Trump and Amtrak/Budget cutting funding

[tonys96]

My bottom line opinion is this: Amtrak LD travel is soon going to be a thing of the past. And that is a shame. I need to try to find a way/time to burn my remaining points quickly. Sadly.

 

[Ziv]

GML, I think your post is really interesting. I was a Scott Walker guy before I ended up reluctantly pushing the button for Trump. I think he is a bully and a boor. And if Gorsuch gets onto the court, I will probably never regret my vote. But Trump is not a conservative, nor is he a libertarian. He is a self centered business troll who uses populist techniques to build a following. And that is fascinating.

Trump fascinates me, as I said before. .

 

[Rover]

If Trump could somehow "catch" LD train fever, then maybe he could see how a great federal works project would be worthy to provide safe and dependable rail passage through the Rockies and the Sierras, ala the Swiss's Gotthard Base Tunnel project.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gotthard_Base_Tunnel

 

[Devil's Advocate]

GML, I think your post is really interesting. I was a Scott Walker guy before I ended up reluctantly pushing the button for Trump. I think he is a bully and a boor. And if Gorsuch gets onto the court, I will probably never regret my vote. But Trump is not a conservative, nor is he a libertarian. He is a self centered business troll who uses populist techniques to build a following. And that is fascinating.

Trump fascinates me, as I said before. .

I find the irrational exuberance and cognitive dissonance of pro-rail conservatives equally fascinating.

 

[jis]

Likewise. Specially those that forever support anti-Rail candidates. Clearly they also believe in tooth fairy.

 

[Bob Dylan]

"..The Answer my friend is Blowin' in the Wind.."

 

[A Voice]

Likewise. Specially those that forever support anti-Rail candidates. Clearly they also believe in tooth fairy.

Wise voters neither support nor oppose a candidate based on a single issue.

 

[jis]

Likewise. Specially those that forever support anti-Rail candidates. Clearly they also believe in tooth fairy.

Wise voters neither support nor oppose a candidate based on a single issue.

True. But we can say for sure is that passenger rail is probably not as important to them as some other issues.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

Likewise. Specially those that forever support anti-Rail candidates. Clearly they also believe in tooth fairy.

Wise voters neither support nor oppose a candidate based on a single issue.

It's not the vote itself that's confusing. It's the irrational resistance to accepting and acknowledging the logical repercussions and opportunity cost of choosing one issue over another.

 

[Ziv]

I can't speak for other pro-Amtrak conservatives, but for me, Amtrak is nice, but it isn't in the top 5 of issues that shape my vote. Probably not even in the top 10.

I like train travel. I love the US and what it has been and could be. No tooth fairy involved. Just pragmatic consideration of which candidate I will agree with more. Trump is doing things I agree with around 60-70% of the time, and I agree with him on most of the bigger issues.

And I would bet dollars to doughnuts that in the years to come we will see Amtrak funded at approximately the same level we have seen up to now.

Likewise. Specially those that forever support anti-Rail candidates. Clearly they also believe in tooth fairy.

 

[CCC1007]

I can't speak for other pro-Amtrak conservatives, but for me, Amtrak is nice, but it isn't in the top 5 of issues that shape my vote. Probably not even in the top 10.

I like train travel. I love the US and what it has been and could be. No tooth fairy involved. Just pragmatic consideration of which candidate I will agree with more. Trump is doing things I agree with around 60-70% of the time, and I agree with him on most of the bigger issues.

And I would bet dollars to doughnuts that in the years to come we will see Amtrak funded at approximately the same level we have seen up to now.

Likewise. Specially those that forever support anti-Rail candidates. Clearly they also believe in tooth fairy.

Where is that like button we've been asking for???

 

[ainamkartma]

Try to think like an opponent of LD rail, however hard that may be, and you'll be more effective at countering their arguments.

I remember feeling the same way. Then I saw actual footage of anti-rail protests across the country and they were filled with signs and people saying things like "YOUR CHOO-CHOO TRAIN IS DUMB!" and "TRAINS ARE FOR TOYS!" and realized that logic and reason had never entered into the anti-train thought process. So far as I can tell the current anti-rail movement was founded on little more than a emotional overreaction to hearing that the previous president supported passenger rail enough to increase funding for it.

Railroads, and especially Amtrak, are UNIONIZED.

That's like a red flag to a Republican bull.

 

[neroden]

According to the Amtrak FY 2016 Factsheet, LD passengers make up 15% of total ridership. NEC and State-Supported Services make up the other 85%. LD does make up 22% of total ticket revenue.

From the Republican budget standpoint, they're focusing on the remaining 85% of the business after LD is cut. Which makes sense from their perspective, as those lines are more efficient at carrying passengers.

To attack the LD cuts, you need to explain how this will damage the remaining business if the nationwide network is ended

(1) Practically the entire cost of the nationwide network is fixed, unavoidable overhead; it'll just be transferred to the NEC costs. I've pointed this out repeatedly. Total savings of cutting the actual money-losing parts of the national network: less than $59.8 million. If you cut the whole national network, you'd only save $26.3 million, because you'd be cutting trains which make a gross profit!(2) You seriously want to tick off the Senators from Minnesota, North Dakota, Montana, Colorado, Nevada, Utah New Mexico, North Carolina, Virginia, Missouri, etc.? (To specifically pick states known for Senatorial support for their Amtrak services and unlikely to be disregarded as "always vote Democratic") That's what you do by cutting their services.

Oh, and to be quite specific, at this point all the single-level routes except the Cardinal are profitable before overhead, and so is the Auto Train. What's left of trains losing money before overhead is state corridors (not going anywhere), and Superliner trains; and of those, almost all the the actual "money losing" comes from the Zephyr, Chief, and Sunset (amounting to about $33.6 million out of the previously mentioned $59.8 million). The Zephyr and Chief have proven to be politically untouchable.

The thing is that the fake budget proposed by the Trump administration is a joke. Trump almost certainly didn't even *read* it; it was Xeroxed off some Heritage Foundation wishlist. The committee chairs are already saying it's dead on arrival in Congress.

If enacted (which it won't be), the two most likely outcomes are:

(1) Some shenanigans are pulled to cover the funding shortage, via borrowing or FRA grants or something; maybe one train gets cut as a showy sacrifice (probably the Sunset).

(2) Upon adding $507 million in overhead to the NEC costs, with no Congressional funding, Amtrak announces that they are about to run out of cash. Funding is restored.

 

[neroden]

If you were to include any rail transportation, even Ohio does have non-Amtrak passenger trains. Cleveland has two light rail lines and a rapid transit line; Cincinnati has a streetcar. While I do not know for sure, I would assume the state contributes some money to these systems, especially the one in Cleveland.

You'd guess wrong. They used to but in recent years both systems have been locally funded due to the state government hating its cities. :sigh:

I don't think that the state government hating its cities is a sustainable phenomenon. It's more possible in Ohio, with an unusually high rural share of population, than in many places, but it's still not viable.

 

[neroden]

If Trump wants to cut the long-distance trains, how much do you want to bet that Amtrak CEO Wick Moorman is going to say no?

If Congress does not give Wick the money to run them then Wick will not have a choice to say "No". He works within the financial constraints set by Congress. Let us not launch ourselves off into fantasy la-la land.

Actually, he'll just run 'em anyway. Unlike some, he can read a profit and loss statement. As I've pointed out, the single-level trains are *profitable*. And unlike previous years, nobody's threatening to shut down the NEC, which means the overhead isn't going anywhere.

Amtrak is capable of borrowing money now. We've been here before...

One scenario is that he will threaten train-offs if the states don't pony up money. Likely result if that happens:

-- States and/or cities along the routes contribute enough to pay for the avoidable losses and *some* of the overhead on nearly all the routes

-- It's just a bluff when it comes to the profitable-before-overhead trains, because Wick isn't stupid

-- Maybe we lose the Sunset Limited (which seems to lack a constituency) as a sacrifice to appease Congress

 

[Devil's Advocate]

I would bet dollars to doughnuts that in the years to come we will see Amtrak funded at approximately the same level we have seen up to now.

What rational coherent reason do you have for believing this? What part of the modern conservative orthodoxy includes billion dollar taxpayer funded passenger rail networks like Amtrak?

 

[BCL]

Try to think like an opponent of LD rail, however hard that may be, and you'll be more effective at countering their arguments.

I remember feeling the same way. Then I saw actual footage of anti-rail protests across the country and they were filled with signs and people saying things like "YOUR CHOO-CHOO TRAIN IS DUMB!" and "TRAINS ARE FOR TOYS!" and realized that logic and reason had never entered into the anti-train thought process. So far as I can tell the current anti-rail movement was founded on little more than a emotional overreaction to hearing that the previous president supported passenger rail enough to increase funding for it.

Railroads, and especially Amtrak, are UNIONIZED.

That's like a red flag to a Republican bull.

So are most law enforcement agencies and/or prison staff.

 

[Carolina Special]

From the March 2017 Trains magazine, in article authored by Don Phillips, pages 10-11, Wick Moorman was quoted as "long-distance trains lose money. They lose a significant amount of money". He goes on to say the growing part of the business is the state-supported services.

Not a helpful comment for LD trains.

 

[Ziv]

Do you have any idea how important Amtrak is to small states? And how important their representatives and senators feel that Amtrak is to their constituents? Here is an article in which Montana's junior senator ® tries to convince Amtrak to add a stop in Montana. Do you think this GOP senator is going to defund Amtrak when his constituents are blasting his office email system asking for more Amtrak?

You are mistaking the Heritage talking points Trump used for his budget request for what he really wants. The two aren't quite the same. Trump has dropped a Heritage foundation budget on the budget process because it is useful for Trump in his effort to negotiate for reduced spending in some areas and increase funding in others. Trumps budget is NOT exactly what he wants. It is what he thinks is most likely to GET HIM what he wants. Trump negotiates like a crafty business man, not like most politicians.

Read his book. Until you do, you won't understand Trump.

And that having been said, I am not positive that Trump really cares one way or the other about Amtrak. It doesn't matter if he does in the end. It only matters that most Dems and a substantial minority of the GOP DEFINITELY WANT Amtrak in their states to continue.

https://www.daines.senate.gov/news/press-releases/daines-reaffirms-importance-of-passenger-rail-to-montana

I would bet dollars to doughnuts that in the years to come we will see Amtrak funded at approximately the same level we have seen up to now.

What rational coherent reason do you have for believing this? What part of the modern conservative orthodoxy includes billion dollar taxpayer funded passenger rail networks like Amtrak?

 

[neroden]

From the March 2017 Trains magazine, in article authored by Don Phillips, pages 10-11, Wick Moorman was quoted as "long-distance trains lose money. They lose a significant amount of money". He goes on to say the growing part of the business is the state-supported services.

Not a helpful comment for LD trains.

Someone at NARP needs to talk to him and show him the reality, 'cause that's simply wrong about the Eastern trains.

Get me an appointment with him, I'll do it. He should also know what a mess Amtrak's accounting is.

I sure hope he isn't fooled by Amtrak's "fully allocated" statements; he wouldn't have tolerated that sort of accounting nonsense at Norfolk Southern.

I have been saying for *years* that this situation needs to be emphasized -- the fact that nearly all of Amtrak's federal subsidy is going to support fixed overhead, i.e. operating the trains makes money now -- and yet it still isn't a messaging priority of NARP. It's very dangerous if we end up with Amtrak management believing their own doctored accounting. Boardman knew better (we found that out in his Congressional presentation where he displayed direct-costs numbers).

'Course, maybe Moorman is just trying to get stable state support for the long-distance trains, which would be a good thing given the unreliability of the federal government. But it's counterproductive to make false claims that they "lose lots of money". Most of the Eastern trains are profitable before overhead (exception is the Cardinal and only because it's 3 a week). The avoidable costs of the Coast Starlight appear to be under $3 million per year.

You can't just cut the reservations system or shut down Beech Grove. Those costs don't go away when you discontinue one train, or a dozen trains -- only if you shut down everything including the NEC. Those "allocated" costs create the phony "significant losses" assigned to the long-distance trains.

 

[jis]

Do you have any idea how important Amtrak is to small states? And how important their representatives and senators feel that Amtrak is to their constituents? Here is an article in which Montana's junior senator ® tries to convince Amtrak to add a stop in Montana. Do you think this GOP senator is going to defund Amtrak when his constituents are blasting his office email system asking for more Amtrak?

You are mistaking the Heritage talking points Trump used for his budget request for what he really wants. The two aren't quite the same. Trump has dropped a Heritage foundation budget on the budget process because it is useful for Trump in his effort to negotiate for reduced spending in some areas and increase funding in others. Trumps budget is NOT exactly what he wants. It is what he thinks is most likely to GET HIM what he wants. Trump negotiates like a crafty business man, not like most politicians.

Read his book. Until you do, you won't understand Trump.

And that having been said, I am not positive that Trump really cares one way or the other about Amtrak. It doesn't matter if he does in the end. It only matters that most Dems and a substantial minority of the GOP DEFINITELY WANT Amtrak in their states to continue.

While I have no rational way of coming to that conclusion, it certainly is one hypothesis that is not contrary to the facts observed so far. But as usual most of the consequential part of the hypothesis is still out in the future, so we will see.

Meanwhile, I am happy to hold out hope that this sort of a hypothesis will come true and keep fighting to make sure that we have the ducks lined up properly to facilitate the desired outcome of such. That is the best one can do at present, purely from a pragmatic perspective. The situation that we are in is what it is. The thing is to figure out a path given the constraints to the desired outcome.

 

[A Voice]

Meanwhile, I am happy to hold out hope that this sort of a hypothesis will come true and keep fighting to make sure that we have the ducks lined up properly to facilitate the desired outcome of such. That is the best one can do at present, purely from a pragmatic perspective. The situation that we are in is what it is. The thing is to figure out a path given the constraints to the desired outcome.

What I find interesting is the rumor that the administration is willing to accept an operating subsidy for Amtrak of up to $250 million. More important than the number, arguably, is that if true it shows a willingness to compromise (which really shouldn't be a surprise). Further, if that is actually the operating portion of the subsidy, it's still more interesting as that is a ballpark figure for Amtrak's "adjusted operating loss" for the past few years (be careful using that number); Of course, an appropriation for capital (or what we can 'pretend' is a capital expense, possibly) in the neighborhood of $1.5 billion is also necessary. A total budget of $250 million would be a shutdown budget (for everything - including Acela) and we know that's not happening, but that number for operations theoretically preserves the national network as it now exists.

 

[Amtrakfflyer]

The way things are going we may have a new administration soon and this budget will have very little bearing on anything.

 

[jis]

The first budget draft presented by a President seldom has much bearing on anything that comes out of the other end of the sausage factory, if anything comes out that is.

 

[leacrane]

I love it. Passenger rail has been a losing proposition for over 50 years. Ever hear if a concept called Utilitarianism? Do the greatest good for the greatest number. Don't blame Trump for the fact that a tiny fraction of the population use LD service. Or the losses. Come up with false analogies that govt programs don't have to make money. Of course they don't. Food Stamps don't make money. Tanks and missiles don't either. However our voters and politicians decided they are necessary social and safety expenditures. For selfish reasons I'd want LD to continue. My life will be negatively impacted. So will yours, I get it. Yet I can think of hundreds of higher ranking priorities.