Amtrak to Congress: We'll restore Pioneer route

Published: 10/19/09

WASHINGTON - Amtrak pledged Friday to work aggressively to restore the Pioneer passenger rail line to Boise and other stops in the Northwest if Congress and the states find the money to pay for it.

But the agency offered no respite from a consultant's report last month saying the cost would be high. That disappointed Idaho Republican Sen. Mike Crapo, an advocate of restoring the service that ended in 1997. He had questioned the consultant's cost estimates.

"We still remain disappointed that they're not being more optimistic about the assumptions they're making," Lindsay Nothern, a spokesman for Crapo, told the Idaho Statesman.

In a new report on the Pioneer, Amtrak did not change any of the consultant's estimates.

http://www.idahostatesman.com/localnews/story/939198.html

There are four proposed routes for the Pioneer, which could start in either Denver or Salt Lake City and end in Portland or Seattle. Amtrak didn't recommend any of the options. The railroad also took no position on whether the line should be reinstated.

Click to expand...

If the train went from Denver and through Wyoming, would the Equality State be willing to pitch in to pay part of the operating costs? Would Oregon pay part of the operating costs? If the train went on to Seattle (as it did in the past), would Washington state also be willing to pay part of the operating costs?

DET63 said:

There are four proposed routes for the Pioneer, which could start in either Denver or Salt Lake City and end in Portland or Seattle. Amtrak didn't recommend any of the options. The railroad also took no position on whether the line should be reinstated.

Click to expand...

If the train went from Denver and through Wyoming, would the Equality State be willing to pitch in to pay part of the operating costs? Would Oregon pay part of the operating costs? If the train went on to Seattle (as it did in the past), would Washington state also be willing to pay part of the operating costs?

Click to expand...

First I disagree with the notion that any state should be helping to pay for a multi-state train that IMHO remains a Federal responsability. That said, I can't imagine either Oregon or Washington wishing to help pay. First off simply because doing so would open a precedent in where Amtrak could then turn around and ask them to pay for the Empire Builder too.

Secondly and more importantly, both of those states already pay Amtrak for in state services and would be highly unlikely to increase the budget for long distance trains when they're already having issues funding the services that they do, yet wish to further expand those in state services.

How about Idaho?

Let's remember that Vermont pays for two trains—The Ethan Allen, which only serves a couple of towns in Vermont near the New York border, and The Vermonter, which passes through several other states on its way to the Green Mountain State.

The practice of states paying for Amtrak service that partly in another state is not unusual; in fact, it seems to be more or less business as usual, at least in the East.

DET63 said:

How about Idaho?
Let's remember that Vermont pays for two trains—The Ethan Allen, which only serves a couple of towns in Vermont near the New York border, and The Vermonter, which passes through several other states on its way to the Green Mountain State.

The practice of states paying for Amtrak service that partly in another state is not unusual; in fact, it seems to be more or less business as usual, at least in the East.

Click to expand...

I imagine that the Vermonter doesn't cost Vermont as much seeing as how Amtrak uses it as a Corridor train South of NHV-- though I may be totally wrong.

As for states paying for LD trains then, yes, I agree with Alan. The only thing I would say is that if a state tells Amtrak it wants a stop that's not on the current route then the state has to pay some money to cover the costs of adjusting the route (if there are any).

ALC_Rail_Writer said:

DET63 said:

How about Idaho?
Let's remember that Vermont pays for two trains—The Ethan Allen, which only serves a couple of towns in Vermont near the New York border, and The Vermonter, which passes through several other states on its way to the Green Mountain State.

The practice of states paying for Amtrak service that partly in another state is not unusual; in fact, it seems to be more or less business as usual, at least in the East.

Click to expand...

I imagine that the Vermonter doesn't cost Vermont as much seeing as how Amtrak uses it as a Corridor train South of NHV-- though I may be totally wrong.

Click to expand...

You are more or less correct ALC, Vermont only pays to extend the trains from their normal route into Vermont. Meaning that Vermont only covers the costs of running the Vermonter north of Springfield, Mass.; much like Virginia is now paying to extend one of the corridor trains to Lynchburg. Amtrak, unless it's pulling a fast one, is still covering the expense of running the train on the corridor.

My opinion and my opinion only...

Amtrak should be paying these costs. They are the "National Rail Passenger Corp" and right now there are states without service and this is a "restoring" of service, not a "new" route.

My opinion...

The Pioneer was an experimental route, and never actually part of the National Network.

Green Maned Lion said:

The Pioneer was an experimental route, and never actually part of the National Network.

Click to expand...

Uhuh... I guess running from 1977 until 1995 daily and until 1997 tri-weekly is just "experimental" and that all of the pax were just "lab rats".

ALC_Rail_Writer said:

Green Maned Lion said:

The Pioneer was an experimental route, and never actually part of the National Network.

Click to expand...

Uhuh... I guess running from 1977 until 1995 daily and until 1997 tri-weekly is just "experimental" and that all of the pax were just "lab rats".

Click to expand...

I think the poster is inferring that the Pioneer was not part of the National Network at the time of its inception in May of 1971.

MrEd said:

Published: 10/19/09
WASHINGTON - Amtrak pledged Friday to work aggressively to restore the Pioneer passenger rail line to Boise and other stops in the Northwest if Congress and the states find the money to pay for it.

But the agency offered no respite from a consultant's report last month saying the cost would be high. That disappointed Idaho Republican Sen. Mike Crapo, an advocate of restoring the service that ended in 1997. He had questioned the consultant's cost estimates.

"We still remain disappointed that they're not being more optimistic about the assumptions they're making," Lindsay Nothern, a spokesman for Crapo, told the Idaho Statesman.

In a new report on the Pioneer, Amtrak did not change any of the consultant's estimates.

http://www.idahostatesman.com/localnews/story/939198.html

Click to expand...

Nice find Mr. Ed; the Pioneer is the only Amtrak train that I've not ridden the entire length. It doesn't look good that I ever will. Now, about the service east of NOL...

I will work on the eastern sunset for you next. Will report back.

ALC_Rail_Writer said:

Green Maned Lion said:

The Pioneer was an experimental route, and never actually part of the National Network.

Click to expand...

Uhuh... I guess running from 1977 until 1995 daily and until 1997 tri-weekly is just "experimental" and that all of the pax were just "lab rats".

Click to expand...

Amtrak had the option to create something called an "Experimental route". Most of them were silly political nonsense like the hilltopper. Up until mid-1978, an experimental route would become part of the national network if it ran for two years. The Pioneer never recieved national status and was always "experimental". I'm talking about a legal status within Amtrak, not a concept.

had8ley said:

I think the poster is inferring that the Pioneer was not part of the National Network at the time of its inception in May of 1971.

Click to expand...

First of all, that wasn't what I was saying at all.

Second, Obergrammergruppenfuhrer SS GreenManedLion speaks again: I didn't infer anything. Nothing was implied, and thus I had nothing to infer. I think, had you been reading my intentions right, the world you would be looking for is "imply". They are not interchangable.

Green Maned Lion said:

Amtrak had the option to create something called an "Experimental route". Most of them were silly political nonsense like the hilltopper. Up until mid-1978, an experimental route would become part of the national network if it ran for two years. The Pioneer never recieved national status and was always "experimental". I'm talking about a legal status within Amtrak, not a concept.

First of all, that wasn't what I was saying at all.

Second, Obergrammergruppenfuhrer SS GreenManedLion speaks again: I didn't infer anything. Nothing was implied, and thus I had nothing to infer. I think, had you been reading my intentions right, the world you would be looking for is "imply". They are not interchangable.

Click to expand...

Experimental? Let me get my Lab Coat! :lol:

I am impressed with your new word 'Obergrammergruppenfuhrer'!! :lol: :lol:

GML, there are times when you really brighten up my day!!!

Anyone else want to sign up for the experiment?

Green Maned Lion said:

ALC_Rail_Writer said:

Green Maned Lion said:

The Pioneer was an experimental route, and never actually part of the National Network.

Click to expand...

Uhuh... I guess running from 1977 until 1995 daily and until 1997 tri-weekly is just "experimental" and that all of the pax were just "lab rats".

Click to expand...

Amtrak had the option to create something called an "Experimental route". Most of them were silly political nonsense like the hilltopper. Up until mid-1978, an experimental route would become part of the national network if it ran for two years. The Pioneer never recieved national status and was always "experimental". I'm talking about a legal status within Amtrak, not a concept.

had8ley said:

I think the poster is inferring that the Pioneer was not part of the National Network at the time of its inception in May of 1971.

Click to expand...

First of all, that wasn't what I was saying at all.

Second, Obergrammergruppenfuhrer SS GreenManedLion speaks again: I didn't infer anything. Nothing was implied, and thus I had nothing to infer. I think, had you been reading my intentions right, the world you would be looking for is "imply". They are not interchangable.

Click to expand...

Your grasp of Websters Unabridged is commendable. If you have time to break away from word disections pick up a copy of "How to Win Friends and Influence People." I was only trying to defend your position; not to listen to a dull roar that means little to few.

had8ley said:

Your grasp of Websters Unabridged is commendable. If you have time to break away from word disections pick up a copy of "How to Win Friends and Influence People." I was only trying to defend your position; not to listen to a dull roar that means little to few.

Click to expand...

We all have our heckles raised by something. One of mine is word use. I don't know what made me so stuck up about it, but I passed the point of no return so far back I don't recall what it looked like when I passed it.

Same thing for just being a general heel with a huge chip on the shoulder. Sometimes I don't like being this way, but its so much a part of me I don't think I could ever go back to being the happy care free person people keep telling me I used to be. I've seen it on home videos. I can't even recognize that person.

Shawn said:

My opinion and my opinion only...
Amtrak should be paying these costs. They are the "National Rail Passenger Corp" and right now there are states without service and this is a "restoring" of service, not a "new" route.

My opinion...

Click to expand...

With a limited inventory of equipment and very limited funds, I don't know where everyone thinks the extra money is going to come from to run these new routes - Pioneer, Sunset east of NOL, train to Vegas, etc, etc. Amtrak currently earns slightly more than half of its budget through fare box collections and state contributions - the other half coming from federal funding. Something has to give if these new routes are going to happen. If someone can tell me who is going to provide the needed funding I would be very pleased. I am sure someone will say that Amtrak can be more efficient and is top heavy on management, but that is not the answer. Someone else will say to discontinue frequency on the NEC (which provides over half of the revenue for the company), but that is not the answer either. "Build it and they will come" is a nice theme for a fiction movie, but it doesn't work in real life!

haolerider said:

"Build it and they will come" is a nice theme for a fiction movie, but it doesn't work in real life!

Click to expand...

It certainly works in some cases. Start with the Phoenix Light Rail. The NEC Lynchburg extension is another -- having seen the advance bookings in ARROW for the first few months of operation, I can say that they far exceed predictions (especially by the nay-sayers).

OK...for starters we have cars coming out of Beech Grove that probably would have rusted to the rails if it were not for Stimulus $$$. Secondly, the OTP of the Sunset is presently light years (no pun intended but I thought about it) ahead of where it was just 5 years ago. Perhaps this will bring more $$ to the fare box if people can depend on the SSL for transportation and not a hi-rail camp ground that sucked millions in crew O/T as well as refunds, cancellations, missed connections and free meals to everyone on board, including extra food for the crews. And most importantly~ Amtrak seems to have forgotten this very important point even though they issued a report this past July about SSL east~ what is Amtrak going to do if Congress says, "Run it; we don't care if the states put up a nickel and the Mobile station nonsense is just that." Now what... ???

wayman said:

haolerider said:

"Build it and they will come" is a nice theme for a fiction movie, but it doesn't work in real life!

Click to expand...

It certainly works in some cases. Start with the Phoenix Light Rail. The NEC Lynchburg extension is another -- having seen the advance bookings in ARROW for the first few months of operation, I can say that they far exceed predictions (especially by the nay-sayers).

Click to expand...

Build it and they will come does work in real life, at least to the point where they will come and ride it. Whether they come with enough money to actually pay for it is another matter. But then, that's why we call it public transportation, because it needs the public's help to survive. Most people think that it's called public transportation because the public rides it, but that's not correct. Perhaps if we could change that misconception, there would be less oposition to both Amtrak and commuter/light rail projects.

haolerider said:

Shawn said:

My opinion and my opinion only...
Amtrak should be paying these costs. They are the "National Rail Passenger Corp" and right now there are states without service and this is a "restoring" of service, not a "new" route.

My opinion...

Click to expand...

With a limited inventory of equipment and very limited funds, I don't know where everyone thinks the extra money is going to come from to run these new routes - Pioneer, Sunset east of NOL, train to Vegas, etc, etc. Amtrak currently earns slightly more than half of its budget through fare box collections and state contributions - the other half coming from federal funding. Something has to give if these new routes are going to happen. If someone can tell me who is going to provide the needed funding I would be very pleased. I am sure someone will say that Amtrak can be more efficient and is top heavy on management, but that is not the answer. Someone else will say to discontinue frequency on the NEC (which provides over half of the revenue for the company), but that is not the answer either. "Build it and they will come" is a nice theme for a fiction movie, but it doesn't work in real life!

Click to expand...

Other than my separate comments about "build it and they will come", I do agree with what you've said.

I for one though firmly believe that if this route is to be restored, then that needed funding must be provided by the Fed, and not by the states. If we wish to force the states to fix up the stations, that I don't have a problem with. But otherwise the costs of this service beyond the fare box recovery belong with the Fed IMHO.

One other passing thought -- I really would love to see this train return - in particular to see service restored to Wyoming, which needs something in the winter months - but politics could be a deal breaker. If I recall correctly, both Wyoming and Idaho are represented by conservative Republicans who traditionally have not been much for general Amtrak funding. With the current poison climate in Washington, one wonders if service to this area could get stiffed as payback for other issues?

Maybe it's been mentioned and I've overlooked it . . . but both Illinois and Wisconsin (to name just two more states) subsidize Amtrak service.

MikeM said:

One other passing thought -- I really would love to see this train return - in particular to see service restored to Wyoming, which needs something in the winter months - but politics could be a deal breaker. If I recall correctly, both Wyoming and Idaho are represented by conservative Republicans who traditionally have not been much for general Amtrak funding. With the current poison climate in Washington, one wonders if service to this area could get stiffed as payback for other issues?

Click to expand...

It seems to be a mixed bag, with their senators, but it's certainly not all anti-Amtrak. Really, it's just Enzi who seems to be a hater. All quotes and statistics from Project VoteSmart.

Senator Mike Crapo (Republican, Idaho) is one of the major supporters of bringing back the Pioneer.

Amtrak reauthorization (2008), Yes

Amtrak reauthorization (2007), Yes

Amtrak subsidy limits (2007), No

Senator Jim Risch (Republican, Idaho) has only been in office since November 2008.

No voting record on Amtrak, but:

"Transportation literally drives the American economy. I support pro-growth policies that connect our cities and towns. Mass transit is an important element of this infrastructure, but should not overshadow the surface transportation needs of our rural areas."

Not sure quite how that applies to Amtrak in specific, but it's the closest I could find to a position on Amtrak.

Senator Mike Enzi (Republican, Wyoming)

Amtrak reauthorization (2008), No

Amtrak reauthorization (2007), No

Amtrak subsidy limits (2007), Yes

The 2009 stimulus bill "is both bad in content and in process. It includes wasteful spending, including $2 billion for groups like ACORN and $1.3 billion for Amtrak."

Senator John Barrasso (Republican, Wyoming)

Amtrak reauthorization (2008), No

Amtrak reauthorizatoin (2007), No

Amtrak subsidy limits (2007), Yes

And yet, he's pro-Amtrak in this Senate hearing from March 2009: "Goods move more efficiently -- people and goods on rail than they do on congested highways, and Amtrak, for instance. So ridership hit historic records last year and that was the sixth straight year in the row that ridership on Amtrak increased. And as a user of the Acela train, I find out that the airplanes seem to be getting slower. ... And in getting cars off the road, getting people on the trains saves time, money, energy."

So I'm a little confused about Barrasso's views and voting record.

i'm surprised to see little conversation about NARP's suggestion for a pioneer that routes from the northwest through boise, SLC, and vegas on it's way to LA. designed with good connections in SLC, portland, and LA, it seems like a decent idea (although since it wasn't studied, no clue if it would be cheaper or have good ridership).