'Amtrak may finally be at the end of the line'

Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum

Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Joined
Jun 19, 2003
Messages
1,805
Location
Harrison Michigan
'Amtrak may finally be at the end of the line'

(The following column, "Amtrak may finally be at the end of the line," written by Joe Brancatelli of USAToday, appeared Feb. 21, 2005.)

From red state and blue, from left wing and right, from big coastal cities and small heartland hamlets, from Republican and Democratic parties, Congress banded together this month to protest President Bush's proposal to strip Amtrak of its funding in the next federal budget.

This uprising across the spectrum of American politics is exactly why Amtrak needs to die. Amtrak isn't a national passenger rail system. It's a rotting barrel of pork.

News story
 
Fortunately, that particular "voice of reason" doesn't infect the other major industrialized democracies, and even non-democracies, in the world. They all understand the need for a properly funded NATIONAL passenger rail service. The author of that article probably gets a severe headache and sore neck every time he sits down.
 
That "voice of reason" also doesn't seem to understand that there are many far worse examples of pork barrel funding than Amtrak. Some don't even provide a public service at all, unlike Amtrak.
 
That voice of reason also make a gross underestimate of what would happen if Amtrak were killed off. He says that it would not be missed and that nobody would notice. He's wrong.

Can you imagine the impact it would it would have in the Northeast and in other busy corridors where Amtrak is one of the top passengers carriers in the entire region? JFK and LaGuardia could scarcely handle the extra load. The lines at security check points would be so long that passengers would need extra hours just to stand in line!

Can you imagine the impact it would have in rural areas like Shelby, Montana? It was a swift kick in the ribs when Greyhound did massive cuts last year, it would be bricks on the coffin if Amtrak is shot down.

Can you imagine the detrimental fall in revenue from hotels, restaurants and tourist attractions near train stations? What about the impact on America's gross domestic product from the millions of dollars Amtrak spends on food, supplies and train parts?

If he thinks that Amtrak is pork barrell spending, I beg to differ. The State of Tennessee alone spends more money paying people to sort papers in downtown Nashville than Washington spends on the entire Amtrak system from coast to coast!
 
rotting barrel of pork??? what a loser!!!!!

With the 82 billion recently requested for iraq amtrak could survive for 41 years.

JP
 
I think I remember this guys article from 2002. I'm sure he'll get some nice letters to the editors about that! North Dakota and Montana, having their own rail system.....hahahaha. Not to bash ND, seeing that I live there, but you think a state of 650,000 will have a big rail system? I don't think so. But the fact that the Empire Builder has the long distance service, makes it feasable and econmical.

He bashes Congress for wanting Amtrak. Well duh! thats what there're job is...to speak for the people whom they represent. And to keep from power hungry leaders from having just that...too much power. He says Amtrak costs billions of dollars. I don't think 1.2 billion is very much, and yet he doesn't mention how much the roads cost.

I can't even phathom not having a railroad system. Thats like closing some of the interstate highways, or shutting down the European Railways.

Chris
 
lepearso said:
That voice of reason also make a gross underestimate of what would happen if Amtrak were killed off.  He says that it would not be missed and that nobody would notice.  He's wrong.  
That's your biased opinion. I happen to agree with the writer.
 
Guest said:
lepearso said:
That voice of reason also make a gross underestimate of what would happen if Amtrak were killed off.  He says that it would not be missed and that nobody would notice.  He's wrong.  
That's your biased opinion. I happen to agree with the writer.
Well 25 Million of your fellow American's rode Amtrak last year, some I'm betting that most of them would miss Amtrak. And most of them weren't railfan's, they were business people, families, senior citizens, and college students.
 
Don't forget about the millions of commuters that got where they were going because of Amtrak's T&E and tracks.
 
AlanB said:
Guest said:
lepearso said:
That voice of reason also make a gross underestimate of what would happen if Amtrak were killed off.  He says that it would not be missed and that nobody would notice.  He's wrong.  
That's your biased opinion. I happen to agree with the writer.
Well 25 Million of your fellow American's rode Amtrak last year, some I'm betting that most of them would miss Amtrak. And most of them weren't railfan's, they were business people, families, senior citizens, and college students.
They'd deal with it.
 
Guest said:
AlanB said:
Guest said:
lepearso said:
That voice of reason also make a gross underestimate of what would happen if Amtrak were killed off.  He says that it would not be missed and that nobody would notice.  He's wrong.  
That's your biased opinion. I happen to agree with the writer.
Well 25 Million of your fellow American's rode Amtrak last year, some I'm betting that most of them would miss Amtrak. And most of them weren't railfan's, they were business people, families, senior citizens, and college students.
They'd deal with it.
First off there are many people who couldn't deal with it, like those who can't afford to fly, those for whom the nearest airport is 200 miles away and have no bus service, those who can't fly for medical reasons, and those who are afraid to fly.

However, all of that aside, my point simply was that the writer was wrong. He said that no one would miss Amtrak and you agreed, I simply pointed out that the writer is wrong, since there are 25 million people who will miss Amtrak.
 
Guest said:
AlanB said:
Guest said:
lepearso said:
That voice of reason also make a gross underestimate of what would happen if Amtrak were killed off.  He says that it would not be missed and that nobody would notice.  He's wrong.  
That's your biased opinion. I happen to agree with the writer.
Well 25 Million of your fellow American's rode Amtrak last year, some I'm betting that most of them would miss Amtrak. And most of them weren't railfan's, they were business people, families, senior citizens, and college students.
They'd deal with it.
C'mon, put some meat in your arguments. We're walking all over you.

We'd deal with it? How? Being stuck? I don't have a car. Can't afford to fly. Alota others are the same way. What if something that YOU use on a regular basis was taken away? I guess you'd deal with it, since it is your opinion.

Chris
 
Gee, I love a good argument.

First, 25 million passengers is the count of all Amtrak passenger boardings nationwide in Fiscal Year 2004 (10/1/03 to 9/30/04). It is not 25 million individuals. Not even close.

First, let’s talk state-supported trains. Amtrak only operates these trains contingent on the states paying all or a big part of the tab. In some cases, the states even provide the equipment. Since this argument is over Amtrak funding, should passengers being carried on trains that Amtrak does not fund be counted? Couldn’t and wouldn’t someone else run the Downeaster or the Capital Corridor if Amtrak went away? Over 8 million of those 25 million “Amtrak” passengers are riding state supported trains. That leaves 17 million passengers riding purely Amtrak funded trains.

But wait. How about the Clockers? 1.5 million passengers rode the Clockers in FY04. The Clockers are not categorized as state-supported trains, but they only exist to service NJ Transit passholders. Only about 10% of the passengers on the Clockers ride on Amtrak tickets, and next year the Clockers will pass to NJT operations. So, let’s be generous and take only 1 million more passengers away from Amtrak for actually being NJT passengers. Now we are down to 16 million.

But that 16 million is passenger boardings, not individuals. Some people on this board may have ridden Amtrak 20 or 30 times last year. They would each count as 20 or 30 passengers. A daily PHL-NYP commuter may ride 400 times. That person would count as 400 passengers. Even one person riding round trip is counted twice. So, my guess is that less than 5 million individuals rode an Amtrak-funded train one or more times last year. That is a far cry from 25 million, and 5 million is a very generous estimate.

No matter how you cut it, Amtrak is a niche player in transportation and, other than in and out of New York, not much more. NJT is far more important. Metro North is far more important. Metrolink is far more important. As an intercity transportation entity, Amtrak is about the size of America West, and outside of Phoenix, few people would describe America West as a vital link or would see the loss of HP as devastating.

Amtrak is a small-scale operation that consumes a direct federal subsidy that is grossly disproportionate to its role. It is an entity that has stubbornly and arrogantly refused to change in any meaningful way over its nearly 34 years of existence. It is time for passenger rail advocates to wake up to the fact that Amtrak has failed miserably as an organization in ways that are not related to funding and if it takes a trip to the bankruptcy court to finally get this sorry operation moving in a different direction, then so be it. This country needs passenger rail for many of the reasons stated before, but that does not necessarily equate to needing Amtrak and only Amtrak.
 
Do these people forget that there are folks who live between the Pacific and the Northeast Corridor? Or do we just not matter? To say we do not need a national rail system is to say (like Mr. Mineta) there is no one who really matters out here. So states like Montana, the Dakotas, Nebraska, Kansas etc. are supposed to figure out some vialbe "regional" rail system to funell us into airports that are monopolized by overpriced, underserving airlines, or just drive hundreds of miles on congested highways full of trucks hauling paper from once beautiful forrests to businesses like USA Today so this guy can write his article.
 
I see your argument PRR, but you can turn that around and argue the same for the passengers at airports, your car, or any transit system.

78 million passengers go through Atlanta Hartsfield Airport each year. Now those passengers are counted once for each connection, one for each originating and once for each arriving passenger. But wait! Aren't most of these originating passengers going to fly back into ATL? I'm sure most of them have a round-trip ticket. Same for the connecting passengers. So the individual passengers that go through ATL should be cut in half or so? Is that really a way to measure passenger boardings? Think about driving to work or anywhere. Most of the time you may be the only passenger in your car. Is that a way to budget your gas and car expenses? No, its how far you drive, and how many trips you take....is how I decide at least.

So I don't think, number of the same individuals vs. number of trips is a good arguement. Sure you got us on, number of unhappy individuals, may only be 16 million or so, but the fact that there has been significant increases in boardings must say something.

Now we have some arguements. Thanks PRR

Chris
 
saxman66 said:
We'd deal with it? How? Being stuck? I don't have a car. Can't afford to fly. Alota others are the same way. What if something that YOU use on a regular basis was taken away? I guess you'd deal with it, since it is your opinion.
Chris
Exactly.
 
If I were to suggest ways to improve Amtrak, I would suggest #1...

- On several long routes, add 12-hour (or Morning/Evening) offset schedules that work with riders schedule.

I have often cited the need for an overnight LA-Bay Area service so that one doesnt need to burn entire work days each way. Its also useful even in hubs like Chicago... the East/West flow works well, but lets say I want to go from LA to Wisconsin. Get to Chicago and the Empire Builder has already left, just about an hour before.

The Sunset Limited (LA-Floriday) is the worst offender. Everytime I try to schedule a trip, I find the every-other-day schedule impossible to navigate.

Scheduling multiple trains on long distance routes also helps amortize the costs for facilities along the route.

--

That said, there would need to be significant capital equipment acquisition to support this. Train cars are not cheap, especially when you only order a set every ten years or so. Inefficiencies there too.

--

My point is... the critics point to all the inefficiencies. But they'll never provide the proper funding to make it more efficient. The provide the rope and then hang Amtrak with it.

Its a bogus argument. Inefficiencies can by sharply reduced if there was good support.

Lets get to the truth... Amtrak is a government agency that has very few lobbyists or groups able to lubricate political campaigns. The Airlines and Gas Companies have Amtrak beat hands down. While Amtrak is not a huge threat, its still a signature of alternative that they would like to avoid. Everyone loves an absolute monopoly..

And before you get into the pro-Airline argument,.... lets please count the billions ($15 Billion recently) handed to the Airlines to bailout what was at best $2 billion in lost revenue after 9/11. That your money, thats my money, and most of them are still at the fringe of bankruptsy time and time again.

Amtrak is needed as a transit alternative for the vast rural areas of this country. Its needed to be a backup when airlines fail, either due to terrorism as was needed in the days after 9/11 or due to strike (remember PATCO). Its needed to help foster newer and faster technologies that seriously compete with airlines. As an alternative, its a force that keeps transit costs in check. In short, its as important as many other things in insuring a safe, secure, and economically viable country.

But then again, for your eggs one basket is cheaper than two.

-- Arkarch
 
PRR 60 said:
Gee, I love a good argument.
First, 25 million passengers is the count of all Amtrak passenger boardings nationwide in Fiscal Year 2004 (10/1/03 to 9/30/04).  It is not 25 million individuals.  Not even close.  
First let’s just talk about the purpose of my statement. Yes, perhaps I should have altered or even halved that 25M number, or followed your formula’s to arrive at a true ridership number. However the point of my statement was, once again, simply the fact that the writer was wrong in stating that “no one will miss Amtrak.” No matter how you want to slice and dice the numbers, the simple fact remains that you can’t reduce it to 0 and therefore, someone will miss Amtrak. Hence that writer’s statement is false, which is all I was trying to prove.

PRR 60 said:
First, let’s talk state-supported trains.  Amtrak only operates these trains contingent on the states paying all or a big part of the tab.  In some cases, the states even provide the equipment.  Since this argument is over Amtrak funding, should passengers being carried on trains that Amtrak does not fund be counted?  Couldn’t and wouldn’t someone else run the Downeaster or the Capital Corridor if Amtrak went away?  Over 8 million of those 25 million “Amtrak” passengers are riding state supported trains.  That leaves 17 million passengers riding purely Amtrak funded trains.
The simple answer to your question is no, someone else can’t easily run the Downeaster, the Capital Corridor, or even most of the rest of the California trains. California only owns about 1/3 of the needed equipment, the rest belongs to Amtrak. Additionally California doesn’t fully fund all of the California trains; they do fund most of them, but not all of them. However returning to why someone else can’t run the trains, at least not easily, is the fact that under the proposed budget being floated by the White House, Amtrak would be sold off to the highest bidder.

None of the states that do contribute to Amtrak are in a position to buy and maintain the equipment. They can barely afford the payments that they are making right now to Amtrak. Additionally they’d have to set up ticketing, since that would go bye-bye with the demise of Amtrak. Finally those states would now have to renegotiate every contract with the freight RR’s and probably would end up paying more than Amtrak does right now.

So bottom line, no you can’t just eliminate all of those passenger boardings from the equation. Even if the states were able to find the funding for all that I’ve mentioned (funding that is not in the White House budget), it would still at a minimum take at least 3 months and more likely 6 months to restore those state supported services. So again, those riders would miss Amtrak.

PRR 60 said:
But wait.  How about the Clockers?  1.5 million passengers rode the Clockers in FY04.  The Clockers are not categorized as state-supported trains, but they only exist to service NJ Transit passholders.  Only about 10% of the passengers on the Clockers ride on Amtrak tickets, and next year the Clockers will pass to NJT operations.  So, let’s be generous and take only 1 million more passengers away from Amtrak for actually being NJT passengers.  Now we are down to 16 million.  
I won’t debate the specific numbers that you’ve laid out here, as they may well be correct. However, once again the Clockers at present are using some Amtrak Equipment, namely the coaches. Those coaches would be sold to the highest bidder, if the White House budget were to be passed. Since NJT doesn’t have enough coaches already and with a budget gap so big that they won’t be bidding on the coaches, once again people will miss Amtrak.

Plus let’s talk about the fact that the bank owns Penn Station and there is no provision in the White House budget to stop the bank from selling off the station to the highest bidder in a bankruptcy proceeding. (Yes the White House did include some monies to keep the tracks going, although you and I both know that 360 M isn’t nearly enough.) While I don’t expect to see trains stop using Penn, I could see the fees that NJT and the LIRR pay to use Penn going way up. This could cripple the transportation budgets of both states and cause a reduction in commuter service or at least another fare increase. So now you have the potential that many more millions of passengers will miss Amtrak, passengers who don’t even ride Amtrak.

Jumping slightly off topic here, the current situation with the Clockers being transferred to NJT also serves to highlight one of the flaws with the idea of States supporting Amtrak, which the White House is floating. Last I heard NJT and SEPTA are still fighting over whether the Clockers will run from Philly or from Trenton. The disagreement, of course, is over how much SEPTA should pay NJT to run the trains from 30th Street Station. They also couldn’t agree on funding for service and station near Morrisville Pa., where NJT now has a yard, so no station was built. I’ll also mention that so far the states of PA and NJ have yet to agree on a funding formula for the proposed Lackawanna Cutoff.

Maine is currently fighting with New Hampshire, in an effort to get them to help fund the Downeaster. Yet somehow the White House expects to get 45 states to miraculously agree to fund some sort of train organization. We both know that Mineta’s idea of not opening the doors in a state that won’t pay is silly. After all, part of a trains charm is that not everyone rides from one end to the other. So not opening the doors simply eliminated possible revenue and the freight RR is still going to charge for passage regardless of whether the train makes a stop in that state or not.

PRR 60 said:
But that 16 million is passenger boardings, not individuals.  Some people on this board may have ridden Amtrak 20 or 30 times last year.  They would each count as 20 or 30 passengers.  A daily PHL-NYP commuter may ride 400 times.  That person would count as 400 passengers.  Even one person riding round trip is counted twice.  So, my guess is that less than 5 million individuals rode an Amtrak-funded train one or more times last year.  That is a far cry from 25 million, and 5 million is a very generous estimate.
As I think I’ve proved, the number would be higher than 5 million. However even if it’s not, as I stated at the beginning, be it 25 million, 10 million, 5 million, or even just 1 person, Amtrak will be missed.

PRR 60 said:
No matter how you cut it, Amtrak is a niche player in transportation and, other than in and out of New York, not much more.  NJT is far more important.  Metro North is far more important.  Metrolink is far more important.  As an intercity transportation entity, Amtrak is about the size of America West, and outside of Phoenix, few people would describe America West as a vital link or would see the loss of HP as devastating.  
Amtrak is a small-scale operation that consumes a direct federal subsidy that is grossly disproportionate to its role.  It is an entity that has stubbornly and arrogantly refused to change in any meaningful way over its nearly 34 years of existence.  It is time for passenger rail advocates to wake up to the fact that Amtrak has failed miserably as an organization in ways that are not related to funding and if it takes a trip to the bankruptcy court to finally get this sorry operation moving in a different direction, then so be it.  This country needs passenger rail for many of the reasons stated before, but that does not necessarily equate to needing Amtrak and only Amtrak.
Now I don’t disagree that Amtrak has many problems, some of which are internal, some of which relate to the political nature of the beast. I also don’t dispute the fact that Amtrak is a bit player in the transportation market, by comparison to some of the other forms of transportation. I’m not real sure what the best way to fix and/or replace Amtrak is. But I don’t believe that forcing it into bankruptcy is the answer either.

This is especially true, with the absence of any comprehensive reorganization plan from the White House. Had they presented a fully detailed plan and said, “implement this plan with X dollars or I’m going to recommend 0 dollars”, then I might believe that the intent not to destroy train service. However in the absence of any detailed plan, in fact all they’ve spouted is a few vague ideas, this isn’t about fixing what’s broken with train service. Note, I didn’t say Amtrak.

Frankly this budget from the White House that cuts many other programs in addition to Amtrak, smacks more of a retaliation by a young child who didn’t get what they wanted from the last congress, so this year they are crossing out everything just to spite them. It also seems that most Republicans agree, since they by and large are lining up with the Democrats in open opposition of most of the White House cuts.
 
The demise of trains came in the sixties when a huge wave were growing up and becoming adults. And what did they find? A freeway system that allowed them to take their families all over the country. In 2005 many of those baby boomers don't like to drive, can't drive at night, are empty nesters and have the time to take something more leisurely. My solution would be to add trains so a person in South Dakota wouldn't have to get on the Empire Builder in the middle of the night. We won't do that as long as our philosophy is ready, fire, aim.
 
Guest said:
lepearso said:
That voice of reason also make a gross underestimate of what would happen if Amtrak were killed off.  He says that it would not be missed and that nobody would notice.  He's wrong.  
That's your biased opinion. I happen to agree with the writer.
Ok, so I'm biased. I'm biased toward people in the crowded Northeast. I'm biased toward people in rural areas with limited transportation options. I'm biased toward the physically challenged that can't get their wheelchairs into an aircraft restroom. I'm biased toward business owners in neighborhoods close to train stations. I'm biased toward 19,000 tax paying American workers. I'm biased toward millions of dollars spent on American-made products to make these trains run. I guess I'm just plain biased!!!
 
I've always supported Amtrak and always will. What upsets me is that Gunn did not submit Amtrak's budget request by the deadline. Have they done it yet; if not what are they waiting for? He knew the date was coming! How does that look to congress who by enlarge supports Amtrak?
 
MDRailfan said:
I've always supported Amtrak and always will. What upsets me is that Gunn did not submit Amtrak's budget request by the deadline. Have they done it yet; if not what are they waiting for? He knew the date was coming! How does that look to congress who by enlarge supports Amtrak?
It's not Gunn's job to submit the budget, he submits it to the board, who in turn must approve it before submitting it to Congress.
 
Back
Top