selling it actually is possible to auction the opration of the trains off to the highest bidder for a period of years, and then use the price to minimize the amount the taxpayers have to spend on renewing the infrastructure. That is the way it is done in several European countries (and likewise getting a bids to operate lossmaking routes at the lowest possible price).

That's exactly what I was talking about as a terrible idea. If the corridor is going to generate an operating profit, that money should go towards the capital costs of maintaining the corridor, not to the profits of an operating company.

 

[GP35]

It'll cost a lot to install, however ballastless tracks would save a ton on long term maintenance.

 

[henryj]

I know it's impossible to solve this here or get into the details. But one suggestion is for the DOT to maintain ownership and do the maintenance on the NEC and contract out the operation of the trains, essentially similar to the European design. The rest of the system could be put under the DOT and handled similar to the interstate highway system in that the Federal Government funds something like 80-90 percent and the states the rest. Funding comes from the fuel tax. I can't go into the details of how that works because I don't know, but basically no state has said they won't maintain the interstate highway going through their state and they would not be able to do that to an interstate train either. Yet when we travel on US or interstate highways, who do we see maintaining it or patrolling it. The state. How would that work with a train, I don't know, but it could be worked out. LD trains would still have to have an operating company that was in charge of the network. Intrastate trains could be contracted out to an operator of the states choosing. All I am really getting at here is that the current system which has been limping along for 40 years now is just broken. It is not developing new routes or showing any innovation. Parts of the country have good service and other parts are vastly underserved. Leaving it solely to the states results in spotty service that is subject to the whims of state legislatures and budgets. Running it from the Federal level would result in a more balance approach as in the highways. Rail service could be run where there are existing markets for it as developed by a balanced approach to the nations transportation needs.

On the long distance train, particularly in the West, Amtrak probably should adopt the Canadian idea that they are a luxury service for tourist, offer mostly sleeper type service with only marginal coach service and price it appropriately, particularly pricing coach at least above Greyhound. The Canadian when I rode it only had two coaches, with the rest of the train sleeper class of various types. The days when the LD train was basic transportation went away with the jet plane and the interstate highway. If they still can't be made to at least cover their operating costs then perhaps we should look at making them all three times a week to reduce overall cash outlays. I would think something like the NY to Florida corridor should be able to make it on it's own. Same for NY to Chicago and DC to Chicago.

 

[Bob Dylan]

It's evident that some Thought and Work went into Your proposal henry, but Id like to point out that the Ridership on the LD Trains is Increasing by Leaps and Bounds, even in COACH! Even the Poor Eagles are having SOLD OUT Days with the High Bucket Coach Rail Fare being applied to most Days! I'd think that if the so called "Leaders" in Washington saw this Plan adopted they would start Screaming about "Land Cruises" Subsidizing Lesiure Travel etc. etc.

Id like to see Coach Travel ENHANCED since lots of us can't Afford to do Sleeper travel all of the time even though it's so Very Nice in comparison! Me, of course in the Ideal World both would be possible, but as the Old saying goes: "Be Careful What You Ask For, You May Get It!!" :help:

 

[trainviews]

I know it's impossible to solve this here or get into the details. But one suggestion is for the DOT to maintain ownership and do the maintenance on the NEC and contract out the operation of the trains, essentially similar to the European design. The rest of the system could be put under the DOT and handled similar to the interstate highway system in that the Federal Government funds something like 80-90 percent and the states the rest. Funding comes from the fuel tax. I can't go into the details of how that works because I don't know, but basically no state has said they won't maintain the interstate highway going through their state and they would not be able to do that to an interstate train either. Yet when we travel on US or interstate highways, who do we see maintaining it or patrolling it. The state. How would that work with a train, I don't know, but it could be worked out.

Generally I agree that it would be beneficial to get someone in to show an alternative way of operating passenger trains in America. But uprooting the whole Amtrak network would be foolish. Being in Europe here, all I'm saying is: be careful. Some of the outsourcing here has generally worked well probably providing better service for less money, especially on side lines with a relatively simple operation. The British did it to the whole system including the main lines in one go, and has had huge problems over the years (not that the old British Rail took any prizes) and after initial savings costs are again spiralling upwards. Here in Denmark the cross country traffic to Sweden is in major trouble and it is part of the backbone of the whole regional transportation system (links Copenhagen to the airport, the third largest Swedish city just on the other side of the sound and regional network in southern Sweden). On the other hand Arriva is operating a number of low volume provincial lines, and they seem to benefit from having an operator that sees that as their core business instead of being left hand work of the national train company DSB. And generally, bear in mind that no conventional speed trains operates on a surplus, and the serviceheavy LD's even less so. Subsidies are still needed if you want train service.

LD trains would still have to have an operating company that was in charge of the network. Intrastate trains could be contracted out to an operator of the states choosing.

Agree with the first. One of the mistakes the politicians did when creating Amtrak in 1971 was that they did not mandate it to provide ticketing service and networking deals to other companies. That effectively killed off the last of the profitable passenger routes, as they cound not provide network service. As for the corridor services, the states can already today choose who they want (Veolia has just made a fool of themselves, I forgot where), but most have chosen Amtrak for intercity service. The rules have to be combed through for hidden competition advantages.

All I am really getting at here is that the current system which has been limping along for 40 years now is just broken. It is not developing new routes or showing any innovation. Parts of the country have good service and other parts are vastly underserved. Leaving it solely to the states results in spotty service that is subject to the whims of state legislatures and budgets. Running it from the Federal level would result in a more balance approach as in the highways. Rail service could be run where there are existing markets for it as developed by a balanced approach to the nations transportation needs.

You are right in the sense that the states have been the only innovators here and there. The blame though is hardly on Amtrak though, which can only do what there is political will to do, and there has been very little focus on innovation or on where train service is actually feasible and needed. It has all been pro all existing trains or abolish them all, with regional protection of "our" routes added to limp the system along.

On the long distance train, particularly in the West, Amtrak probably should adopt the Canadian idea that they are a luxury service for tourist, offer mostly sleeper type service with only marginal coach service and price it appropriately, particularly pricing coach at least above Greyhound. The Canadian when I rode it only had two coaches, with the rest of the train sleeper class of various types. The days when the LD train was basic transportation went away with the jet plane and the interstate highway. If they still can't be made to at least cover their operating costs then perhaps we should look at making them all three times a week to reduce overall cash outlays. I would think something like the NY to Florida corridor should be able to make it on it's own. Same for NY to Chicago and DC to Chicago.

I agree that many of the LD's are obsolete as mass transport. There's passengers all right, but not any noticable share of the market, and keeping them alive is a purely political choice, basically benefitting some of the smaller and medium sized communities they run through. Making them tri-weekly is only going to make the subsidy per passenger much larger though, as all the fixed costs will stay the same, and ridership will plummet, if people cannot travel or go back on the day they prefer. Maybe your idea of a luxury sleeper could maybe work on a few routes, but any subsidies for it would be a political nonstarter.

So in basic some of your ideas are worth considering, but should be tested before going systemwide.

And where I think we basically disagree is that I think subsidizing and expanding a train network is both desirable and necessary. Right now I just think it's pretty debateable wether America is getting the most bang for the buck.

 

[henryj]

Interesting ideas Trainviews. Of course I am not suggesting that subsidies for passenger trains cease. That would be impossible as long as every other mode of transport is subsidized by the Government. I would just put them on equal footing such as funding them from the DOT along with highways using the fuel tax rather than begging for money every year from Congress. As for upgrading the LD trains, Via gets away with it so I am sure Amtrak or whatever it morphs into could also.

 

[GP35]

I agree that many of the LD's are obsolete as mass transport

Not true. Amtrak LD's are limited by equipment. Take the Sunset, the tri-weekly train is full.

If the train goes daily, full. 5 coaches and 10 sleepers, FULL.

 

[George Harris]

Agree with the first. One of the mistakes the politicians did when creating Amtrak in 1971 was that they did not mandate it to provide ticketing service and networking deals to other companies. That effectively killed off the last of the profitable passenger routes, as they cound not provide network service. As for the corridor services, the states can already today choose who they want (Veolia has just made a fool of themselves, I forgot where), but most have chosen Amtrak for intercity service. The rules have to be combed through for hidden competition advantages.

There were NO profitable passenger routes when Amtrak started. Through tickes were done. At the time of Amtrak takeover, there were three railroads that continued to operate their own passenger service. D&RGW between Denver and Ogden UT, Southern between Washington DC and New Orleans, plus a Salisbury NC to Asheville NC train, and CRIP (the Rock Island), two trains that were barely beyond commuter trains. For both D&RGW and Southern it was primarily a case of keeping control of their own, and for the CRIP that between the basing period and the Amtrak start up they had dropped most of their longer distance trains, so the cost of continuing their own was considerably less than the cost of joining. Within a few years the company went bankrupt and dissapeared from existence.

 

[Ryan]

Interesting ideas Trainviews. Of course I am not suggesting that subsidies for passenger trains cease. That would be impossible as long as every other mode of transport is subsidized by the Government. I would just put them on equal footing such as funding them from the DOT along with highways using the fuel tax rather than begging for money every year from Congress.

There's a proposal on the table to do just that. Not sure if it'll really help or not, Congress can still get their hands into the budget and make whatever changes that they want.

http://discuss.amtraktrains.com/index.php?/topic/39195-no-more-direct-funding-for-amtrak/page__p__294169__fromsearch__1#entry294169

 

[Lamar]

A perfect example of why people get fed up with government! A lousy location, a waste of money (this is not small potatoes fro basically a shed!)when it could be built downtown or @ least in a more accesable and safe location! Perhaps Amtrak could even eliminate Beaumont as a stop if the pax load is so low and stop in Orange! (Texas, not California or Florida!)

I agree. The people of Orange would appreciate it, and there are plenty of good places for a station along the way.

 

[transit54]

Generally your point that Texas and much of the south east and south west is underserved is right, but it won't get any better until the region starts electing rail-friendly politicians on both the federal and the local level. You need not just a KBH fighting for her own little train, but politicians fighting in Washington for rail. Thats where the dog is buried (as we say in Danish), and not som grand scheme conspiration from the North East (that does not hold a majority of seats in Congress you know).

And to transit54: Texas actually does put money into Amtrak, as it pays it's share of the Heartland Flyer (together with Oklahoma). Per capita it is of course still minuscule compared to like Vermont.

Ah, did not realize that Texas paid for the Heartland Flyer. Thanks for the info.

But I think you really hit the nail on the head with regard to the politics argument. If underserved states elected politicians that were pro-rail, they would have much better service. Is it a crime that Texas and much of the south has incredibly little corridor service, relative to population? Of course. But look at who they elect, especially on a federal level. The majority of the politicians that actively oppose the mere existence of Amtrak are from the areas that are poorly served. Sure, there are challenges in getting people interested about service they don't yet have, but hey, it's not like many other states didn't have to do that at some point (look at the huge expansions in service in CA, WA, OR, IL, VA, etc in the last 10 or 20 years).

Ultimately, I wish there was greatly expanded passenger rail service in all regions of the country. But it's a little hard to be sympathetic to states that elect the politicians that vociferously oppose Amtrak. AZ (McCain) and FL (Mica) are two that quickly spring to mind, but a review of NARP's voting records clearly shows what regions are electing anti-rail politicians. Also, think about the governors of OH, WI, FL and other places that rejected HSR money. I respect politicians who don't feel Amtrak is necessary in their areas, but these guys used the HSR funding to launch political attacks and paint all rail investment as wastes of our taxpayer dollars. Politicians who do that impact service not only in their states, but in all states. So it's hard to be sympathetic to states where people have put politicians in office that have the potential of undermining service in my own state (if the last round of HSR money wasn't reduced, I have good reason to believe that the Ethan Allen extension would have been funded in VT).

I understand that it's got to be frustrating to a rail advocate in Texas or Florida or Ohio or any of these other places, but really the most you can do is blame your fellow state residents. Sure, the NEC gets federal capital funding, but many of these states were OFFERED federal capital funding and they not only REFUSED it, they ATTACKED the politicians who offered it to them. I'm sorry, but I don't see any reason to offer a dollar more of funding to those states until they elect politicians who do a dramatic about-face on these issues.

 

[AlanB]

I understand that it's got to be frustrating to a rail advocate in Texas or Florida or Ohio or any of these other places, but really the most you can do is blame your fellow state residents. Sure, the NEC gets federal capital funding, but many of these states were OFFERED federal capital funding and they not only REFUSED it, they ATTACKED the politicians who offered it to them. I'm sorry, but I don't see any reason to offer a dollar more of funding to those states until they elect politicians who do a dramatic about-face on these issues.

I'd be a bit careful about lumping Florida in with the rest.

Yes, the Governor made a very political decision to impress the leaders of extreme side of the party. And it was political, seeing as how the Governor promised the residents of Florida a full review of the project before he would make any decision. Then 2 weeks before the new study that he ordered hit DOT to do, he suddenly pulled the plug. He pulled the plug based upon a study co-authored by a man who had been the Governor's aide during his transistion government. A study that claimed it would lose money.

Then the DOT study came out and it showed that the service would have at least covered its operating expenses.

Sixteen Republican State Senators joined with 10 Democratic State Senators to form a veto proof majority in rebuking their Governor's foolish and political decision. They also tried to find a way around the Governor, even working with Sec. Trans. Ray LaHood, but were unable to find any way to commit the state to the project over the Governor.

But my point of course is that a clear majority of the politicians in Florida did support that project; in Florida's case it was the actions of one man, not the majority. That cannot be said for Wisconsin & Ohio, where even if the incoming Gov's had gone for rail, it might well have been blocked by the legislature.

 

[George Harris]

.Yes, the Governor made a very political decision to impress the leaders of extreme side of the party.

Could also say that he and these same "leaders" misread the perspective of th majority of his supporters, even the mose "extreme" ones. Much of his support was on issues that were completely irrelevant to the rail issues. On rail related issues there is a so far fairly successful attempt to hijack extreme political conservatism for the benefit of the oil and oil users, read automobile, airline, and trucking industries. Those people aren't stupid. They have done the math and figured out that anything that puts passengers (and freight) on rails instead of on roads and in the air reduces fuel usasge per passenger mile or per ton mile. Therefore, if they can propogandize themselves into the mantle of political consservatism they can keep things going their way a while longer. In actuality their future depends upon anything but a politically conservative government. These people do more to cause this country to bleed money to foreign parts than any other single industry.