New Beaumont station

[henryj]

Then again it's Beaumont. Just another zit on the face of Texas.

II beg your pardon; I really do not like this comment. I have many friends and relatives from Beaumont. What if someone were to call your home town a zit.

Lots of Nice Folks in every Town (well, maybe not Dallas! :lol: )but most Texans would agree with the Description of Beaumont, it's a Good Place to be FROM!!! :excl: :excl: :excl: The Really Low Number of Pax that Board/Deboard in Beaumont makes the Million Dollar plus Unmanned Amshak a White Elephant in Most Peoples Opinions! The Money could have better been spent in Houston or San Antonio or even Dallas! :lol:

Actually Beaumont could be Eliminated as a Stop for the Sunset, Orange could make a Great Crew Change Place, it's right on the Tex/LA Border and Close to Beaumont also!

Jim, I think you just like to pull people's chain. If you want to eliminate a stop, why not Sanderson, pop 861 or Schriever, pop 5880. Beaumont boards around 2000 with no station. When this facility is in place and with all the publicity surounding it I believe boardings will increase substantially. Lafayette, pop 512720 boards over 6000 and Lake Charles pop around 200000 boards about 3000 so the Beaumont(Golden Triangle) should increase boardings to around 4 grand or double. Orange is no where near the population center of the area. The saddest on the route is Phoenix which boards 0, or around 9 grand at Maricopa for an area that sports a pop of over 4 million. In comparison to Tucson which is a million pop and boards more then Houston. When the service goes daily boardings along the route will surely double or more everywhere.

The station is actually not located in such a bad place to serve the area as it is only a few blocks from I10 and not that far from downtown Beaumont if that's any benefit. Most people shop at the mall out on US69 rather than downtown and it's not that far from the station. I doubt if there is much in downtown to see. When you are trying to serve a large metro area, being downtown is really not a benefit. Having good access from an interstate highway IS a benefit. If they put in a paved parking area at the station it will actually be better than Houston's. lol. I believe that the city is using the station project to try and better the area which is a good thing. Next time I am through there I will stop off and look at the site. I am wondering if there are any signs on I10 directing people to the right exit?

 

[Devil's Advocate]

I'm at a loss to figure out how one concludes that the price being paid for this station is too high and/or fraud.

My main complaint revolves around the poor location, the lack of daily service and of connecting services, the lack of meaningful facilities, and the over-sized and over-priced concrete slab they've designed into this thing. If they improved even just one of those primary deficiencies I'd be far less critical of the project overall. For instance, cut the slab length or height in half. The ADA requirements can still be met without the inclusion of a monstrously sized concrete slab. Add an actual waiting room or even just a bathroom. Finding a way to provide daily service is probably impossible so in that sense Beaumont will always be behind several other Texas stations when it comes to inherent relevance. I don't dispute that every single station the Federal government was involved in probably included some level of questionable accounting, but that doesn't make me feel any better about Beaumont. Can the process be proven as fraudulent in a court of law? Probably not. But that doesn't mean nobody was padding the estimates. If fraud against the taxpayer is so pervasive that nobody even cares unless it's TARP-sized that rather unfortunate, but not exactly much of a defense.

Then again it's Beaumont. Just another zit on the face of Texas.

I beg your pardon; I really do not like this comment. I have many friends and relatives from Beaumont. What if someone were to call your home town a zit.

My hometown is San Antonio. Most Texans and folks from neighboring states I've talked to seem to enjoy touring my city. But if someone wants to call it a zit, well, that's certainly within their rights. We've been rated both the fattest city and sweatiest city in the nation at various times so maybe calling us a zit isn't entirely out of the realm of reasonable critique. In any case, I won't bother to pretend that knowing people who live or lived in San Antonio would in any way be considered a reasonable defense to calling it a zit. Just saying.

 

[GP35]

I'm at a loss to figure out how one concludes that the price being paid for this station is too high and/or fraud.

My main complaint revolves around the poor location, the lack of daily service and of connecting services, the lack of meaningful facilities, and the over-sized and over-priced concrete slab they've designed into this thing. If they improved even just one of those primary deficiencies I'd be far less critical of the project overall. For instance, cut the slab length or height in half. The ADA requirements can still be met without the inclusion of a monstrously sized concrete slab. Add an actual waiting room or even just a bathroom. Finding a way to provide daily service is probably impossible so in that sense Beaumont will always be behind several other Texas stations when it comes to inherent relevance. I don't dispute that every single station the Federal government was involved in probably included some level of questionable accounting, but that doesn't make me feel any better about Beaumont. Can the process be proven as fraudulent in a court of law? Probably not. But that doesn't mean nobody was padding the estimates. If fraud against the taxpayer is so pervasive that nobody even cares unless it's TARP-sized that rather unfortunate, but not exactly much of a defense.

Then again it's Beaumont. Just another zit on the face of Texas.

I beg your pardon; I really do not like this comment. I have many friends and relatives from Beaumont. What if someone were to call your home town a zit.

My hometown is San Antonio. Most Texans and folks from neighboring states I've talked to seem to enjoy touring my city. But if someone wants to call it a zit, well, that's certainly within their rights. We've been rated both the fattest city and sweatiest city in the nation at various times so maybe calling us a zit isn't entirely out of the realm of reasonable critique. In any case, I won't bother to pretend that knowing people who live or lived in San Antonio would in any way be considered a reasonable defense to calling it a zit. Just saying.

We want to talk about Amtrak, not call people and communities insulting names.

 

[had8ley]

I wonder if these nice folks building the Beaumont station would mind going to Mobile and building a new station so we can get Sunset East back or at least take away the excuse for not starting service again. I wonder just how long a grocery store would stay in business if the front door was locked for almost 6 years ??? :help:

 

[henryj]

I wonder if these nice folks building the Beaumont station would mind going to Mobile and building a new station so we can get Sunset East back or at least take away the excuse for not starting service again. I wonder just how long a grocery store would stay in business if the front door was locked for almost 6 years ??? :help:

Hadley, the more I see of Amtrak recently the more I am convinced all they really want to do is exit the long distance train business. Now they are blaming it for their continuing loses. Then there is the scuttlebut on here they want to drop the sleepers and diners on the Crescent west of Atlanta. Of course the Sunset going daily scheme is really a scheme to drop sleeping and dining service and through cars east of San Antonio and eliminate all switching in San Antonio. Currently they can't run the EB seemingly at all and the CZ is always late. The SWC is running on the edge of being rerouted around Albuquerque, it's only major stop west of KC. They have ordered no new superliner equipment for years in spite of numerous losses in accidents. The latest order is for single level equipment only for serving the northeast and Florida markets. They have discontinued the Pioneer, the Desert Wind, the Lone Star, the Floridian, the National Limited, the Broadway, just to name a few. For us living down here in the South and Southwest, Amtrak is becoming a non entity. I really don't care if they privatize the NEC. Amtrak has already deserted us.

 

[eagle628]

I wonder if these nice folks building the Beaumont station would mind going to Mobile and building a new station so we can get Sunset East back or at least take away the excuse for not starting service again. I wonder just how long a grocery store would stay in business if the front door was locked for almost 6 years ??? :help:

Hadley, the more I see of Amtrak recently the more I am convinced all they really want to do is exit the long distance train business. Now they are blaming it for their continuing loses. Then there is the scuttlebut on here they want to drop the sleepers and diners on the Crescent west of Atlanta. Of course the Sunset going daily scheme is really a scheme to drop sleeping and dining service and through cars east of San Antonio and eliminate all switching in San Antonio. Currently they can't run the EB seemingly at all and the CZ is always late. The SWC is running on the edge of being rerouted around Albuquerque, it's only major stop west of KC. They have ordered no new superliner equipment for years in spite of numerous losses in accidents. The latest order is for single level equipment only for serving the northeast and Florida markets. They have discontinued the Pioneer, the Desert Wind, the Lone Star, the Floridian, the National Limited, the Broadway, just to name a few. For us living down here in the South and Southwest, Amtrak is becoming a non entity. I really don't care if they privatize the NEC. Amtrak has already deserted us.

Wait, so those sleepers and diners and baggage cars were ordered so they could be lawn ornaments at the Wilmington car shops? And obviously all those Superliners they refurbished are going to NEC operations, rather than the Western LD trains. Not to mention the fancy new weather control system that allows the trains to run through perfect weather 24/7, finally releasing Amtrak from the whims of cruel old Mother Nature. And the schedules! God forbid passengers try to get through San Antonio in any sort of time that doesn't involve the possibility of talking a leisurely walk through the city, rather than actually being transported by a transportation company. And all that money they have lying around that could be used to buy a few hundred miles of track so their one train a day can keep the politically preferred route. Besides, it's completely irresponsible to expect a government corporation to have to run trains according to what the government wants, isn't it?

 

[henryj]

Wait, so those sleepers and diners and baggage cars were ordered so they could be lawn ornaments at the Wilmington car shops? And obviously all those Superliners they refurbished are going to NEC operations, rather than the Western LD trains. Not to mention the fancy new weather control system that allows the trains to run through perfect weather 24/7, finally releasing Amtrak from the whims of cruel old Mother Nature. And the schedules! God forbid passengers try to get through San Antonio in any sort of time that doesn't involve the possibility of talking a leisurely walk through the city, rather than actually being transported by a transportation company. And all that money they have lying around that could be used to buy a few hundred miles of track so their one train a day can keep the politically preferred route. Besides, it's completely irresponsible to expect a government corporation to have to run trains according to what the government wants, isn't it?

your in Vermont.

 

[Ryan]

Your what is in Vermont?

That doesn't change the accuracy of his statements.

 

[eagle628]

Wait, so those sleepers and diners and baggage cars were ordered so they could be lawn ornaments at the Wilmington car shops? And obviously all those Superliners they refurbished are going to NEC operations, rather than the Western LD trains. Not to mention the fancy new weather control system that allows the trains to run through perfect weather 24/7, finally releasing Amtrak from the whims of cruel old Mother Nature. And the schedules! God forbid passengers try to get through San Antonio in any sort of time that doesn't involve the possibility of talking a leisurely walk through the city, rather than actually being transported by a transportation company. And all that money they have lying around that could be used to buy a few hundred miles of track so their one train a day can keep the politically preferred route. Besides, it's completely irresponsible to expect a government corporation to have to run trains according to what the government wants, isn't it?

your in Vermont.

Very astute. Might want to start taking some lessons from us ignorant hicks up here about how to support passenger trains.

 

[GP35]

Wait, so those sleepers and diners and baggage cars were ordered so they could be lawn ornaments at the Wilmington car shops? And obviously all those Superliners they refurbished are going to NEC operations, rather than the Western LD trains. Not to mention the fancy new weather control system that allows the trains to run through perfect weather 24/7, finally releasing Amtrak from the whims of cruel old Mother Nature. And the schedules! God forbid passengers try to get through San Antonio in any sort of time that doesn't involve the possibility of talking a leisurely walk through the city, rather than actually being transported by a transportation company. And all that money they have lying around that could be used to buy a few hundred miles of track so their one train a day can keep the politically preferred route. Besides, it's completely irresponsible to expect a government corporation to have to run trains according to what the government wants, isn't it?

your in Vermont.

Very astute. Might want to start taking some lessons from us ignorant hicks up here about how to support passenger trains.

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

 

[eagle628]

Wait, so those sleepers and diners and baggage cars were ordered so they could be lawn ornaments at the Wilmington car shops? And obviously all those Superliners they refurbished are going to NEC operations, rather than the Western LD trains. Not to mention the fancy new weather control system that allows the trains to run through perfect weather 24/7, finally releasing Amtrak from the whims of cruel old Mother Nature. And the schedules! God forbid passengers try to get through San Antonio in any sort of time that doesn't involve the possibility of talking a leisurely walk through the city, rather than actually being transported by a transportation company. And all that money they have lying around that could be used to buy a few hundred miles of track so their one train a day can keep the politically preferred route. Besides, it's completely irresponsible to expect a government corporation to have to run trains according to what the government wants, isn't it?

your in Vermont.

Very astute. Might want to start taking some lessons from us ignorant hicks up here about how to support passenger trains.

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

Houston population 6,000,000. Houston station ridership: 18,000.

Burlington VT population 200,000. Burlington station ridership 23,000.

 

[GP35]

Wait, so those sleepers and diners and baggage cars were ordered so they could be lawn ornaments at the Wilmington car shops? And obviously all those Superliners they refurbished are going to NEC operations, rather than the Western LD trains. Not to mention the fancy new weather control system that allows the trains to run through perfect weather 24/7, finally releasing Amtrak from the whims of cruel old Mother Nature. And the schedules! God forbid passengers try to get through San Antonio in any sort of time that doesn't involve the possibility of talking a leisurely walk through the city, rather than actually being transported by a transportation company. And all that money they have lying around that could be used to buy a few hundred miles of track so their one train a day can keep the politically preferred route. Besides, it's completely irresponsible to expect a government corporation to have to run trains according to what the government wants, isn't it?

your in Vermont.

Very astute. Might want to start taking some lessons from us ignorant hicks up here about how to support passenger trains.

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

Houston population 6,000,000. Houston station ridership: 18,000.

Burlington VT population 200,000. Burlington station ridership 23,000.

The train is full, where do you want the riders? On the Roof. This ain't India.

 

[transit54]

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.

 

[henryj]

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

We pay more than our fair share of taxes.

Based on what criteria, exactly?

 

[The Journalist]

These numbers are a little old, but as far as Federal taxes Texas actually is historically a "donor" state: http://www.scribd.com/doc/8229012/Tax-Donor-or-Contrib-States, meaning Texans are paying more in taxes than they're getting in benefits.

Not nearly as much as New Jersey and New York are, though, and Vermont is essentially a wash, which sort of deadens henryj's point. The "second largest population" also works against the argument that you're paying too much; it works out to half a cent per person, over more than two decades.

I'm certainly surprised at this; I'm trying to find more recent numbers that don't come from an overtly political source. Not easy, since most of the graphs seem to come from either Democratic Underground or the Cato Institute, aka the oil lobby.

 

[Ryan]

I recall reading something recently that Texas had slipped over to the other side and was a net recipient, but again only by a very little bit. Historically, TX has been right in the middle getting just about exactly back what it pays the Feds in taxes, so Henry's argument is not really borne out by the facts.

Henry claims:

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.

This is demonstrably false. In 2005 (the last year that I can find data), Amtrak received $1.2 Billion from the Feds.
Based on the data here, New York contributed $168.7B to the Feds and only received $144.9B meaning that they contributed $23.8B or enough to pay for ALL of Amtrak nearly 20 times over. New Jersey paid $86.1B and received $58.6B for a difference of $27.5B or enough to pay for all of Amtrak 23 times over. Massachusetts paid $63B and received $55.8B, meaning they contributed $7.2B and paid for Amtrak 6 times over.

Let all those little northeast states pay for their own trains.

They do. And they pay for a hell of a lot of other stuff around the country, including every train that runs in Texas about a dozen times over.

 

[henryj]

You can expand the discussion to include just about anything, but we are just talking Amtrak here. Texas is 25 million people or 8% of the country. Are we getting our fair share of Amtrak? Of couse not. Nor is Kentucky, Tennessee, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Ohio, Indiana, and on and on. And St Louis and KC have to pay for their two trains. Oklahoma and Texas have to pay for the little Heartland Flyer. Take Amtrak's 1.2 billion or whatever it is and divide it up by population and then compare it to what is spent in each state and see what you get.

 

[eagle628]

Mmkay, if Amtrak gets 1.2 billion a year, that's about four dollars that every person pays towards Amtrak, assuming a population of about 300 million (actually, the population is a bit more than that I believe). Now if Vermont pays an additional four million towards the Ethan Allen and Vermonter, and we have a population of a bit more than 600,000, that's about $6.50 we pay per person, on top of the national subsidy, to Amtrak. So a total of around ten bucks per person, or about twice as much as what each Texan pays (yes, I know Texas pays a very small share of the Heartland Flyer's subsidy). We pay the money, we get the trains.

 

[Ryan]

You can expand the discussion to include just about anything, but we are just talking Amtrak here.

That's all I'm talking about as well.

Texas is 25 million people or 8% of the country. Are we getting our fair share of Amtrak? Of couse not. Nor is Kentucky, Tennessee, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Ohio, Indiana, and on and on.

What about New York? Massachusetts? New Jersey? I could go on as well, each of those states are paying the entire bill for Amtrak many, many times over. You can't honestly claim that they're getting what they pay for.

Take Amtrak's 1.2 billion or whatever it is and divide it up by population and then compare it to what is spent in each state and see what you get.

That isn't how it works. What is Alaska's share of Amtrak going to pay for? Hawaii's? That kind of supposed "logic" is ridiculous.
Let's look at the states that you're complaining about. Kentucky sends $22 Billion to DC and gets $34 Billion in return. Tennessee sends $35B and gets $48B in return. Georgia sends $55B and receives $59B. Alabama sends $25B and gets back $46B. Mississippi sends $12B and gets back $26B. I could keep going, but I'll stop - your list of "states that aren't getting our fair share" are the states that are sucking the tax dollars from the rest of the US away. If it wasn't for states that were a net drain on the budget, maybe states like New York and Massachusetts might get what they were paying for in federal taxes instead of subsidizing the states that you're complaining about.

Quit the "Woe is Texas" whining. You guys are doing just fine down there, and it looks really sad and pathetic when you look at the dollars and cents of things and realize how little some of the "small states" are getting for the money that they send to DC. You want trains? Elect some politicians that will support them.

 

[henryj]

According to my calculations, and I used FY2010 numbers and only long distance losses(575.5 million in 2010), the big winners are Virginia, Washington, S. Carolina(No 1), New Mexico and Montana. The biggest loosers are California, Texas, Pennsylvania, Michigan(#1) and New Jersey. I did not calculate corridor trains as many of them are state supported and of course the NEC which makes so much money. Virginia and S Carolina benefit by being strategically located where many LD trains have to pass through them to get anywhere. Michigan is the big looser because it has no LD trains even though it does have some corridor service. Calif looses because most of it's trains are state supported and intrastate and it has the highest population by far. New Jersey of course is not really loosing anything as it has the NEC and NY right across the Hudson. So that leaves Texas and PA as the overall biggest loosers in the LD Amtrak game plan. Of course poor little Vermont comes out on the short end, but it ranks next to last in population right above Wyoming. You can throw in the short distance trains if you want but they only amount to a loss of 231 million and little of that is out west. Where the rest of Amtrak's annual operating loss of 1.2 billion goes I have no idea and certainly no capital expenditures are going to LD trains per the latest equipment order.

 

[Ryan]

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...

 

[henryj]

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.

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

 

[Ryan]

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

 

[henryj]

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