Could Only Some of the LD Trains Be Cut Instead of All of Them?

[jis]

To quote the late President Reagan: "There you go again!"

And FYI, Delaware has Three LD Trains,The two Silvers to Florida and your whipping boy, the Cardinal in addition to the NEC Trains.

Good thing nobody rides these trains so they won't be missed!

Four. The two Silvers, Crescent and Cardinal. And technically the Palmetto is also an LD train.

 

[Carolina Special]

The comment that Amtrak brags about covering 94% of operating costs with ticket revenue is not accurate. Amtrak instead talks about ticket sales and other revenues as the numerator in the equation.

As near as I can tell, the equation is total revenue divided by total expense less pro forma non cash adjustments (primarily depreciation).

Ticket revenue makes up about 2/3 of total revenue. The remaining 1/3 of revenue is made up of food and beverage revenue, state supported train revenue, commuter revenue, reimbursable engineering and capital improvement activities, other track related transport revenue, commercial development, amortization of state capital payments, and freight access fees.

How relevant some of these items are to supporting passenger train operations is debatable, but that's another topic.

Anyway, Amtrak is far, far away from covering operating costs with pure ticket revenue.

 

[neroden]

I don't listen to proposals to cut train services to "save money", 'cause they're stupid. I already explained why. Save at most $60 million? Why bother?

In fact, what Amtrak will do if budgets are reduced temporarily is to defer capital expenditures. It's the only thing which makes any sense.

 

[dlagrua]

When I read all of these "cost cutting" suggestions it makes me quite curious. What do we do with all the people in the USA in the small towns, and in the countryside that live hundreds of miles away from the nearest regional airport? Do we consider the elderly and the people with physical and/or mental handicaps that prevent them from flying? What about the Amtrak employees; do we just lay them all off and say good luck, go flip burgers?

The point that I am making is that passenger rail service is essential to not only the economy but vital for the well being of our society. Everything should not always be all about the money but with making political decisions that benefit the American people.

I always knew that the budget to cut LD passenger rail service was going nowhere. If that budget had passed it would be political suicide for those that voted for it. It is important that we expand passenger rail service not cut it . Passenger rail serves the American people well and I am happy to see the $1.5 Billion appropriation.

 

[jis]

Don't go to the bank with that thought yet. The battle for 2018 will be way bloodier than this mini-tussle for the balance of 2017. You ain't seen nothin' yet.

Also realize that more than half of that $1.5 billion has already been disbursed, since it is just a tad bit more than what was in the previously appropriated for 2017 amount. All that remains to be disbursed is roughly half of that amount or a little less than that.

 

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

I've discussed my feelings on small town trains already.

Would look at you after you say cut their train for yours like why does Philly need a faster train when it has 21 flights a day between the two. And it's cheeper to fly.

I reject the premise of "because they have an airport they don't need a train". NOT everyone flies. I haven't been on an airplane in over 20 years and I've traveled to the west coast and back three times since then. So those who can't fly have to just sit at home or take a bus? Can you imagine riding a bus three days?

 

[railiner]

Yes.

 

[Chessie]

I've discussed my feelings on small town trains already.

Would look at you after you say cut their train for yours like why does Philly need a faster train when it has 21 flights a day between the two. And it's cheeper to fly.

I reject the premise of "because they have an airport they don't need a train". NOT everyone flies. I haven't been on an airplane in over 20 years and I've traveled to the west coast and back three times since then. So those who can't fly have to just sit at home or take a bus? Can you imagine riding a bus three days?

Why not take NEC?

Anyway I would like to keep all three trains and have Sunset limited east resorted before thinking about adding anything. :giggle:

 

[CCC1007]

I've discussed my feelings on small town trains already.

Would look at you after you say cut their train for yours like why does Philly need a faster train when it has 21 flights a day between the two. And it's cheeper to fly.

I reject the premise of "because they have an airport they don't need a train". NOT everyone flies. I haven't been on an airplane in over 20 years and I've traveled to the west coast and back three times since then. So those who can't fly have to just sit at home or take a bus? Can you imagine riding a bus three days?

I'd love to have you visit Malta, MT for a week, walk around and visit with the people of the town...
I would guess that your opinion about small town living would change quite a bit.

 

[norfolkwesternhenry]

One suggestion: Cut 100% of all Long Distance trains.

Compromise: Cut 50% of the Long Distance trains.

A better suggestion: Add 14 new LD trains, for a 100% increase.

A better compromise: Add 7 new LD trains, for a 50% increase.

Let me put this in money terms. Amtrak's subsidy the last few years is around $1.4 million. So here's the conversation:

Amtrak: We want $1.4 billion.

Congress: We don't want to give you any money.

Amtrak: OK, let's compromise. How about $2 billion?

If you can get $2 billion out of Amtrak, more power to you. If you can get around the same Amtrak's been getting recently, I think most of us would be happy. If you can't get $1.4 billion, try to get $1 billion or $1.2 billion rather than say "$1.4 billion or nothing" or "$2 billion or nothing".

So assume Amtrak won't be able to afford to run its entire LD system. My proposal of a more affordable LD system:

Reduce the LD mileage requirement to 700 miles.

Reclassify the Carolinian (704 miles) as an LD train. This frees up money for NC DOT to spend to increase frequency of the Piedmont service without significantly increasing Amtrak's costs (95% of the Carolinian's fully allocated operating costs are covered by ticket revenue: https://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/Details/L18616).

Introduce a new "day" train between Cincinnati and Minneapolis (737 miles, 319 CIN-CHI, 418 CHI-MSP). Or if Congress is firm on the 750 miles, extend to St. Cloud to put it over the top.

Extend the CONO to SAS via HOS (would we change the name?) or the TE to NOL via HOS. I wouldn't expect anyone to take the "longer" route between CHI-NOL or CHI-SAS but NOL-SAS would be covered and you would add the possibility of a one seat ride between CHI-HOS.

Cancel the Cardinal, Sunset Limited, and Empire Builder with portions covered by the CONO extension and the new CIN-MSP train. If the portions between CIN-IND and NOL-SAS can get daily service then Amtrak would have no non daily service.

If the entire LD system were shut down, 23 states would lose all of its Amtrak service including Texas, Florida, and Ohio. With my plan, only 4 states would lose all Amtrak service with the 37 most populous states (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_population) maintaining at least some Amtrak service. Of the 13 least populous states in the country, four (Alaska, Hawaii, Wyoming, South Dakota) don't have any service right now, three (Maine, Vermont, and New Hampshire) have only state supported service, and two (Rhode Island and Delaware) have federally funded NEC service but no LD trains.

Among the 382 Metropolitan Statistical Areas (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Metropolitan_Statistical_Areas), only one MSA out of the 53 MSA's with 1 million or more people (Tucson) would lose Amtrak service and only three MSA's out of the 107 with 500,000 or more people would lose Amtrak service (Tucson, El Paso, and Spokane).

Only one of the 12 most populous states (Texas) would lose any service at all. Cross country service between the NEC and California (both LAX and the Bay Area) via CHI would remain intact and North-South service would remain between NEC-Florida, LAX-SEA/PDX, CHI-NOL/Texas. The most significant connection lost to me would be between Texas and California but the SL has really low ridership (NOL-SAS would remain intact).

Train miles saved:

828 miles of the Cardinal between NYP-CIN (340 miles, NYP-CVS, would still have other service, including the Crescent)

1422 miles of the Sunset Limited SAS-LAX

1787 miles of the Empire Builder MSP-SEA

376 miles of the Empire Builder SPK-PDX

Total savings of 4413 train miles.

12 stations on the Cardinal route can be closed.

13 stations on the Sunset Limited route can be closed.

33 stations on the Empire Builder route can be closed.

Total of 58 stations that Amtrak can close. Amtrak boasts more than 500 destinations. This would cut about 10% of the destinations but those 10% most likely amount to significantly less than 10% of the US population (the entire states of West Virginia, Idaho, Montana, and North Dakota combined contain less than 2% of the total US population and Amtrak barely touches Idaho now). I would say only 5-7% of the country that currently has Amtrak would lose service.

My hope is that this will cut around 10% of the Amtrak subsidy (over $100 million savings) while losing a lot less than 10% of Amtrak's ridership/revenue. Amtrak currently brags it covers 94% of operating costs with ticket revenue. Hopefully these changes will bring that percentage to 96-97%. And there is nothing stopping states from picking up the tab for the missing service. SEA-SPK can be added to the Cascades service that Washington already pays for. It is not unprecedented for states to do so, after the National Limited was canceled Pennsylvania started the Pennsylvanian service and Missouri added KCY-STL service.

In terms of schedule...

I'd like to move CIN outside the graveyard shift. The westbound train would leave CIN at 5:41am, arrive in CHI 2:05pm, leave CHI at 3:15pm, and arrive in MSP at 11:03pm. The eastbound train would leave MSP 6:00am, arrive in CHI at 1:55pm, leave CHI at 2:45pm, and arrive in CIN at 12:17am.

I'd move the NOL-SAS portions closer to the CONO. Westbound leave NOL at 9:00pm, arriving in SAS at 12:05pm. Eastbound leave SAS at 6:25pm, arriving in NOL at 9:40am. This would allow a one seat ride between CHI and HOS with around a 5.5 hr gap in NOL going south and a 4.5 hr gap in NOL going north (the times in HOS would be 6:18/6:55am west and 11:10pm/12:10am east so you can't really cut the dwell times in NOL without screwing HOS). You would have a longer gap in SAS between the CONO extension and the TE but it currently requires an overnight stay now anyway. Ideally you'd move the NOL-SAS closer to the TE so you can close the service facilities in SAS but with HOS-SAS only being around 5 hours the times would be bad on one or both ends.

Even if the CIN-CHI, CHI-MSP, and NOL-SAS schedules couldn't be changed, at least service remains along those routes.

I'd be reluctant to cut any more trains than I have proposed. Will the cuts get a few more Congress critters to support Amtrak at a cheaper price than the current price?

Maybe you should consult with the people that depend on the services you propose cutting before you actually do, as Montana, North Dakota, and Washington will all fight to retain the empire builder.

Considering the EB is currently the only option from CHI to MSP, I will fight for the EB if it means I have to fight a fist fight for every dollar. (Obviously a hyperbole, but I just might do that)

 

[norfolkwesternhenry]

Amtrak is in a very different situation from the situation during the 1970s or 1980s cuts. In particular, the trains are mostly profitable, and those which aren't are running very small losses. This wasn't true in the 1970s or 1980s.

I think it's important to point out the following:

-- It's bonkers, insane, lunatic to cut any train service which is profitable (or breakeven) before overhead. Doing so would cost Congress more money and would just be shuffling overhead around. If I'm correct the Auto Train, Palmetto, Silver Star, Silver Meteor, Lake Shore Limited, and Crescent are all profitable before overhead. And I know I'm correct. Therefore these trains should be guaranteed-operation no-questions-asked

(Though Moorman could get those numbers for sure, I'm pretty sure I'm *underestimating* overhead because I assumed that it didn't increase from 2014 to 2016, and the result is that my calculations assume that more costs are variable costs than reality, and therefore my calculations make the trains look *less* profitable than they really are. Overhead went up by 19% from 2012 to 2014; it probably went up from 2014 to 2016 as well.)

-- It's unacceptable to cut any state services. The states pay for these, including a large percentage of allocated overhead, and the feds can damn well chip in 2% for overhead. The states would be furious if these were cut -- truly furious.

-- Given that the overhead costs will remain regardless of how many train services are cut -- short of cutting the NEC and shutting down Amtrak entirely -- it should be made very clear that only the variable costs would be saved by cutting any given train.

Literally the most which could be possibly saved by cutting long-distance train services (by cutting the ones which are loss-making before overhead only) is $59.2 million per year. Hardly seems worth it, does it?

In actual fact, the supposed "zeroing out of the national network" would simply result in a charge to the NEC to the same amount; there's no other alternative, because it's mostly overhead which would just get reallocated.

I'll go further and go into detail on the *avoidable* losses of the short list of long-distance trains which aren't profitable before overhead. And remember that because of the way my overhead estimation works, it's quite likely that these trains are more profitable than I think.

-- Coast Starlight -- $1.8 million per year loss (possibly profitable). And connects Los Angeles to the Bay Area and to Washington and Oregon. Obviously worth it, probably profitable next year.

-- Cardinal -- $3.2 million per year. Would be profitable if it were daily. If you cut this, you tick off southern Ohio. They've been trying to get a new station.

-- Empire Builder -- $3.5 million per year. With huge political support from every state along the route except Idaho.

-- CONO -- $4.1 million per year. Illinois likes having the third frequency on the Illini/Saluki route, and it has serious support in Mississippi now, as well as New Orleans.

-- Capitol Limited -- $4.7 million per year, which is probably covered by the value of connecting traffic to the Southern trains.

-- Texas Eagle -- $8.7 million per year. Illinois and Missouri like the extra frequency on the Lincoln Service; Texas has actually stepped up and funded this when it was threatened in the past.

-- Southwest Chief -- $10.2 million per year. Even a proposed reroute which would have improved service was rejected by massive political support. I don't think this can be cancelled.

-- California Zephyr -- $10.4 million per year. You want to tick off Colorado? I don't think so. Amtrak wouldn't be able to run the Ski Train without the Zephyr service base, too. Nevada likes having service to Reno.

-- Sunset Limited -- $13.2 million per year (because it's three-a-week, doesn't stop in Phoenix, etc.) Honestly, this is the only train in the *entire* Amtrak system which is both unprofitable and lacks a powerful political lobby.

The correct "compromise" is to offer to zero the Federal Highway System budget along with the Amtrak budget. Amtrak would survive; the unprofitable highways would not.

If the demand from the Congressional negotiators is "you must cut something!!!!", then the Sunset Limited is the only possible choice.

YEEEESSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Cut funding for anything above essential two lane roads, and even then the two lane roads will lose money while Amtrak is possibly overloaded with intercity traffic as the gas tax skyrockets and automobile ownership plummets, like in Europe. And I'm not saying eradicate highways, I know how essential they are to country life, especially to farmers and my long distance bike trips (I ride a lot). If there was better public transit, my dad wouldn't need a car, but because it takes an hour to go 8 miles on public transit, we have to have a car when it's not feasible to bike.

 

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

Considering the EB is currently the only option from CHI to MSP, I will fight for the EB if it means I have to fight a fist fight for every dollar. (Obviously a hyperbole, but I just might do that)

I liked the fact that you quoted my entire post yet obviously forgot to read it.

To recap:

So assume Amtrak won't be able to afford to run its entire LD system. My proposal of a more affordable LD system:

Reduce the LD mileage requirement to 700 miles.

Reclassify the Carolinian (704 miles) as an LD train. This frees up money for NC DOT to spend to increase frequency of the Piedmont service without significantly increasing Amtrak's costs (95% of the Carolinian's fully allocated operating costs are covered by ticket revenue: https://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/Details/L18616).

Introduce a new "day" train between Cincinnati and Minneapolis (737 miles, 319 CIN-CHI, 418 CHI-MSP). Or if Congress is firm on the 750 miles, extend to St. Cloud to put it over the top.

There's your CHI-MSP train. Minneapolis is a major city relatively close (418 miles) to an Amtrak "hub" (not to mention it includes the popular Hiawatha (CHI-MKE) corridor. It would be ridiculous to cut that portion of service just like canceling CHI-CIN.

 

[Lonestar648]

If those in Congress come to the table with the idea that they have to negotiate by giving in to some cutting, then Amtrak has lost. The Amtrak side must come to the table with a positive attitude that Amtrak is still growing and will grow even more given the chance. So hit the negotiation with the demand for more funds to make the company carry even more passengers with additional revenue, therefore exists the opportunity to shave more off the loss column. The more passengers carried, the greater the opportunities. I have gone into negotiations when the other side felt we would be intimidated into proposing a weak starting point. By hitting hard we put the other side on their heels and in the end got more than was originally expected. I hope those negotiating for Amtrak take a strong stance, demand more than the other side was prepared to hear, thus they offer a weak response, which opens the door to aggressive negotiating by the Amtrak side. .