Trump and Amtrak/Budget cutting funding

[tommylicious]

(via progressiverailroading.com): http://www.progressiverailroading.com/federal_legislation_regulation/news/Trump-budget-ends-funding-of-Amtrak-long-distance-trains-TIGER-grants--51091

Rail News: Federal Legislation & Regulation

Trump budget ends funding of Amtrak long-distance trains, TIGER grants

• 43
• inShare
• 
  
  
  
  
  
  

President Donald Trump's proposed federal budget blueprint would cut the U.S. Department of Transportation's budget by $2.4 billion, or 13 percent, to $16.2 billion, according to the document.

Regarding rail, the budget calls for terminating federal support for Amtrak's long-distance service; eliminating the Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) discretionary grant program; and limiting funding for the Federal Transit Administration's Capital Investment Program (New Starts) to projects with existing full funding grant agreements only.

The budget request streamlines the department to focus on "vital federal safety oversight functions and investing in nationally and regionally significant transportation infrastructure projects," the document states.

"The budget reduces or eliminates programs that are either inefficient, duplicative of other federal efforts, or that involve activities that are better delivered by states, localities or the private sector," it says.

For Amtrak, the budget would restructure and reduce federal subsidies to the national intercity passenger railroad to focus on services within regions. It eliminates federal support for long-distance Amtrak services, "which long have been inefficient and incur the vast majority of Amtrak's operating losses," according to the document.

"This would allow Amtrak to focus on better managing its state-supported and Northeast Corridor train services," it states.

Amtrak's 15 long-distance trains offer the only Amtrak service in 23 of the 46 states the railroad serves. Eliminating funding for long-distance routes could impact many of the 500 communities served by Amtrak, the railroad's President and Chief Executive Officer Wick Moorman said in a prepared statement.

"These trains connect our major regions, provide vital transportation to residents in rural communities and generate connecting passengers and revenue for our Northeast Corridor and state-supported services," said Moorman. "Amtrak is very focused on running efficiently — we covered 94 percent of our total network operating costs through ticket sales and other revenues in FY16 — but these services all require federal investment."

Moorman said Amtrak officials look forward to ensuring that Trump, U.S. Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao and Congress "understand the value of Amtrak's long-distance trains and what these proposed cuts would mean to this important part of the nation's transportation system."

 

[2sk21]

Who knows if this will really come to pass but it does seem a lot more likely now.I can only be grateful that I was able to complete my long-desired transcontinental trip last year.

 

[DSS&A]

Amtrak is covering 94 percent of its operating costs. The US Highway system and Interstate Hwy systems (excluding tollways) cover ZERO percent of their operating costs, and are therefore money losers (using the same measuring method), and yet NO Politicians are calling to end funds for those modes of transportation.....

 

[dlagrua]

I cannot see cutting passenger service to the many states that support this administration will be beneficial to it. I predicted that privatization of long distance trains was a possibility and this could be what the administration is pointing to. Lets see how it all unfolds. Again this is a PROPOSED budget. When it gets to congress it could be a whole different story and I predict severe opposition. .

 

[dlagrua]

Trump and Amtrak: Gotta think he would cut it to the bone, if not even completely scrap it, right?

Uh, Mr. Trump could not do that on his own hook.

He would also need the cooperation of Congress.

That is my point. The president can propose a budget but congress must appropriate the funds. I would think that there would be resistance to cutting all long distance passenger service. It would prove to be a fatal political mistake .

 

[Rover]

http://discuss.amtraktrains.com/index.php?/topic/70086-alex-kummant-his-views-on-funding-profitability/

 

[OlympianHiawatha]

Once again everyone is getting all up in a panic over nothing. Amtrak has survived these attacks year after year and is still going strong. I look ahead 8 years and see the strong foundations laid for a massive rebirth of passenger rail, backed by both Government and private industry. So back to your safe rooms and comfort puppies; the trains are not going away!

 

[Rover]

Once again everyone is getting all up in a panic over nothing. Amtrak has survived these attacks year after year and is still going strong. I look ahead 8 years and see the strong foundations laid for a massive rebirth of passenger rail, backed by both Government and private industry. So back to your safe rooms and comfort puppies; the trains are not going away!

Okay....Thank You Olympian Hiawatha

 

[Ryan]

Once again everyone is getting all up in a panic over nothing. Amtrak has survived these attacks year after year and is still going strong. I look ahead 8 years and see the strong foundations laid for a massive rebirth of passenger rail, backed by both Government and private industry. So back to your safe rooms and comfort puppies; the trains are not going away!

I want whatever you're smoking.

 

[Espee Bob]

"Amtrak's 15 long-distance trains offer the only Amtrak service in 23 of the 46 states the railroad serves. Eliminating funding for long-distance routes could impact many of the 500 communities served by Amtrak, the railroad's President and Chief Executive Officer Wick Moorman said in a prepared statement.

"These trains connect our major regions, provide vital transportation to residents in rural communities and generate connecting passengers and revenue for our Northeast Corridor and state-supported services," said Moorman."

It seems the savior of Amtrak LD and Amtrak in general, at least in the past is the reality in the statements above by Moorman. I have no reference for this, but I read somewhere long ago that Richard Nixon very cynically signed the bill creating Amtrak, firmly believing that no one in the US had interest in rail travel any more, and the whole thing would collapse quickly and go away within a couple of years. Here we are, 46 years later. Amtrak has survived the assaults of Congress and the Executive that entire time. GW Bush wanted to zero out ALL subsidy to Amtrak, not just the long distance trains. Yet they roll on.

I've heard some people say that Congress prevents killing Amtrak, even the LD routes, because of those "46 states." That's just four short of the whole gang, and therefore involves pro-Amtrak constituents of politicians on both sides of the aisle. There are towns in those wide open lonely places that have Amtrak as the only lifeline, as they have no airport nearby and severe weather or other catastrophes can potentially leave them cut off. Minot, ND is an example of this.

The Trump proposal is interesting in that it zeroes in on the LD trains, and (sort of) acknowledges the importance of the NEC and regionals. My crystal ball says the LDs are probably going to continue, but Congress might pressure Amtrak to "do something" to demonstrate austerity. We might therefore see things like the disappearance of the diners.

In any case, ride them while you can. I'm a Californian with family in the midwest, and make the wonderful trip on Amtrak nearly every year. I'll be boarding the Zephyr in Emeryville next Friday and I can't wait!

 

[Asher]

I love trains as much as the next guy, but I just don't see the purpose of using them for long distance travel in the US. NYC to LAX on the train takes three days and is $291 for a seat in coach. A direct flight on United costs $219. I don't understand why we need to use tax payers money to fund unprofitable routes when there are plenty of alternative methods of transportation.

I think its the difference between getting somewhere and seeing something along the way. Both great modes of transportation.

 

[Groundpounder]

I love trains as much as the next guy, but I just don't see the purpose of using them for long distance travel in the US. NYC to LAX on the train takes three days and is $291 for a seat in coach. A direct flight on United costs $219. I don't understand why we need to use tax payers money to fund unprofitable routes when there are plenty of alternative methods of transportation.

a) 9/12/01

b) Some people are afraid to fly

c) Some people are medically unable to fly

d) Some people hold personal or religious beliefs that don't permit them to fly.

e) The government was not created to make a profit. True story.

I get that, but there are other methods of getting places besides federally subsidized train service. Just cause you don't like flying doesn't mean I should help buy you a ticket.

I love trains as much as the next guy, but I just don't see the purpose of using them for long distance travel in the US. NYC to LAX on the train takes three days and is $291 for a seat in coach. A direct flight on United costs $219. I don't understand why we need to use tax payers money to fund unprofitable routes when there are plenty of alternative methods of transportation.

You're right, trains don't make a whole lot of sense for NYP-LAX travel. But they do for NYP-SYR, and ROC-CLE, and TOL-CHI, and CHI-KCY, etc, etc. Now, it's also true that a better case can be made for the eastern long distance trains than the western long distance trains. But, politics being what it is, it's not hard to imagine that if/when all long distance serve is defunded (at least at the federal level), that it will be rather difficult to get much federal funding (whether capital funds or otherwise) for state corridors.

Ultimately, though, the problem with your view is that you're looking at trains with an endpoint only mentality. Trains don't just serve their origin and destination, but also all the enroute points in between.

If there is demand for service between those places you mention, then why aren't those routes profitable?

 

[chrsjrcj]

One or two trains a day averaging ~50 mph is not a formula for profitability. Those corridors could support fast, frequent, and reliable train service, and come very close to an operating profit.

 

[Eric S]

Transportation of people by whatever mode is generally not "profitable" and requires significant public support in some form or fashion - subsidizing operating costs, building and maintaining the right of way, etc.

 

[AmtrakBlue]

I love trains as much as the next guy, but I just don't see the purpose of using them for long distance travel in the US. NYC to LAX on the train takes three days and is $291 for a seat in coach. A direct flight on United costs $219. I don't understand why we need to use tax payers money to fund unprofitable routes when there are plenty of alternative methods of transportation.

a) 9/12/01

b) Some people are afraid to fly

c) Some people are medically unable to fly

d) Some people hold personal or religious beliefs that don't permit them to fly.

e) The government was not created to make a profit. True story.

I get that, but there are other methods of getting places besides federally subsidized train service. Just cause you don't like flying doesn't mean I should help buy you a ticket.

I love trains as much as the next guy, but I just don't see the purpose of using them for long distance travel in the US. NYC to LAX on the train takes three days and is $291 for a seat in coach. A direct flight on United costs $219. I don't understand why we need to use tax payers money to fund unprofitable routes when there are plenty of alternative methods of transportation.

Guess you're not aware that other modes of transportation also use taxpayers money, including flying.

 

[A Voice]

I love trains as much as the next guy, but I just don't see the purpose of using them for long distance travel in the US. NYC to LAX on the train takes three days and is $291 for a seat in coach. A direct flight on United costs $219. I don't understand why we need to use tax payers money to fund unprofitable routes when there are plenty of alternative methods of transportation.

a) 9/12/01

b) Some people are afraid to fly

c) Some people are medically unable to fly

d) Some people hold personal or religious beliefs that don't permit them to fly.

e) The government was not created to make a profit. True story.

I get that, but there are other methods of getting places besides federally subsidized train service. Just cause you don't like flying doesn't mean I should help buy you a ticket.

I love trains as much as the next guy, but I just don't see the purpose of using them for long distance travel in the US. NYC to LAX on the train takes three days and is $291 for a seat in coach. A direct flight on United costs $219. I don't understand why we need to use tax payers money to fund unprofitable routes when there are plenty of alternative methods of transportation.

You're right, trains don't make a whole lot of sense for NYP-LAX travel. But they do for NYP-SYR, and ROC-CLE, and TOL-CHI, and CHI-KCY, etc, etc. Now, it's also true that a better case can be made for the eastern long distance trains than the western long distance trains. But, politics being what it is, it's not hard to imagine that if/when all long distance serve is defunded (at least at the federal level), that it will be rather difficult to get much federal funding (whether capital funds or otherwise) for state corridors.

Ultimately, though, the problem with your view is that you're looking at trains with an endpoint only mentality. Trains don't just serve their origin and destination, but also all the enroute points in between.

If there is demand for service between those places you mention, then why aren't those routes profitable?

Please explain how you are "helping" someone buy a ticket. If you are referring to the infamous "loss per passenger" numbers, those are neither a valid nor reliable measure of a trains' financial performance, and have been previously debunked and discredited.

Regardless, while there are other means of transportation, it is also true that one size really doesn't fit all; That applies as much to modes of transport as it does to bathrobes. Flying generally makes less and less sense the shorter the journey in question, with the inverse perhaps true for buses. Passenger rail, as aptly demonstrated by both the regional corridors and the long-distance services, fulfills something of both roles, and is far more efficient at moving large numbers of people; Further, rail is often the more desirable mode of travel, more comfortable than bus or car but lacking the hassles and regulations of air travel. Finally, you don't want all your (transportation) eggs in one basket. Even discounting weather or terrorism, there are capacity constraints; You literally cannot build enough roads or large enough airports (particularly at reasonable cost) to handle the volume of everyone who wants to travel; You need alternatives, and that means support for passenger rail.

Why routes are not profitable has been previously addressed. There are no profitable routes. None. But, all forms of transportation receive some manner of taxpayer support, often in the form of a hidden subsidy. The difference with Amtrak is the need to cut the company a check every fiscal year, as opposed to the financial support flying (pardon the pun) more under the radar.

 

[Ziv]

How many of you have read Trump's book, The Art of the Deal? It isn't the best selling book of all time, as Trump claims, but it did sell about a million copies before he became president. And it really does sum up how he works in business, and apparently, in politics. First, if you want something, do whatever you can to minimize its apparent value. Second, if you want to sell something, do everything you can to maximize its apparent value. Third, offer about a third of what you are willing to pay. If they counter at all, you will get a great deal. Fourth, work the media. Fifth, it is all about Trump.

The third tenet is in play on this budget proposal. He is offering 1/3 of the spending he is willing to see put into any budget. But the House is where the heavy lifting is done on budgets. There will be room to negotiate and you can bet that the flyover Senators and Representatives will be fighting right alongside their coastal brethren to keep Amtrak running in their states.

And, finally, remember how many White House budget proposals have been enacted recently.

 

[JoeBas]

And just because you DO like flying, doesn't mean that I should help *YOU* buy a ticket.

It's called a society for a reason. Without it, we'd all be living in log cabins somewhere yelling at everyone else to get off our lawn.

 

[OlympianHiawatha]

How many of you have read Trump's book, The Art of the Deal? It isn't the best selling book of all time, as Trump claims, but it did sell about a million copies before he became president. And it really does sum up how he works in business, and apparently, in politics. First, if you want something, do whatever you can to minimize its apparent value. Second, if you want to sell something, do everything you can to maximize its apparent value. Third, offer about a third of what you are willing to pay. If they counter at all, you will get a great deal. Fourth, work the media. Fifth, it is all about Trump.

The third tenet is in play on this budget proposal. He is offering 1/3 of the spending he is willing to see put into any budget. But the House is where the heavy lifting is done on budgets. There will be room to negotiate and you can bet that the flyover Senators and Representatives will be fighting right alongside their coastal brethren to keep Amtrak running in their states.

And, finally, remember how many White House budget proposals have been enacted recently.

VERY WELL SAID! This sums it up PERFECTLY and allowed me to save time by not needing to read any further on this thread!

 

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

If the flyover/rural states want their trains so much, why don't their state DOT's pay for them instead of the rest of us paying for them? I'm more worried about Ohio, Texas, and Florida losing Amtrak service than North Dakota.

 

[JoeBas]

So he proposes to cut the discretionary budget by, say, 40%, and we're supposed to be happy if the cut is only 30%?

So, he proposes to get rid of all the LD, and if he only gets rid of the SL, SWC, CONO, EB, CL and Downeaster, we should be happy?

The government... is not... a business. It's purpose... is not... to make money for shareholders. It's mission... is not... to screw the other guy... because... WE ARE THE OTHER GUY.

Holy flipping Komadju!

 

[Don Newcomb]

Just so everyone understands the problem: Of course Trump wants to increase defense spending. I don't have the figures but the cost of a destroyer would probably cover Amtrak's subsidy for a year.

 

[prewarlionelrailfan]

Ok....someone has to do it, so I guess it will be me. Have you all seen the Trump budget? Heres a link:

http://www.progressiverailroading.com/federal_legislation_regulation/news/Trump-budget-ends-funding-of-Amtrak-long-distance-trains-TIGER-grants--51091

Let the sparks fly.

 

[Don Newcomb]

Fly-over states (overwhelmingly poor, rural, and predominantly Red States) are not likely going to be able (or willing) to cover the funding of LD trains. I take the CONO to CHI from rural Mississippi simply to get to connect to other LD trains. I can not see MS coughing up dollars to fund the CONO. Hell, our state preacher in chief.... I mean governor, wouldn't even allow ACA Medicaid expansion!

Mississippi taxes anything and everything they can, property, cars, groceries, income, etc. yet the state has such a large proportion of poor that the $480M cost of Medicaid expansion was an impossibility. It's all the state can do to continue to provide a basic educational foundation and basic services without expanding anything. If Congress wasn't going to provide the funds, Mississippi couldn't pay the bill. This is the fallacy of leaving long-distance rail support up to the states. There'd be a big hole in the system where it would have passed through Mississippi. Probably Louisiana too they surely don't have any budget surplus either.

 

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

So he proposes to cut the discretionary budget by, say, 40%, and we're supposed to be happy if the cut is only 30%?

So, he proposes to get rid of all the LD, and if he only gets rid of the SL, SWC, CONO, EB, CL and Downeaster, we should be happy?

Last time I checked the Downeaster is a state route.

If the SWC and CL are on the hit list while other stay, whoever made the choices are idiots. I'd tell you which ones I would cut but you can probably guess.